Innov Manag - ProQuest - Diss16 PDF

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted.
Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the copy
subm itted.
Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment

can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and
there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright
material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning
the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to
right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in
one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9 black and white photographic
prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Home-based Entrepreneurs, Non-home-based Entrepreneurs and

White-collar, Non-management Workers:
A Comparative Study of Attitudes Toward Achievement, Personal Control,
Self-esteem, Innovation and Business Growth
by
Leslie Patricia Roberts, B.Comm., M.B.A.
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT
CALGARY, ALBERTA
OCTOBER, 1998
Leslie Patricia Roberts 1998
1*1
National Library
of Canada
Bibliotheque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and
Bibliographic Services
Acquisitions et
services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street

Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada
395. me Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada
YourOe Votre reference
Our file Notre reference
The author has granted a non

exclusive licence allowing the
National Library o f Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell
copies o f this thesis in microform,
paper or electronic formats.
Lauteur a accorde une licence non

exclusive permettant a la
Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, preter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette these sous
la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
electronique.
The author retains ownership o f the

copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the authors
permission.
Lauteur conserve la propriete du

droit dauteur qui protege cette these.
N i la these ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
0-612-38499-3
Canada
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
The undersigned certify that they have read and recommend to the Faculty of
Graduate
Studies
for
acceptance,
dissertation
entitled
Home-based
Entrepreneurs, Non-home-based Entrepreneurs and White-collar, Non-management

Workers: A Comparative Study of Attitudes Toward Achievement, Personal Control,
Self-esteem, Innovation and Business Growth submitted by Leslie Patricia Roberts
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:
Dr. Peter Robinson, Supervisor
Dr. Wynne Chin, committee Member

Dr. Nicole Coviello, Committee Member
Dr. Alice Boberg, Facility of Education
Dr. Walter Gi
Date:
fHvecsitYof Manitoba
O o t o h 'f ir
ii
, 1998
ABSTRACT
Home-based entrepreneurship, the operation of a business venture in or

from the business owner's place of principal residence, now involves nearly
fifteen percent of the US and Canadian workforces (Case, 1996; Orser & Foster,
1992). The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the association
between six attitudes toward entrepreneurship: 1) achievement in business, 2)
perceived personal control of business outcomes, 3) self-esteem in business, 4)
preference for innovation in business, 5) preference for business growth in
employment and 6) preference for business growth in revenue; and four types of
entrepreneurial behavior i) full-time home-based entrepreneurship, ii) part-time
home-based entrepreneurship, iii) non-home-based (commercial)
entrepreneurship, and iv) non-entrepreneurship (white-collar, non-management
employment). A series of hypotheses were developed to test the relationship
between entrepreneurial attitudes and types of entrepreneurial behavior between
groups. Individual and organizational level characteristics were also investigated.
A systematic, random sample of 2303 home-based and commercial
entrepreneurs from the Calgary, Alberta, Canada area was conducted. Four
hundred white-collar employees of a local information-technology consulting firm
served as the control group for this study. A total of 544 useable responses was
received for an overall response rate of 21.5%. Subjects completed a
questionnaire including two subscales developed by the researcher to measure
preference for business growth in employment and in revenue (EG and RG
iii
subscales); the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) Scale (Robinson, et

al., 1991); and individual and organizational characteristic questions.
Hypotheses were tested with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Significant differences in entrepreneurial attitudes were found in three areas: 1)
between all groups on measures of perceived personal control of business
outcomes; 2) between full-time home-based entrepreneurs and white-collar
workers on measures of self-esteem in business; and 3) between full-time and
part-time home-based entrepreneurs on measures of preference for business
growth in revenue. No significant differences were found between groups on
measures of achievement in business, innovation in business or preference for
business growth in employment although homogenous subsets emerged.
Homogenous subset analysis using Student-Newman-Keuls (SNK) procedure
identified two consistent subsets: 1) full-time home-based entrepreneurs and
commercial entrepreneurs, and 2) part-time home-based entrepreneurs and
white-collar workers. LOGIT regression was used to determine the probability of
commercial business ownership and identified four significant predictors: 1) type
of business, 2) previous annual revenue, 3) number of employees, and 4)
respondent's number of years of education. LISREL was used to specify a
structural equation model of 8 endogenous ( Y) and 32 exogenous (X) variables
and illustrated the relative strength of organizational characteristics over
individual demographic and human capital variables as mediators of the
entrepreneurial attitude - behavior relationship. Implications and directions for
future research are discussed.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My thoughts and sincere gratitude this day and always turn to the following
special individuals and organizations who assisted with this endeavor my
supervisor, Dr. Peter Robinson, whose work has contributed significantly to our
understanding of entrepreneurial attitudes and whose support, guidance and
patience never faltered; my committee members, Dr. Nicole Coviello and Dr.
Wynne Chin for thoughtful counsel; Dr. Alice Boberg, who endured membership
on three of my examining committees; external examiner Dr. Walter Good from
the University of Manitoba, who, along with Dr. Wayne Long, Dr. Barbara Orser
and Dr. Mary Foster, ignited my interest in home-based entrepreneurship; Dr. Tak
Fung, Academic Computing Services statistical consultant who compiled LOGIT
regression and LISREL structural model analyses and assisted with analysis and
interpretation; Betty Osing of Kensington Business Centres, who merged and
printed 2800 letters and envelopes; my extraordinary friend and B. Ed. student
Melanie Smerek, who entered over 110,000 pieces of data for this study - are we
still friends?; Dr. James J. Chrisman, Director of MBA and PhD Programs, who
provided four years of dedication, advice and support; Dr. David Mitchell,
Department of Communication Studies, who taught me to write in academic style;
the Faculties of Management and Graduate Studies for financial support; my
colleagues at the Mount Royal College School for Business and Entrepreneurship
for their friendship and guidance including Fraser Wilson, Director; Shannon
Goodspeed, Dianne Woods and Margaret Brown; and my family and friends
v
whose constant love, support and encouragement made this dream possible,
including husband Mike McGeough; sons Robin and Cameron; my parents Ed
and Kaye Roberts; my brother Craig; special friends Lisa Hamilton, Marion Webb,
Deb Mulcair, Scott Kirker, Michel Rod, the late Stew Fairbanks, Fiorenza Russel,
Penny Chalmers, Dr. Debi Andrus; and the Friday morning coffee gals, Betty
Michaud, Rina Romano, Rhonda Cheke, Mel Smerek and Dianne Rinaldi, who
know more about homoscedasticity than anyone ought to know, poor dears.
vi
DEDICATION
To Mom,
Kathlyn (Kaye) Mae Roberts (1921 - 1998)
with all my love.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Approval Page
ii
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgements .
Dedication
vii
.
.
Table of Contents
viii
List of Tables
xiii
List of Figures
xv
Chapter
I:
IN T R O D U C T IO N ......................................................................................... 1
Defining Entrepreneurship and Home-based Entrepreneurship
Theoretical Basis for the Research
.1 6
Personality Models of Human Behavior .
.1 6
Models of Entrepreneurial Behavior
.2 0
Attitudes as Determinants of Entrepreneurial Behavior

Statement of the Purpose .
Need for the Study .
.
.
Outline of the Dissertation .

II:
24
27
30
32
LITERATURE R E V IE W ........................................................................... 33
Psychological Characteristics
36
Achievement Motivation
.3 9
Personal Control
.5 1
Self-Esteem .
59
Innovation
64
Preference for Business Growth in Revenue and

In Employment
.7 5
Comparative Studies of Psychological Characteristics

Of Entrepreneurs and White-Collar Workers
.8 1
Summary of Psychological Characteristics
.8 3
Individual and Organizational Characteristics

Gender
Age
.
.
.
.
Life-cycle Stage
.8 5
89
89
90
Education and Experience .
.9 1
Organizational Characteristics
.9 2
Summary of Individual and Organizational Characteristics

Attitude Theory
Definitions of Attitudes
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tripartite Model of Attitude .
93
95
95
97
Attitude - Behavior Relationship
. 101
Attitude Measurement
.108
Summary of Attitude Theory
.110
The Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) Scale .
.111
Home-based Entrepreneurship
.114
Origins of Home-based Entrepreneurship Literature
.115
Characteristic Studies of Home-workers and

Home Businesses
.118
Sociological Considerations of Work and Family Life
.122
Architectural and Environmental Responses to

Home-based Work .
Summary of Home-based Entrepreneurship.
Summary of the Literature Review
III:
.125
.127
.128
CONCEPTUAL F R A M E W O R K ............................................................. 132

Specification of the Model .
.132
ix
Hypotheses .
Achievement in Business
134
. 134
Innovation in Business
.135
Perceived Personal Control of Business Outcomes
. 137
Perceived Self-esteem in Business
.139
Preference for Business Growth in Revenue and in

Employment .
Summary
IV:
.
.
.140
.
142
RESEARCH M E T H O D ......................................................................... 143

Subscale Development and Testing
.143
Scale Item Development
.145
Final Survey Development.
.148
Populations and Sampling .
.155
Entrepreneur Subjects
.155
Control Group Subjects
.157
Sample Size .
. 159
Procedures .
Measures
.162
Attitude Measures
. 162
Subscale Scoring Procedure
.163
Individual and Organizational Measures
.165
Data Diagnostics
.165
Missing Data
Outliers
160
.166
.
167
Tests for Normality, Homoscedasticity, Linearity,

Independence and Equality of Variance-Covariance Matrices
Data Analysis
Chapter Summary
167
.170
.170
V:
R E S U L T S ................................................................................................ 172
Analysis of the Samples
.172
Representativeness of the Samples
.182
Non-response Bias .
.182
Early versus Late Response Bias .
. 183
Reliability
.184
Internal Consistency
Validity
.184
.
Criterion-related Validity
186
. 186
Hypothesis Tests
.190
Differences Between Full-time and Part-time Home-based

Entrepreneurs, Non-home-based Entrepreneurs and
White-collar Workers
.192
Probability of Commercial Business Start-up
. 211
Mediating Effect of Individual and Organizational Variables

on the Relationship Between Attitudes and Entrepreneurial
Behavior
Chapter Summary .
VI.
.213
.
EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Discussion of Results
221
.223
.
223
Findings Related to Psychological Constructs
. 225
Findings Within the Entrepreneur Sample
. 229
Contributions and Implications
.231
Theoretical Contributions and Implications
.231
Implications for Practitioners and Policy Makers
. 233
Limitations of the Research
235
235
Methodological Limitations .
237
Theoretical Limitations
xi
Directions for Future Research
Directions for Research Methodology
.
.
238
239
Areas of Additional Research in Home-based

Entrepreneurship
Chapter Summary .
.
.
.
.
241
243
B IB L IO G R A P H Y ................................................................................................245
A P P E N D IC E S ................................................................................................274
Appendix 1. Cover letter, letter of support, and instrument
. 274
Appendix 2. Diagnostic histograms, scatterplot matrix, and

normal Q-Q probability plots
xii
287
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1
Summary of home-based work definitions and typologies
Table 2.1
Selected summary of studies of achievement motivation

and entrepreneurs
Table 2.2
43
53
61
66
Selected summary of studies of preference for innovation

and entrepreneurs
Table 2.5
Selected summary of studies of self-esteem

and entrepreneurs
Table 2.4
Selected summary of studies of personal control

and entrepreneurs
Table 2.3
Selected summary of studies of preference for business

growth in revenue and in employment
Table 2.6
12
.7 7
Selected summary comparison of demographic and

human capital characteristics of entrepreneurs and
home-based entrepreneurs
Table 2.7
.8 6
Ajzens (1989) classification of responses used to infer

attitudes
99
Table 2.8
Greenwald's LORh5 System
.106
Table 4.1
Overview of methods
.144
Table 4.2
Reliability analysis for Revenue Growth subscale
. 149
Table 4.3
Reliability analysis for Employment Growth subscale
.151
Table 4.4
Subscale scoring key for the instrument .
.164
Table 5.1
Response rates
.174
Table 5.2
Individual-level sample characteristics
Table 5.3
Organizational-level sample characteristics
Table 5.4
Tests for significance of differences in mean indicators of
early versus late respondents
xiii
175
.177
- 185
Table 5.5
Correlation matrix of component and subscale independent

variables
Table 5.6
. 188
Summary of discriminant analysis results for EAO, RG and

EG subscales
Table 5.7
Summary of descriptive statistics for mean comparisons
Table 5.8
Post hoc multiple comparison tests of significance of
. 191
. 193
differences between full-time and part-time home-based

entrepreneurs, non-home-based entrepreneurs and
.
. 196
Table 5.9
Summary of tests of hypotheses .
. 203
Table 5.10
Determinants of the operation of a non-home-based
white-collar workers
business
212
Table 5.11
Structural equations for endogenous variables .
. 217
Table 5.12
List of variable names used in LISREL analysis .
. 219
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
98
Figure 2.1
Schematic conception of attitudes
Figure 2.2
Structural representation of a tripartite model of attitude
Figure 3.1
Conceptual framework for the study
. 133
Figure 4.1
Schematic of subscale items and summated scales
. 152
Figure 5.1
Path diagram of causal relationships
. 215
Figure 5.2
LISREL measurement model of causal relationships
. 218
xv
102
1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
We started our home business to just actually run a small business

and see what it was all about, see whether we liked it or not; if we
were cut out to manage ourselves or if we had to be told what to do
or would we actually just do it ourselves. There is a difference... so
with a small outlay [of cash] and now a real big plan we want to
learn some of the ins and outs of running a small business before
we quit our day jobs.
(Home business owner B, interview transcript, p. 4)
I started consulting from home because I knew that at my age it
would be absolutely impossible to find a job. Not just because of
my age, but because of my highly specialized position as one of the
only paleontologists working in the oil industry. Companies dont
hire people like me any more. I was an anomaly and I know
anomalies dont last very long during periods of restructuring.
(Home business owner H, interview transcript, p. 3)
(Roberts & Robinson, 1996)
Two home-based businesses, two apparently disparate approaches to

small business ownership. For one, the home business is a skill and experience
building exercise and the potential incubator (Wehrell, 1995) of a much higher
potential small business (Timmons, 1990) in terms of job creation, income
generation, and perhaps the eventual relocation of the business beyond the
confines of the home. For the other, the home business is simply an alternative
to un- or under-employment, a result of organizational restructuring and corporate
downsizing initiatives. Whatever the antecedents to home-based venture
creation, these two individuals are not alone, but representative of one of the
most significant shifts in the economy since the industrial revolution (Good &
Levy, 1992).
2
Home-based entrepreneurship, or the operation of an independent
income-generating venture based in or from a business owner's place of principal
residence (Roberts, et al., 1995), is the small business ownership choice of over
12% of the US workforce, or over 25 million entrepreneurs. This represents an
increase in the number of home-based entrepreneurs in the US of 22.3%
between 1992 and 1995 (Case, 1996). In Canada, the number of home-based
businesses increased by 16.7% between 1991 and 1993, where a home business
is operating in nearly 1.5 million homes or in 14% of all Canadian households.
Interestingly, home-based business penetration is highest in the province of
Alberta (21% of households) and lowest in Quebec (8% of households)
(Canadian Manager, 1995, p. 18).
The growth of home-based entrepreneurship is supported by the growth in
the number of self-employed Canadians which has risen, on average, 5.9% per
year since 1991 (Gendron, 1996) and is precipitated by macro-environmental
factors such as: 1) changing societal values (Christensen, 1988; Allen, 1983;
Brabec, 1989; Plummer, 1989; Heck, Owen & Rowe, 1995), 2) advances in
telecommunication and computing technology (Pratt, 1993; Bowman-Upton,
1993; Halal, 1996; Olson, 1983, 1985, 1989, 1989a) and 3) economic
restructuring and corporate downsizing initiatives (Bailyn, 1989; Gumpert, 1984;
Gray & Gray, 1990).
North Americans are at work offering a variety of business, professional,
health and personal services; working independently in sales (agency,
representative), journalism, or graphic, visual, or fine arts businesses; operating
3
retail/wholesale trade, manufacturing (food, textile, arts, crafts), construction and
trades, finance, insurance and real estate businesses; and managing agricultural,
forestry, mining and fishing operations from their homes (Roberts, et al., 1995).
In Canada, studies also suggest that work being performed is more likely full
time, and that income generated by the home-based entrepreneur is most likely
the primary source of household income (Foster & Orser, 1993).
Not strictly a North American phenomenon, home-based entrepreneurship
is on the rise both in other industrialized nations, as well as in lesser developed
countries (LDCs). For example, home businesses are operating in 8.5% of
households in industrialized nations such as Finland (Vanhalakka, 1991),
represent a significant and growing activity in Ireland (OConnor, 1987) and are
being studied in the context of urban home production in emerging economies
such as Peru, Zimbabwe and Appalachia (Strassman, 1986,1987; Scott, 1995;
Miraftab, 1994; Oberhauser, 1995; Tipple, 1993; Lazerson, 1995). Although the
nature and extent of home-based production varies greatly between industrialized
and lesser developed countries, i.e., knowledge-based services in North America
versus production-based, urban manufacturing in LDCs (Scott, 1995), homebased entrepreneurship is emerging as a significant segment of many global
economies.
Within the broader context, entrepreneurship has been called one of the
most promising management research fields in the past decade (Wortman, 1987)
during which time a strong interest has emerged in both independent and
corporate entrepreneurship. This recent interest in entrepreneurship is due in
4
part to the recognition of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises
to economic growth and development, and of the importance of innovation within
large, diversified North American firms facing a formidable competitive
environment (OECD, 1996). In academe, this interest can be measured by the
growth in the number of North American conferences related to entrepreneurship,
the establishment of the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of
Management (Wortman, 1987), an increase in the number of college and
university programs, courses and extension education programming numbering
over 300 schools in the United States in 1988 (Vesper & McMullan, 1988), and
the establishment of dedicated entrepreneurship journals such as the Journal of
Business Venturing, and Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, as well as
practitioner journals such as inc., and Venture. Thus, entrepreneurship is an
exciting domain of inquiry.
Despite increased public, government and academic interest in the
broader context of independent and corporate entrepreneurship over the last ten
years, and the apparent significance of the home-based venture phenomenon,
surprisingly little empirical investigation of home-based business ownership has
been undertaken. Three reasons for the lack of extant literature are evident: 1)
the home-based business phenomenon is argued to be too insignificant to
investigate, leading some to suggest that its study should not be legitimately
incorporated within the entrepreneurship domain of inquiry (King, 1990); 2) as
reported by Foster and Orser (1993), home-based entrepreneurship is believed to
5
be a temporary phenomenon, one that will subside when more jobs are created
and North Americans return to work; and 3) home business owners are difficult
to identify, making empirical investigation problematic (Orser, 1991a). However,
the statistics presented above suggest home-based entrepreneurship is
significant, is not temporary, and should not be ignored due to the methodological
challenges presented.
The origin of home-based entrepreneurship literature can be traced to the
study of remote-office work in the early 1970's following the OPEC energy
crisis in 1973 and specifically to the work of Nilles (1977) who proposed that
office work could be done in home or in satellite offices located close to a
workers home in order to partially or completely eliminate the commute to a
centralized office site to conserve energy. Since 1980, extant home-based
entrepreneurship literature has focused primarily on one of three issues: 1)
implications of home-based work on work and family life (Olson, 1983; Pratt &
DeSanctis, 1984; Christensen, 1985; Rowe & Bentley, 1992; Beach, 1993); 2)
descriptive studies of home-based business activity in a region or municipality
(Orser & Foster, 1992; Good & Levy, 1992; Wehrell, 1995; Roberts, et al., 1995);
or 3) more recently, architectural and environmental responses to home-based
work (Gurstein, 1991, 1995; Ahrentzen, 1990; Frazer, 1988; Hayward, 1991;
Ambry, 1988).
Early investigations improved awareness and understanding of the social
and economic significance of home-based entrepreneurship and of the forces
driving the home-based business phenomenon.
For example, there is evidence
6
that home-based businesses 1) create jobs, 2) generate income, 3) generate
taxation revenue, 4) provide an opportunity for improved quality of working life
and 5) are tools for small business development and local economic development
(Orser, 1991b; Orser, etal., 1993; Wehrell, 1995; Allen & Wolkowitz, 1987;
Roberts, etal., 1995; Dykeman, 1989).
In addition, three forces are generally recognized as promoting the growth
of the home business phenomenon: 1) advances in information technology, 2)
changing societal values, and 3) economic restructuring and corporate
downsizing. Literature in the areas of information and telecommunication
technology and organizational communication in the early 1980's predicted the
rise of a "new information age" which would ultimately produce new production
systems (Bell, 1974, 1980; Porat, 1977; Martin, 1981). It was also predicted that
these new production systems and accompanying technological advancements
and implementations would create the home as a new work site. The transition is
being made to what Bell (1974) termed "post-industrial society", one in which
industrial processes are supplanted by an information-based society.
Advances in information technology are making computing and
telecommunications technology more accessible and affordable (Pratt, 1993) and
are viewed as a significant antecedent of home-based entrepreneurship
(Priesnitz, 1989; Olson, 1989). A corresponding shift in societal values is
similarly credited with providing an impetus to move work home. Situational
factors - a desire for greater flexibility, freedom, autonomy, and to be home with
family - were the most frequently reported reasons for creating a home business
(Christensen, 1987, 1988; Priesnitz, 1989, 1991, 1993; Roberts, eta l., 1995).
Economic restructuring and corporate downsizing provide opportunities for
employees to become "contract employees" in an effort to reduce the overhead
burden earned by large organizations1 (Bailyn, 1989), or alternatively, to withdraw
from corporate life, often with substantial monetary severance packages, to begin
new careers as home-based entrepreneurs.
Informative as these early studies have been, investigations of the person
at the heart of the home-based entrepreneurial process, the home-based
entrepreneur, have been neglected altogether. As the excerpts taken from
interviews with home-based business owners presented at the beginning of this
chapter illustrate, diverse attitudes toward and motivations for starting a homebased business are present. Despite the apparent significance of home-based
entrepreneurship as an economic activity and its growing legitimacy as an area of
academic inquiry, theories and models of the home-based entrepreneur which
would distinguish home-based entrepreneurs from other types of entrepreneurs
or types of workers are non-existent. This situation is hardly surprising, given the
lack of adequate theoretical foundation in the broader field of entrepreneurship
which limits theoretical progression (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991).
The phenomenon of employees returning to work for the same organization

under contract has been termed administrative entrepreneurship, and
represents a departure from the traditional view of entrepreneurs who are seen to
create organizations to capture identified market opportunities (see Roberts &
Chrisman, 1997, for a discussion of the implications of contract employees on
measuring the extent of entrepreneurship activity).
8
Nowhere is this lack of theoretical progression more evident than in the
fundamental lack of definitional consistency in entrepreneurship research
(Timmons, 1978; Carland, Hoy, Boulton & Carland, 1984; VanderWerf, 1989;
Low & MacMillan, 1988; Gartner, 1988, 1990; Bygrave & Hofer, 1991; Huefner&
Hunt, 1994; Steams, Carter, Reynolds & Williams, 1995). While the definitional
debate may be due in part to the complexity of the entrepreneurship phenomenon
and to diverse interdisciplinary perspectives in the field, the problem of making
distinctions among entrepreneurs, i.e., between home-based entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurs who have chosen to locate their businesses outside the home
(non-home-based entrepreneurs), or between entrepreneurs and employed
workers, is exacerbated by the lack of definitional consistency. Although large
volumes of research on entrepreneurs have been generated in the past three
decades, insufficient agreement exists on how entrepreneurs differ from one
another, from managers, and from members of the general population (Robinson,
et al., 1991; Baum, 1995; Begley & Boyd, 1987). Yet, entrepreneurs, and homebased entrepreneurs by extension, must be discernible from other concepts
otherwise meaningful inquiry is jeopardized (Homaday, 1992). The lack of a
consensus is particularly evident in definitions presented in the home-based
literature, reviewed with definitions of entrepreneurship in the following section.
Defining Entrepreneurship and Home-based Entrepreneurship

Reviews of entrepreneurship and home-based entrepreneurship literatures
have highlighted the lack of consensus over a definition of entrepreneurship
9
(Brockhaus, 1987; Low & MacMillan, 1988; Roberts & Chrisman, 1997), where
many and varied approaches to defining what is and what is not entrepreneurship
have emerged since the days of Richard Cantillon (1755), where the
entrepreneur is defined as a self-employed individual, someone who does not
work for wages, where the distinguishing characteristic between employeds and
self-employeds is the risk and uncertainty as well as the "entrepreneurial profit
associated with entrepreneurship. Today, debate continues over various
approaches to defining the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship more precisely.2
One study worth mentioning here due to its unique methodology is Gartners
deiphi study (1990, p. 16) with entrepreneurship research academics, politicians
and business leaders to determine variously held definitions of entrepreneurship
and, using factor analysis, the identification of eight themes of entrepreneurship:
1.
Entrepreneur theme:
the idea that entrepreneurship involves

individuals with unique personality
characteristics and abilities.
2.
Innovation theme:
characterized as doing something new

as an idea, product, service, market, or
technology in a new or established
organization.
3.
Organization creation theme:
describes the behaviours involved in

creating organizations.
For a review of many definitional approaches in entrepreneurship research, see

Gartner, W. 1988. "Who is an entrepreneur?" is the wrong question, American
Journal of Small Business, Spring, 11 - 32 as well as Hebert, R. and Link, A. 1988.
The Entrepreneur, New York, NY: Praeger.
10
4.
Creating value theme:
articulates the idea that

entrepreneurship creates value.
5.
Profit-nonprofit theme:
concerned with whether

entrepreneurship involves profit-making
firms only.
6.
Growth theme:
focusses on the importance of growth as

a characteristic of entrepreneurship.
7.
Uniqueness theme:
suggests that entrepreneurship must

involve uniqueness.
8.
Owner-manager theme:
suggests that entrepreneurship involves

individuals who are owners and
managers of their businesses.
Gartner further clustered these eight themes into two general viewpoints
on entrepreneurship: 1) the characteristics of entrepreneurship: entrepreneur,
organization creation, innovation, growth, and uniqueness themes, or 2) the
outcomes of entrepreneurship: creating value, for profit and owner-manager
themes. Gartner concludes that entrepreneurship is a very complex process and
that no one definition of entrepreneurship need emerge, but cautions researchers
in this emerging area to carefully and explicitly define what they mean by the
terms entrepreneurship and entrepreneur". This study adopts the former
viewpoint by focusing on the psychological characteristics of the entrepreneur.
Roberts & Chrisman (1997) develop a typology of home-based work to
reconcile definitional inconsistencies of past research in the area and suggest
that definitions can be classified into three types: 1) inclusive, 2) refined and 3)
exclusive. Inclusive definitions make no distinction between home-based workers
and home-based entrepreneurs. So, for example, a tele-working employee of a
11
major bank who works from home as well as an entrepreneur who operates a
business from home would both be captured under inclusive definitions. Refined
definitions exclude home-based workers, including only full- and part-time homebased entrepreneurs. Finally, exclusive definitions capture only those individuals
who are operating a business from home on a full-time, or 32 hour per week or
more basis. Part-time business owners and tele-workers are excluded from this
conceptualization of home-based work. In order for one to understand the
implication of the findings of previous home-based work studies, an
understanding of the operational definitions employed in the studies is paramount
to proper interpretation. Table 1.1 illustrates the three historical approaches to
defining the home-based worker inclusive, refined, and exclusive definitions and
highlights the inconsistencies in defining the home-based work phenomenon
(adapted from Roberts & Chrisman, 1997, pp. 21-22).
Roberts and Chrisman (1997) propose a classification of home-based
work based on intentionality of the home worker to grow his or her business
(expressed as a weighted sum of three measures: realized and intended revenue
growth, employment growth and business expansion or relocation) and on the
resulting organizational form, either dependent or independent. Five
classifications of home-based workers result: 1) independent growth-oriented
entrepreneur, 2) independent life-style entrepreneur, 3) independent contractor,
4) home-based sales-agent, 5) home-based employed worker. Due to the focus
on entrepreneurship and new venture initiation, the current study is concerned
12
TABLE 1.1: Summary of home-based work definitions and typologies
Author
Definition, classification or typology
Distinguishing
Characteristics
Gritzmacher, 1992
Heck, 1987, 1991, 1992
Loker & Scanell, 1992a, 1992b
Masuo, et at., 1992
Rowe, et al., 1992, 1993
In a series of studies conducted by the US Home-based Business Project

Committee on a longitudinal panel of 899 home-based workers, two types of
home workers were studied simultaneously: home-based business owners,
operating a full-time or part-time business, and home-based workers, full-time
employees who worked from home (telecommuters).
No transportation to work
location
Kraut (1988)
Two types of homeworkers: primary and supplementary who do not require

transportation to or from a work location. Primary homeworker works from
home whereas the supplementary homeworker works primarily at a traditional
work location, but who brings "extra" work home to complete during "offhours"
No transportation to work
location
Horvath (1986)
A home-based worker is an individual who works in the home more than 50

percent of the amount of hours worked,
Amount of time spent

working in the home
Boris (1988)
A home-based worker is anyone who is employed inside the home,
Employed status of the

worker
Orser& Foster (1992)
Home-based work activity typology: 1) full-time or part-time, home-based, selfemployed entrepreneur; 2) substituter (employed worker working from a home
office); and 3) supplementer (employed worker who brings "extra" work home
to complete)

worker
INCLUSIVE DEFINITIONS
13
v"
Author
Olson (1985)
Definition, Classification or typology
Distinguishing
Characteristics
Home-based work typology: 1) home-based worker is an individual who is

employed either full-time or part-time and who works in the home; 2) homebased business owner is an individual who is operating their own business
out of the home, This is the first typology to distinguish between employed
and self-employed home workers,

worker
Priestnitz (1993)
A home-based business owner is an individual who operates a full-time or

part-time, profit oriented business operated in or from an individual's place of
residence or surrounding buildings,
For-profit motive.
Work performed in "or
from " the home.
Pratt and Davis (1985)
A home-based business owner is an individual who operates a profit

enterprise in the owner's residence which supplies a product or service in or
from the home.
Self-employed status,
Roberts, et al., (1995)
A home-based business owner is an individual who operates a full-time or

part-time profit oriented business in or from a business owner's place of
residence,
Full-time or part-time
operation, for-profit
motive,
Wehrell (1995)
A home-based business is one which is owned and/or operated by a selfemployed individual working in or from his or her home or from another
building on the property, which may or may not employ other people and
which provides a service of product from that workplace.
Self-employed status,
potential job creation
component
REFINED DEFINITIONS
14
"
'Author
Definition, Classification or typology
Distinguishing
Characteristics
EXCLUSIVE DEFINITIONS
Winter & Fitzgerald, 1993
A home-based business owner is one who operates a full-time home-based

business in which the majority of employees are family members
Full-time operation,
family members as
employees
Christensen (1988)
Typology of the contingent workforce: 1) independent contractors, 2) part-time

workers, 3) temporary workers, 4) leased employees. Independent
contracting involves the externalization of the worker from the employee rolls,
resulting in the worker being hired on a self-employed contracted basis for a
finite amount of time,
Work location
Kraut and Grambsch (1988)
A home-based business owner is an individual who is self-employed and who

operates a full-time business in or from the home.
Full-time operation, selfemployed status,
15
with the first three classifications of home-based entrepreneurs only. Thus, the
following general and specific terms are defined as utilized in this study:
1.
Entrepreneur is defined as an individual who identifies an opportunity and

creates an organization to capture that opportunity (Brockhaus, 1982).
2.
Home-based business refers to any full-time or part-time profit-oriented

organization operated in or from the business owners principal place of
residence (Roberts, et al., 1995).
3.
Home-based entrepreneur is defined as an individual who owns and

operates an independent, profit-oriented organization operated in or from
the business owners principal place of residence.
4.
Full-time home-based entrepreneur is defined as an individual who owns

and operates the equivalent of five or more days per week (32 hours or
more) an independent, profit-oriented organization operated in or from the
business owners principal place of residence.
5.
Part-time home-based entrepreneur is defined as an individual who owns

and operates the equivalent of four of less days per week (less than 32
hours) an independent, profit-oriented organization operated in or from the
business owners principal place of residence.
6.
Non-home-based entrepreneur is defined as an individual who owns and

operates an independent, profit-oriented organization located on
commercial business premises.
7.
White-collar; non-management worker is defined as an individual who

holds a position of limited authority or managerial responsibility within an
organization and whose principal labour does not involve manual or
physical labour.
8.
New business venture is defined as a new organization existing where

none existed before (Gartner, 1985), which, for the purposes of this study,
is an independent entity.
With functional definitions in place, attention is now turned to an

examination of the theoretical basis of the current study. In the following section,
alternative approaches to understanding individual differences in behavior are
considered, followed by a discussion of common approaches used to investigate
entrepreneurial behavior.
Theoretical Basis for the Research

The appropriate theoretical model for studying determinants of individual
behavior has been a point of controversy in psychology for over thirty years
(Brockhaus, 1987), although personality trait approaches have dominated studies
of the psychology of the entrepreneur. In order to provide a theoretical backdrop
for the current study, it is necessary to briefly review epistemological and
methodological features of traditional personality approaches to understanding
individual differences. Four models are summarized in this section: trait, psycho
analytical, social-cognitive and humanist.
Personality Models of Human Behavior

The trait model is based upon the premise that personality traits (defined
as any enduring characteristic of a person that can serve an explanatory role for
accounting for the observed regularities and consistencies in behavior) (McDaniel
and Gates, 1995) 1) form the basis for individual differences, 2) are primary
determinants of behavior, and 3) provide a predispositionai basis for behavioral
consistencies across situations. This approach suggests that traits exist within
17
the individual and will influence people to behave relatively consistently across
similar situations. The assumption that persons display cross-situational
consistencies in behaviour has been persistently challenged.
The consistency issue was first addressed empirically 70 years ago, when
a series of studies explicitly set out to assess consistency across situations
(Hartshome & May, 1929). Utilizing responses collected from 11,000 US
elementary and high school students to a large number of behavioral tests
designed to measure traits of altruism, self-control and honesty in a number of
situations, the authors reported low correlations among behaviors in different
situations. In a review of accumulated findings since Hartshome & Mays inquiry,
Mischel (1968) reported low correlations between measures of the same trait in
two different situations, typically less than .30 and between trait measures on
personality tests and actual behavioral observations of the same traits in real
situations. Mischel cautioned that, to the extent behavior is situation specific,
demonstrated generalized consistencies are an impossibility (Mischel, 1968).
The psychoanalytic account of personality remains the most
comprehensive and influential theory of personality as a determinant of individual
behaviour ever created (Atkinson, et al., 1996). Proponents of this approach
have included Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler and Erik Eriksen. Freuds
(1940) structural model of the human mind involved a division of personality into
three major systems which interact to govern human behavior 1) the id (basic
innate biological impulses), 2) ego (governance of id) and 3) superego
(individuals conscience). This approach suggests that human behaviour
18
represents a compromise between our wishes and our fears, where unconscious
processes play an important role. One of the main criticisms of this approach is
that the concepts are ambiguous and problematic to define and measure
objectively (Atkinson, et al 1996). In addition, empirical tests of psychoanalytic
theories have met with mixed results. Efforts to identify relevant character traits
in children appear to be related to similar character traits in the parents (Eagle,
1984), and adult character traits have not been linked successfully to
psychosexually relevant events in childhood (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).
Nonetheless, there is continuing effort in reformulating psychoanalytic theory in
more testable terms.
The social-cognitive model of behavioural determinants focuses on
environmental, or situational determinants of behavior, where behaviour is viewed
as the result of a continuous interaction between personal and environmental
variables. Environmental (situational) conditions shape behaviour through
learning and an individuals behaviour influences the environment (situation). To
predict human behaviour, one must measure the interaction between individual
and situational characteristics (Bandura, 1986). Proponents of the socialcognitive approach have responded to the challenge of cross-situational
consistency by proposing three solutions: 1) measures of aggregation, 2) the
person-centred approach (Allport, 1937), and 3) interactionism.
Measures of aggregation (a combination of several measures of the same
behavioural characteristic) achieve greater cross-situational consistency (Epstein,
1977). The person-centred approach proposed by personality psychologist
19
Gordon Allport argued that the trait approach in which individuals are compared
with one another on a common set of traits failed to capture a persons
individuality and that the focus instead should be on the unique configuration of
traits within the individual (Allport, 1937). Interactionism is based on the belief
that behavior is influenced by the confluence of personality, situation and their
interaction (Fazio, 1986). Behaviour is affected by situations, but an individual
selects situations and influences the nature of these situations (Endler &
Magnusson, 1979).
Like the psychoanalytic approach, the social-cognitive
approach is highly deterministic, and has been criticized for overemphasizing the
importance of situational influences on individual behaviour (Carlson, 1971).
The final model reviewed here is the humanist approach to understanding
human action which places the individuals subjective experiences at the centre,
where a concern for predicting behaviour is supplanted with a focus on the
individuals phenomenology, their perceptions and interpretations of events and
situations. Early proponents of the humanistic approach include Carl Rogers and
Abraham Maslow. Central concepts of self, self-image, ideal-self, selfactualization and personal constructs (Kelly, 1955) emphasize the individuals
own role in defining and creating situations. Critics of this approach point to the
problematic operationalization of concepts such as self-actualization and to the
values espoused by humanistic theorists which some argue provide a
psychological sanction for selfishness (Wallach & Wallach, 1983).
A debate over the relative merits of personality models of human behavior
such as trait, psychoanalytic, social-cognitive, and humanistic in understanding
20
individual differences has taken place in the field of psychology for nearly fifty
years. Fifteen years ago, a debate of similar magnitude and consequence
commenced in the field of entrepreneurship and continues today. The debate
has centred around the relative superiorities of two approaches: 1) personality
trait and 2) personal characteristics of business owners, such as owners age at
business founding, levels of education and experience, birth order and so on.
Proponents of trait-based personality models have won the majority of journal
space dedicated to this topic, followed closely by characteristic approaches.
Each approach and its relative merits will now be discussed.
Models of Entrepreneurial Behavior

Within the domain of determinants of entrepreneurial behaviour, the traitbased personality approach has formed the major line of inquiry led by David
McClelland (1961) (Robinson, 1987). This approach suggests entrepreneurs
possess a common personality type, and the focus has been to enumerate a set
of characteristics describing the entrepreneurial personality for the purpose of
distinguishing entrepreneurs from nonentrepreneurs (Gartner, 1988). Carland,
Hoy, Boulton & Carland (1984) present a review of personality traits studied in
entrepreneurship research and include: risk-taking, need for achievement
(McClelland, 1961); ambition, strive for independence, responsibility, selfconfidence (Davids, 1963); internal locus of control (self-efficacy) (Borland,
1974); personal value orientation (Gasse, 1977); goal-orientation, creativity,
innovativeness (Timmons, 1978); energy, ambition, positive reaction to setbacks
21
(Sexton, 1980); need to control, responsibility seeker, challenge taker, and
moderate risk taker (Welsh & White, 1983).
investigations of personal characteristics of small enterprise owners also
dominate research in entrepreneurship (Ratnatunga & Romano, 1997). Biodata
such as age, owners age at business founding, gender, race, ethnicity, levels of
education and experience, and prior exposure to entrepreneurship have been
investigated as potential predictors of entrepreneurial success with the
development of a profile of a typical successful entrepreneur (Brockhaus, 1980;
Homaday & Aboud, 1971).
Both personality trait and characteristic approaches suggest that by
identifying a configuration of personality traits or personal characteristics of
known successful entrepreneurs, prediction of entrepreneurship in unknown
populations will be possible because individuals who possess the same traits or
characteristics as successful entrepreneurs are assumed to possess the same
underlying stable characteristics (Robinson, etal., 1991).
However, personality
trait and characteristic approaches explain very little variance of human action,
and therefore possess little predictive power, an established criteria for the
evaluation of social science research and theory (Robinson, et al., 1991;
Homaday, 1992). In fact, several empirical studies suggest that it is not possible
to differentiate entrepreneurs from managers or entrepreneurs from the general
population based on the entrepreneurs supposed possession of entrepreneurial
traits or characteristics (Brockhaus, 1980a; Kent, Sexton & Vesper, 1982;
Ahmed, 1985).
22
In a review of trait-based approaches to studying entrepreneurship,
Robinson, et al. (1991) levy criticism at poor instrumentation, use of broadspectrum personality theories in a specific domain such as entrepreneurship, and
the static, fixed and deterministic nature of personality theories which do not
account for the dynamic nature of entrepreneurship. The authors argue instead
for interactive theories: models which are influenced by and influence the
environment such as attitude theory.
Gartner (1988) also attacked trait and characteristic research suggesting
that these lines of inquiry were leading virtually nowhere, and called instead for
redirected focus toward organization creation, the outcome of the entrepreneurial
process. Gartner's contention, that entrepreneurs be studied within the context
of what they do, not who they are, is grounded in the social-cognitive approach.
Carland, Hoy and Carland (1988) responded to Gartner, arguing that more
knowledge about the individuals who create small ventures will better enable us
to understand the ventures which are created by them.
A series of recent work has suggested a change in focus from the
characteristics and functions of the entrepreneur to the nature and characteristics
of the entrepreneurial process, such as policies and strategies (Bygrave, 1993;
Bygrave & Hofer, 1991; Hofer & Bygrave, 1992). The proposed emphasis on
process represents a departure from the linear, static, and deterministic
assumptions within the entrepreneurship literature, echoing similar sentiments
emerging in the broader social science literature relating to determinants of
individual action.
23
Mitchell and James (1989) posit that the view of the human in context has
evolved from a stable, reactive, slice-in-time perspective to a much more complex
perspective, where the new view of dispositional and situational causes of
behaviour stresses the important attributes of persons, their contexts, and their
interactions. According to Mitchell and James (1989) what emerges is:
a human who is active psychologically and behaviourally, interacting in a
dynamic way with a changing environment. For the person, there is both
stability and change, there is active and reactive behaviour, there are
abilities and skills that emerge. Also, there is reciprocal causality, a very
complex, but probably realistic, view of the process of human interaction.
(p. 401).
Thus, a fully-specified model of the entrepreneurial process must be dynamic and
must include the entrepreneur as an integral part of that process.
Clearly, personal, situational and environmental factors are critical
elements of the entrepreneurial process (Greenberger & Sexton, 1988; Herron &
Robinson, 1993b), but not all individuals will choose to become entrepreneurs
under similar demographic, situational or environmental conditions. According to
Bygrave and Hofer (1991) the creation of a new organization is: 1) a process
involving numerous antecedent variables, 2) is initiated by an act of human
volition, and 3) is extremely sensitive to initial conditions. In that case, a more
complete understanding of the entrepreneur and the entrepreneurial process will
be gained by investigating antecedents, primary forces of human volition and
initial conditions. Thus, what is needed is more and better approaches to inquiry
in entrepreneurship, not an end to the line of inquiry altogether.
24
Trait-based and characteristic approaches to the study of entrepreneurs
have not sufficiently advanced the field. Yet, that must mean there is an
opportunity for an alternative approach to inquiry; perhaps one which is dynamic
in nature, which holds more explanatory and predictive power and which can
measure primary forces of human volition. This study proposes a departure from
trait and characteristic models of entrepreneurial behavior to a model based on
attitudes. An exposition of the features of attitude theory and the model utilized in
this study is presented in Chapter two, however, a brief introduction is offered
here.
Attitudes as Determinants of Entrepreneurial Behavior

Spurred largely by interest in the relation between attitudes and behavior,
the attitude concept has moved back into the focus of research in social
psychology. Attitude theory rests on a substantial base of research in related
management areas such as the prediction of consumer purchase behavior in
marketing (Howard, 1977; Bagozzi, 1988), and work motivation in organizational
behavior (Jacobowitz & Vidler, 1982) and is beginning to appear in the
entrepreneurship literature (Robinson, etal., 1991; Christensen, 1994; Gasse,
1982; Greenberger & Sexton, 1987; Carsrud & Johnson, 1989).
Although formal definitions of attitude vary, most definitions imply a
relationship between attitude and behavior such as Allport's (1935) definition of
an attitude as a mental or neural state of readiness organized through
experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individuals
25
response to all objects and situations with which it is related (Allport, 1935). An
attitude, then, is a mental state that predisposes an individual to act in a given
manner. This definition of attitude is similar to the notion of personality traits
presented in the previous section. However, since the concepts are defined in
slightly different ways and have been measured differently, personality traits and
attitudes are assumed to have different origins, and are therefore, assumed to be
different concepts (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977,1980). Nonetheless, those attitudes
formed early in life and most persistently held by the individual are often
considered to be personality constructs by those who study the concept of
personality (Robinson, 1987).
Attitudes are organized through experience and may be short lived or
deeply rooted enduring processes. Most contemporary social psychologists
agree that the characteristic attributes of attitude are its evaluative (pro-con,
positive-negative) dimension (Ajzen, 1989), and its essential feature as a
preparation or readiness for response (Allport, 1971). This view is strengthened
by the fact that virtually all standard attitude scaling techniques result in a score
that locates an individual on an evaluative continuum in relation to the attitude
object: the person, place, institution, event or any discriminable aspect of an
individuals world, at which the attitude is directed (Greenwald, 1989).
Two models of attitude dimensionality exist: 1) unidimensional and 2)
multi-dimensional. A unidimensional attitude construct is comprised of an
affective component only, referring to a persons evaluation of or feelings toward
an attitude object (Thurstone, 1931). Affective response measures would be
26
comprised of statements relating to ones feeling toward an attitude object. A
more complex view of attitude suggests that an attitude is comprised of three
distinct components: affective, cognitive and conative components which
manifest as thoughts, feelings and actions directed toward an attitude object.
This multi-dimensional view of attitude is represented by the tri-partite model of
attitude. It is believed that a multi-dimensional view of the attitude concept is
superior to a uni-dimensional view due to its ability to measure not only feelings
toward an attitude object, but also beliefs and intended actions or behaviors
toward the attitude object (Triandis, 1971; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977).
Until fairly recently, instruments used to measure entrepreneurial
tendencies have been based on personality models which lack application to
entrepreneurship and which lack sufficient attitude-object specificity, referring to
the lack of restriction of interpretation of an attitude to the level or domain from
which the attitude is chosen and lessening the precision of the instrument. The
concept of attitude-object specificity is an important distinguishing characteristic
of instruments based on models of attitude over those based on models of
personality. The concept of attitude-object specificity performs two important
functions: 1) it limits generalization of the attitude to behaviors related to the
object of the attitude, and 2) it increases predictability because of the limited
scope of the instrument (Christensen, 1994; McGuire; 1985; Robinson, 1987). In
this sense, the specification of the instrument to the attitude object fine tunes the
measurement of the attitude by limiting the domain of the instrument and
simultaneously increasing the accuracy within the specified domain. Instruments
27
based on personality measures purport to measure general underlying
tendencies and enable the personality characteristic to be applied to a broad
range of situations. This feature is the hallmark of personality theory. However,
this focus on general underlying tendencies means the domain is unspecific or
unspecified, and the accuracy of the measurement is reduced.
Contemporary views of attitude assume that: 1) attitudes drive behavior
either through a mental or neural state of readiness, (Allport, 1935), 2) attitudes
are either unidimensional or multidimensional (Rajecki, 1990), 3) several attitudes
form an attitude constellation toward an attitude object, and 4) attitudes are
dynamic in nature (Ajzen, 1989; McGuire, 1985). When the concept of attitudes
is applied to entrepreneurship, it is said there is a constellation of attitudes
exerting an influence on an individuals response to business or organizational
cues, a constellation comprised of several distinct attitudes which converge to
form the attitude orientation of the individual. Research suggests a host of
characteristics which distinguish entrepreneurs from others (Gartner, 1990;
Sexton & Bowman, 1985; Brockhaus, 1980b; Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986;
Shapero, 1975), many of which could theoretically form the constellation of
attitudes an individual has toward the attitude object of entrepreneurship.
Statement o f the Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare measures of attitudes of four
groups: 1) full-time home-based entrepreneurs, 2) part-time home-based
entrepreneurs, 3) non-home-based entrepreneurs, and 4) white-collar, non-
28
management workers, toward innovation in business, personal control in
business, achievement in business, perceived self-esteem in business, and
preference for business growth in employment and in revenue. The study
combines the use of two new subscales developed by the researcher to measure
attitudes toward business growth in employment and in revenue, with the use of
an existing entrepreneurial attitude instrument, the Entrepreneurial Attitude
Orientation (EAO) scale (Robinson, et al., 1991), a 75 item instrument based on
the tripartite (multi-dimensional) model of attitude and developed to discriminate
between entrepreneurs and managers. Thus, the fundamental research question
this study addresses is:
Do attitudes, as evidenced by measures of attitude toward innovation in
business, perceived personal control in business, achievement in
business, perceived self-esteem in business, preference for business
growth in employment and preference for business growth in revenue,
distinguish full-time and part-time home-based entrepreneurs, non-homebased entrepreneurs and white-collar, non-management workers?
Subordinate research questions include:
1.
Do individual-level demographic and human capital characteristics

of gender, age, life-cycle stage, number of years of education,
presence of technical, managerial and entrepreneurial experience in
similar and dissimilar industries, and presence of family business
experience influence the association between attitude measures
and the ownership of a full-time home-based business or a non
home-based business?
2.
Do organizational-level characteristics of type of business, previous

annual revenue, number of employees, and number of years in
business influence the association between attitude measures and
the ownership of a full-time home-based business or a non-homebased business?
3.
Do significant differences in attitude measures exist within the

home-based entrepreneur subsample?
29
This study investigates six constructs identified in the body of research on
psychology and entrepreneurship which are commonly investigated in relation to
the entrepreneur achievement, innovation, personal control, self-esteem, and
preference for business growth in revenue and in employment. Although these
constructs are not meant to represent an exhaustive set of characteristics
associated with entrepreneurship, the first four are most habitually cited in
descriptions of the entrepreneur. Recent work has stressed the need for a more
comprehensive understanding of entrepreneur's growth intentions related to
revenue and to employment as a means of distinguishing types of entrepreneurs
(Wiklund, etal., 1997; Lewis, etal., 1997; Gartner, etal., 1997). An investigation
of these six characteristics is not intended to override the significance of other
characteristics and the roles played in determining entrepreneurial behaviour, but
it provides a starting point. Each of the six constructs will be elaborated in
Chapter two. Thus, the six attitudes investigated in this study are:
1.
Achievement in business, referring to concrete results associated with the

start-up and growth of a small business.
2.
Innovation in business, relating to perceiving and acting upon business

activities in new and unique ways.
3.
Perceived personal control of business outcomes, concerning the

individuals perception of control and influence over his or her business.
4.
Perceived self-esteem in business, pertaining to the self-confidence and

perceived competency of an individual in conjunction with his or her
business affairs.
5.
Preference for business growth in revenue, referring to the individuals

perception of the importance of revenue growth in their business.
30
6.
Preference for business growth in employment, referring to the individuals

perception of the importance of employment growth in their business.
Thus, this current study builds on the similarity between attitudes and
personality traits in the measurement of what has traditionally been seen as

personality concepts. Attitude theory is believed to be a superior approach in the
study of entrepreneurial behavior over personality approaches due to the concept
of specificity which can: 1) limit the domain of inquiry to entrepreneurship, not to
broad, general tendencies and measure those behaviors related specifically to
entrepreneurship and 2) increase the predictability of entrepreneurial behaviors.
Need for the Study

A considerable amount of interest in home-based entrepreneurship has
been expressed by governments, educators, social agencies and the Canadian
public. Although recent studies have attempted to quantify the extent of home
business activity at the national and municipal levels in Canada, little is known
about the individuals who are operating these businesses or about their goals
and intentions for the future of their businesses. Are home-based business
owners the same as non-home-based entrepreneurs on the basis of their
attitudes toward entrepreneurship? At the present time, no study has been
undertaken which could answer that question. Thus, the current study will
contribute to the area of inquiry in three ways: 1) the study makes a theoretical
contribution by providing a theory-testing approach to the study of home-based
entrepreneurship, thus moving inquiry from the exploratory to the experimental; 2)

the study contributes conceptually, by applying current attitude theory, the
tripartite model of attitude involving a multi-dimensional concept of attitude to the
study of home-based and non-home-based entrepreneurs, and by delimiting
different types of small business owners alleviating definitional inconsistencies.
Also, the results of this study will contribute to an understanding of the
entrepreneurial attitudes of white-collar employees, and will be of particular
interest to academics and practitioners interested in fostering corporate
entrepreneurship within organizations; and 3) the study makes a methodological
contribution by testing an existing attitude instrument and by developing,
validating and testing two new attitude subscales designed to measure attitudes
toward business growth.
In addition to academic contributions, an understanding of the similarities
or differences in attitudes toward entrepreneurship among home-based
entrepreneurs and between home-based entrepreneurs, non-home-based
entrepreneurs and white-collar workers will provide valuable input into the current
public policy decision-making process regarding home business taxation,
licensing, and permits, as well as into programs, services and education
deliverables designed to foster and support home-based entrepreneurship.
32
Outline o f the Dissertation
This dissertation is comprised of six chapters, including the introductory
chapter. While prior research and other references will be cited throughout the
dissertation, Chapter If presents an overview and examination of psychological
constructs, individual and organizational characteristics, attitude theory and
extant home-based entrepreneurship literature. Chapter III specifies the
variables depicting attitudes and characteristics associated with home-based and
non-home-based entrepreneurship, and develops the specific hypotheses to be
tested in this study. Chapter IV describes the subscale development and testing,
populations and sampling procedures, procedures, measures, data diagnostic
and data analysis techniques used in the study, followed by the presentation of
results in Chapter V. Chapter VI discusses the results and draws conclusions
regarding distinguishing features of home-based entrepreneurs, and considers
some extensions of these conclusions to the more general case of small business
ownership. Implications of this study, limitations and directions for future
research in this area are also summarized in Chapter VI.
33
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Entrepreneurship has been investigated from the perspectives of

disciplines including economics, sociology, history, psychology, anthropology and
political science, each of which uses its own concepts and operates within its own
terms of reference (Low & MacMillan, 1988). It is these sciences which describe
key variables underlying the venture creation process (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991).
Although entrepreneurship is fast emerging as a unique discipline in its own right,
its theoretical and methodological roots are found in these other areas, where
theories, methods and constructs are borrowed and applied from the broader
social science literatures.
An example of the interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurship research
can be found in the recent proliferation of population-ecology papers. Populationecology is prominent in the biological literature as a theory of birth, survival, and
death within populations, or in the domain of entrepreneurship, within the
organizational population (Bygrave & Hofier, 1991; Hannan & Freeman, 1977),
where the population ecology model is used to predict the probability of creation
or closure within a specific population of firms. Although population-ecology
models have been criticized for failing to predict the birth or death of firms in any
industry (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991), these models stand as examples of the truly
interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurship research.
In addition to its striking interdisciplinary nature, the entrepreneurship
literature can be categorized according to three primary themes: 1) why
34
entrepreneurs act, 2) how they act, and 3) what happens when they act
(Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). Considerable debate in the field of entrepreneurship
has centred on the relative importance of the first two themes over the third,
perhaps a contemporary manifestation of the classic contention between
attitudinal and behavioral researchers who debate the relative importance of
cognitive perspective of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and attitudes over observed
behaviors. To elaborate on Gartners (1988) criticism of personality trait studies
introduced in the previous chapter, he argued that the study of the entrepreneur
was one step removed from organization creation, the primary phenomenon of
entrepreneurship in his opinion. Carland, Hoy and Carland (1988) delivered the
rejoinder to Gartner, contending that if more knowledge of small business venture
creation is the primary objective of entrepreneurship research, then more must be
learned about the individuals who create and manage them because the two are
inextricably bound. Further, they suggested research efforts directed to a part of
the whole are misguided because all of the parts and their interaction must be
investigated in order to fully understand entrepreneurship.
Bygrave and Hofer (1991), and Hofer and Bygrave (1992) concur with
Carland, Hoy & Carland, and suggest a shift in focus from part to whole, from
characteristics and functions to entrepreneurial systems and processes. The
authors argue for theories, models and conceptual frameworks of
entrepreneurship which capture important aspects of the entrepreneurial
process, including that it (Hofer & Bygrave, 1992, p.93):
35
1.
Is initiated by an act of human volition.
2.
Occurs at the level of the individual firm.
3.
Involves a change of state.
4.
Is discontinuous.
5.
Is a dynamic and holistic process.
6.
Is unique.
7.
Involves numerous antecedent variables.
8.
Generates outcomes extremely sensitive to the initial conditions of those

variables.
Hofer & Bygraves call for a focus on person-situation interaction in
entrepreneurship research is echoed in the broader social science literatures

(Bull & Thomas, 1993). Yet, the selection of a model of entrepreneurship is
contingent upon the information which the researcher desires to emphasize by
selecting various aspects of the entrepreneurial process (Cunningham &
Lischeron, 1991). However, it is difficult to imagine a fully descriptive model of
the entrepreneurial process without an entrepreneur.
Situational, organizational and environmental factors are integral elements
of the entrepreneurial process, clearly depicted in various conceptual frameworks
and models (Greenberger & Sexton, 1988; Herron & Robinson, 1993a; Homsby,
et al., 1993), but presented with similar situational, organizational, and
environmental factors, not all people will become entrepreneurs. Thus, if the
entrepreneurial process is, in fact, initiated by an act of human volition, sensitive
to initial conditions and antecedent factors, then the entrepreneur should be an
36
integral part of entrepreneurship research (Carland, etal., 1988; Baum, 1995;
Walsh, Kirchoff & Boyan, 1996). An understanding of attitudes toward homebased and non-home-based entrepreneurship and antecedent factors may help
explain why entrepreneurial behavior differs under comparable situational,
organizational and environmental circumstances, thus contributing to a more
comprehensive model of the entrepreneur and the entrepreneurial process.
This chapter reviews relevant literature in four areas which inform the
present study: 1) psychological characteristics which form the basis of an attitude
constellation, 2) individual and organizational level characteristics, 3) attitude
theory and 4) home-based entrepreneurship as a subset of the broader
entrepreneurship domain.
Psychological Characteristics
Since the early efforts of Cole (1942) who examined motivating forces and
characteristics of entrepreneurs, the entrepreneur has been studied as the
primary factor in new venture creation. Researchers have sought to determine
the nature of the entrepreneurial personality, manifested through personality traits
and psychological characteristics, which could distinguish individuals who create
new ventures from those who do not; from managers; and from other more or
less successful entrepreneurs (McClelland, 1961; Homaday & Aboud, 1971;
Carsrud, Olm & Eddy, 1985; Gartner, Mitchell & Vesper, 1989; Begley & Boyd,
1987; Low & MacMillan, 1988).
37
Evidence of the preponderance of literature investigating the entrepreneur
is given in a quantitative citation analysis of 725 journal articles published in the
Journal o f Small Business Management; International Small Business Journal;
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice; Journal o f Business Venturing; and Small
Business Economics during 1986-1992. Ratnatunga & Romano (1997) report
that the primary topic of entrepreneurship research during that period was
characteristics of entrepreneurs: personality traits and demographic
characteristics.
Although the present study is an investigation of psychological
characteristics of home-based entrepreneurs, non-home-based entrepreneurs
and white-collar, non-management workers, studies of the psychological
characteristics of home-based entrepreneurs are nonexistent. Extant literature
pertaining to home-based entrepreneurship is reviewed in a subsequent section
of this chapter. This section presents studies of psychological characteristics of
entrepreneurs which have been conducted exclusively with non-home-based
entrepreneurs and workers. In addition, this review of literature is not intended to
represent the body of literature of psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs
but is instead focused on six primary psychological constructs, four of which have
been frequently studied in relation to the entrepreneur and which form the basis
of the constellation of attitudes toward entrepreneurship presented in an
upcoming section of this chapter.
38
The four most common psychological constructs are: 1) achievement
motivation, 2) innovation, 3) personal control and 4) self-esteem, which together
comprise the majority of research associating psychological characteristics with
entrepreneurial behavior (Begley & Boyd, 1987). The fifth and sixth
psychological constructs examined in this study, preference for business growth
in revenue and preference for business growth in employment, were suggested in
the emerging home-based entrepreneurship literature as a basis for
distinguishing higher potential, higher growth home-based venture owners, from
those owners seeking to operate lifestyle, or income replacement, home-based
ventures (Masuo, et al., 1992; Loker & Scannell, 1992a). Empirical research has
generally supported relationships between the four common psychological
constructs and the decision to become an entrepreneur (Gasse, 1982; Kets de
Vries & Miller, 1986; Moore, 1986; Sexton & Bowman, 1986; Shaver, et al.,
1996), and a recent series of studies suggests that preference for business
growth may explain entrepreneurial growth behavior (Wiklund, et al., 1997; Hills,
Lumpkin & Singh, 1997; Lewis, etal., 1997; Jackson & Rodkey, 1994).
Therefore, it is proposed that these six psychological constructs can be used in
part to specify a model of entrepreneurship which can discriminate home-based
entrepreneurs from non-home-based entrepreneurs, and from white-collar, non
management workers. Each of the six psychological constructs are discussed
below.
39
Achievement Motivation
Fineman (1977) attributes the formalization of the achievement motive, or
the need for achievement, construct to Murray (1938) who identified the
achievement motive as one of the influences of human behaviour defined in
Murrays system of personality. Murray argues that a need is a force in the brain
region that organizes perception, intellectual activity and action. The need for
achievement is defined as a need:
To accomplish something different. To master, manipulate, or organize
physical objects, human being or ideas. To do this as rapidly as possible.
To overcome obstacles and attain a high standard. To excel ones self.
To rival and surpass others. To increase self-regard by the successful
exercise of talent (Murray, 1938, p. 164).
Murrays Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), a measure in which a subject
reveals {projects) him/herself through imaginative interpretations of pictures that
elicit stories, was the original measure used in the assessment of achievement
motivation of entrepreneurs by McClelland, Atkinson, Clark and Lowell (1953).
McClelland (1961), whose work has been credited as being the major
contribution to the area of the psychology of the entrepreneur (Sexton &
Bowman, 1986; Shaver & Scott, 1991) defines need for achievement (nAch) as
a desire to do well, not so much for the sake of social recognition or prestige, but
the sake of inner feeling of personal accomplishment (McClelland, 1961, p. 110).
In a series of cross-cultural studies of the achievement motive in young males,
comparisons of achievement motive between managers and staff-specialists in
the United States, and between middle level managers and students of law,
medicine and theology in Italy, McClelland (1961) reports that a high need for
40
achievement would influence the self-selection of an entrepreneurial position by
a young person, which included work roles such as salesman, company officer,
management consultant, fund-raiser or owner of a business, that managers
scores were significantly higher than those of staff-specialists on need for
achievement, and that middle-level managers demonstrated significantly higher
need for achievement scores than did the students. This series of studies lead
McClelland to characterize individuals with a high need for achievement as
having a strong desire to be successful. He argues that high nAch individuals
possess the following attributes:
1.
a preference for personal responsibility for decisions
2.
are moderate risk-takers as a function of skill
3.
possess interest in concrete knowledge of the results of decisions (i.e.,

money as a measure of success)
He concluded that a high need for achievement drives people to become

entrepreneurs (McClelland, 1961). McClelland (1965) reports the results of a 14
year longitudinal study of 55 students whom he had tested in 1947 for
achievement motivation, comparing their occupational status in 1961 to their
1947 nAch scores. McClelland argues that, at least for white, college educated
males, the results confirm his theory that individuals with a high need for
achievement seek business occupations of an entrepreneurial nature
(McClelland, 1965). Additionally, McClelland compared the occupational status
data of 158 students to whom the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) had been
41
administered in 1950 and 1951 reporting that males who were high in
achievement motivation sought entrepreneurial business occupations.
Despite McClellands and colleagues' (McClelland & Winter, 1969)
contribution to the body of knowledge of the psychology of the entrepreneur,
namely the development and modification of the Thematic Apperception Test for
testing achievement motive within the domain of entrepreneurship, their work has
been criticized on theoretical, empirical and methodological grounds (Homaday &
Aboud, 1971; Klinger, 1966; Kilby, 1971; Fineman, 1977; Frey, 1984). Frey
(1984) criticized McClellands thesis (1961), that need for achievement was linked
to the economic growth of nations, on three key issues: 1) empirical validity, 2)
theoretical adequacy and 3) policy implications. In addition, the TAT has been
criticized for low predictive validity (Klinger, 1966) and low test-retest reliability
(Miner, 1980).
Rnemans (1977) review of 78 cases in which 22 questionnaire and
projective instruments were used to measure achievement motive including the
TAT, and Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, where correlations among
measures had been computed, noted that in only 28% of these instances were
the correlations positive and significant, suggesting that each appears to measure
different psychological constructs. In a more recent review of eight measures of
achievement motivation specific to the entrepreneurship literature, Johnson
(1990) added no studies in which correlations among measures were reported,
but found a relationship between achievement motivation and entrepreneurship in
20 out of 23 studies examined.
42
The early work of McClelland and colleagues provided a foundation for a
closer examination of the psychological characteristics of the entrepreneur and
spawned a significant amount of research on achievement motivation. Table 2.1
presents selected summaries of studies of achievement motivation and
entrepreneurship. O f note, is the variation of sampling and instrumentation
employed in the research. Despite these variations, however, most researchers
since McClelland have demonstrated a positive relationship between the
presence of an achievement motive and the decision to become an entrepreneur,
suggesting that achievement motivation remains one of the best constructs in the
attempt to account for new venture creation (Shaver & Scott, 1991).
In response to criticism surrounding the Thematic Apperception Test,
namely that the TAT is projective in nature and can be administered and
interpreted only by highly trained psychologists, several studies were conducted
to develop and test objective (pen and paper) measures of need for achievement.
Homaday and Bunker (1970) sought to develop objective tests of higher validity
and reliability, and of ease of administration and interpretation. In a pilot study of
20 Boston-area male entrepreneurs who had been in business for at least five
years, the researchers administered three objective tests: Edwards Personal
Preference Scale (achievement, autonomy and aggression subscales only),
Occupational Interest Survey and the Survey of Interpersonal Values.
43
Table 2.1 Selected summary of studies of achievement motivation and entrepreneurs
........
ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION AND ENTREPRENEURS

Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
McClelland (1961)
U.S., Italian, Polish and Turkish managers (n

= 31,68,31,17, respectively) and staffspecialists (n = 31,107 48,48, respectively)
McClelland's
Thematic
Apperception Test
U.S., Italian and Polish managers exhibited

higher need for achievement scores than did
staff-specialists.
Hornaday & Bunker

(1970)
Boston-area founders of new ventures which

employed at least eight people who had been
operating the business for at least five years
(n = 20).
Edward's Personal
Preference Scale
Founders scored higher than the general

population on need for achievement,
initiative, energy level and self-reliance.
Hornaday & Aboud

(1971)

(n = 34 white males, 22 black males, 2 white
females, 2 black females),
Edwards Personal
Preference Scale
White founders reported higher nAch scores

than black founders and combined scores
were higher than the general population,
Gender-based results not reported.
Hines (1973)
Entrepreneurs, accountants, engineers and

middle-level managers in New Zealand (n =
80, 68, 74, 93 respectively),
Lynn Achievement
Motivation
Questionnaire
Entrepreneurs reported significantly higher

nAch scores than the other three samples,
and engineers and accountants reported no
difference in nAch scores, although the
scores were significantly higher than those
reported for middle-level managers,
Borland (1975)
University of Texas students who were

enrolled in business courses and who were
intending and not intending to create new
ventures (n = 219)
Lynn's
Achievement
Motivation
Questionnaire
Students who were intending to start

businesses scored significantly higher on
need for achievement than those students not
intending to start businesses,
Author (year)
44

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Hull, Bosley & Udell

(1980)
1970-1974 Graduates of University of Oregon

College of Business Administration (n = 307)
categorized as having at least some
ownership in a new business or no ownership
in a new business
Lynn's
Achievement
Motivation
Questionnaire
Significant difference in need for achievement

were detected at the ,10 level between
owner/managers and employees.
Cromie& Johns (1983)
Male founders or intending" entrepreneurs (n

= 42), part-time MBA students, who held
middle to senior managerial positions (n =
41)
Lynns
Achievement
Motivation
Questionnaire and
Kahl's
Achievement
Values
Questionnaire
Entrepreneurs scored slightly higher than the

management control although the difference
was insignificant,
Ahmed (1985)
Entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs (n =

71, 61 respectively) in Bangladeshi
immigrants living in London, UK
Lynn's
Achievement
Motivation
Questionnaire
Significant positive relationship between

need for achievement and entrepreneurship.
Perry, Macarthur,
Meredith &
Cunningham (1985)
Three Australian samples of new or intending

small business owners (71% were intending),
small business owners in the nursery industry
and "super-entrepreneurs" (defined as
owners of businesses generating $A10
million in annual sales revenue), where n =
118,165,18, respectively
Lynns'
Achievement
Motivation
Questionnaire
Aggregate mean scores indicate that super

entrepreneurs exhibited highest nAch scores,
while new and intending small business
owners scored lowest.
45

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Begley & Boyd (1987)
Founder and non-founder members of the

Smaller Business Association of New
England (n = 239)
Edward's Personal
Preference
Schedule
Firm founders ranked higher than non

founders on need for achievement scores
(21.52, 20.84 respectively, with a maximum
score of 25).
Cromie (1987)
Male (n = 35) and female (n = 34) would-be

or very early entrepreneurs in northern
Ireland
Lynn's
Achievement
Motivation Scale
and Kahl's
Achievement
Motives Scale
Male and female subjects scored equally on

need for achievement and significantly higher
than scores reported for validation sample of
naval officers,
Miner (1990)
Comparative study of high-growth

entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs and managers
in New York (n = 65,135, 71, respectively
Miner Sentence
Completion Scale
High-growth entrepreneurs scored

significantly higher on need for achievement
subscale than managers, where normative
entrepreneurs did not differ significantly from
managers on need for achievement.
Robinson, Stimpson,
Huefner& Hunt (1991)
Comparative study of attitudes of founders

and non-founders (n = 54, 57 respectively)
Entrepreneurial
Attitude Orientation
Scale
EAO correctly classified 77% of cases and

entrepreneurs scored significantly higher on
attitude toward achievement in business than
non-entrepreneurs (p<,001)
Chay (1993)
Employees, small enterprise owners and selfemployed in the UK (n = 65, 34,18,

respectively)
Argyle & Robinson

Need-Achievement
Questionnaire
Significant difference on achievement motive

between entrepreneurs (owners and selfemployed's) and employees.
46

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Langan-Fox & Roth

(1995)
Female business founders in Victoria,

Australia (n = 60), who had a minimum 50%
share of business ownership.
Lynns
Achievement
Motivation
Questionnaire and
Kahl's
Achievement
Values
Questionnaire
Cluster analysis produced three clusters:

Need-Achiever (n=15), Pragmatist (n=34),
Managerial (n=11) entrepreneurs.
Pavidsson & Wiklund

(1997)
Three matched pairs of Labour Market Areas

in Sweden (n = 1313 total responses)
Davidsson (1993)
Value Survey
No significant differences exist among

regional scores for achievement motive,
47
The subjects were also asked to make suggestions of factors which they
considered important to entrepreneurship which were not listed. Although the
number of subjects precludes the use of statistical analysis, Hornaday and
Bunker report that entrepreneurs make considerably higher scores than norm
groups on need for achievement.
In a follow-up study (Hornaday & Aboud, 1971), 40 successful
entrepreneurs, where an entrepreneur was defined as a man or woman who
started a business where there was none before, who had at least eight
employees, and who had been established for at least five years (p. 143), were
interviewed and tested with the same instruments used in the pilot study. The
results indicate that entrepreneurs are significantly higher on need for
achievement scales than the general population. There were no significantly
different results by race and due to the small number of females in the study (n =
4), no meaningful gender comparative analyses were made.
Hines (1973) utilized a nonprojective measure of achievement motivation
in his study of entrepreneurs, professional engineers and accountants, and
middle-level managers.
Hines administered the Lynn Achievement Motivation
Questionnaire, or LAMQ, (Lynn, 1969) due to its success at discriminating levels

of achievement motivation among entrepreneurs, managers and other
occupational categories. The results of this study indicate that entrepreneurs
score significantly higher in achievement motivation than the engineers,
accountants and managers, and that there was no difference between the
engineers and the accountants. The difference between the engineers and
48
managers was highly significant, whereas the difference between the accountant
and middle manager groups yielded a significant difference.
Two studies have examined the relationship between achievement motive
and the intention to start a business among university students enrolled in
business and non-business programs. In a study of 219 University of Texas
business majors, Borland (1975) reports that students who were intending to start
businesses upon graduation scored significantly higher on need for achievement
than those students not intending to start businesses. Similarly, Hull, Bosley and
Udell (1980) report that graduates of a business administration program who
were business founders within five years of graduation, scored significantly higher
on need for achievement than those graduates who had not founded a new
business since graduation.
Much research on achievement motive and entrepreneurs has been
conducted with male subjects. In a review of literature, Watkins (1982) cites only
one study of motivations of female entrepreneurs, a study conducted by Schwartz
(1976) of female founders. In that study, although no significant gender
differences in achievement motive scores were found when compared to norm
scores, achievement was found to be a primary motivation of women for starting
a business. Waddell (1983) found no significant differences in achievement
motive between female entrepreneurs and female managers, although female
entrepreneurs were higher in achievement motive than were female secretaries.
In a study of 60 established female entrepreneurs in Australia, Langan-Fox and
Roth (1995) argue that achievement motive among women entrepreneurs may be
49
multidimensional, reporting that a cluster analysis produced three significant
clusters based on high, medium and low levels of achievement motivation and
which were labelled: achievement, pragmatic and managerial entrepreneurs.
A number of studies have undertaken comparisons of entrepreneurs and
managers, and entrepreneurs and non-founders on achievement motivation.
Cromie and Johns (1983) compared the achievement motive scores of business
owners and middle and upper level managers in Ireland, reporting that although
entrepreneurs scored higher than managers on achievement motivation, the
difference was not significant. Miner (1990) also compares high-growth
entrepreneurs, normative entrepreneurs and managers, and reports that high
growth entrepreneurs score significantly higher on achievement than managers,
and concurring with Cromie (1987), that normative entrepreneurs do not differ
significantly from managers on achievement motive. Chay (1993) reports in a
study of entrepreneurs and employees in the UK, that a significant difference in
scores between the two groups was discovered, and that no significant difference
between the two groups was reported for occupational well-being.
Perry, Macarthur, Meredith and Cunningham (1985) studied new or
intending small business owners, existing small business owners and superentrepreneurs, defined as individuals who were operating businesses generating
in excess of A$10 million in annual sales revenue. As expected, the superentrepreneur group reported the highest nAch scores, while the new or intending
group scored the lowest. The authors suggest that due to the high proportion of
intending subjects in the new or intending group (70%), not all subjects would
50
actually start a business and thus, the achievement motive scores for this group
could be expected to be lower. Similarly, Begley and Boyd (1987) compared 69
New England founders and non-founders on need for achievement and report
that firm founders ranked significantly higher than non-founders.
In sum, the achievement motive has been the most widely utilized
psychological construct in entrepreneurship literature to explain why some
individuals initiate ventures while others, under comparable circumstances, do
not. Four observations about achievement motive of entrepreneurs and
approaches to measurement can be made: 1) an achievement motive is present,
and that a relationship exists between the achievement motive of an individual
and the creation of a new venture, suggested by the preponderance of evidence
reviewed here; 2) achievement motive is highly complex and perhaps multi
dimensional, contributing to an explanation of the variation of entrepreneurial
behavior, where the need for achievement appears to be strongest in high-growth
entrepreneurs/super entrepreneurs (Miner, 1990; Perry, e ta l., 1985; Langan-Fox
& Roth, 1995); 3) although achievement motive has shown mixed results in
comparative studies of entrepreneurs and managers, achievement motive may
still be a key factor in the venture creation process; and 4) variability in
operationalization and measurement of the achievement motive construct and in
sampling have been contributing factors to the inconsistency of results. Clearly,
achievement motive is an important factor in understanding new venture creation
and differences in entrepreneurial behavior. W hat is needed is not an end to this
51
line of research as suggested by Gartner (1988) but more careful attention to
operationalization, instrumentation and measurement issues.
Personal Control
Locus of control is another psychological construct that has received a
great deal of attention in the entrepreneurship literature dealing with the
psychology of the entrepreneur. Locus of control is a complex individual
phenomenon concerned with determining the effects of an individuals perception
of personal control, where perceived internal locus of control, internal, is defined
as the personal belief that one has influence over outcomes through ability, effort,
or skills; whereas perceived external locus of control, external, is the belief that
external forces control outcomes. Stemming from Rotters (1954) theory of
social learning, locus of control has occupied a central position in personality
research for nearly forty years (Jennings & Zeithaml, 1983). Yet, locus of
control has only received attention in the entrepreneurship literature since the late
1970s.
In a review of locus of control studies of entrepreneurs, Jennings and
Zeithaml (1983) list nine locus of control studies, only one of which was
conducted prior to 1975. The majority of that research has linked a perception of
internal locus of control over the events in ones life to an individuals propensity
to engage in entrepreneurial behavior (Shapero, 1975; Brockhaus, 1982; Perry,
1990), and has examined this construct in relation to achievement motivation,
where there appears to be a linkage between high nAch scores and high internal
52
locus of control scores (Borland, 1975; Brockhaus, 1980; Ahmed, 1985; Perry, et
aL, 1985). Table 2.2 presents a selected summary of personal control studies of
entrepreneurs.
Unlike investigations of achievement motive which utilize many and varied
approaches to measurement and instrumentation, locus of control and propensity
toward entrepreneurial activity have generally been measured by two scales:
Rotters (1966) l-E Scale and Levensons (1973) Locus of Control Scale. The
significant difference between the two approaches to measurement of locus of
control stems from two perspectives of dimensionality of the locus of control
construct. Locus of control was originally posited as a unidimensional construct,
i.e., internal vs. external locus of control. This conceptualization was
questioned by Lefcourt (1981), giving rise to more complex multidimensional
conceptualizations of locus of control, where internal orientation has remained
intact, however external orientation has been split into two dimensions: influence
of powerful others [P] and influence of chance [C] (Levenson, 1973). More
recently, however, factor analyses of the Rotter scale have identified a political
responsiveness factor and a personal efficacy" factor (Strickland, 1989;
Gatewood, et al., 1995). Shaver and Scott (1991) suggest that the Paulhus
(1983) Spheres of Control personal efficacy subscale is preferable to either the
Rotter or Levenson scales in entrepreneurship research. Subsequent research
utilizing the Paulhus SOC Scale has identified a strong relationship between
internal locus of control and entrepreneurship (Chay, 1993) and intention to start
a business (Gatewood, et al., 1995).
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
Table 2.2 Selected summary of studies of personal control and entrepreneurs
PERSONAL CONTROL AND ENTREPRENEURS

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Borland (1975)
University of Texas students who were

enrolled in business courses and who were
intending and not intending to create new
ventures (n = 219)
Levenson's Locus
of Control Scales
Significant differences in internal locus of

control were reported between students who
expected to start businesses and those who
did not and a relationship was found between
nAch and ILC.
Brockhaus(1980)
Longitudinal study of 31 entrepreneurs, who

at the end of the three year study, were in
business, "successful" or who had ceased
operations, unsuccessful".
Rotter's l-E Scale
Successful entrepreneurs were shown to

have significantly higher internal scores than
unsuccessful entrepreneurs.
Hull, Bosley & Udell

(1980)
1970-1974 Graduates of University of Oregon

College of Business Administration (n = 307)
categorized as having at least some
ownership in a new business or no ownership
in a new business
Levenson's Locus
of Control Scales Internal
No significant differences in locus of control

scores were detected between
owner/managers and employees,
Cromie & Johns (1983)
Male founders or "aspiring" entrepreneurs (n

= 42), part-time MBA students, who held
middle to senior managerial positions (n =
41)
Rotter l-E Scale

internal locus of control scores than
managers and "aspiring" entrepreneurs
scored significantly higher on internal locus
of control than established entrepreneurs.
Sexton & Bowman

(1984)
218 university students arranged in three

groups: 45 entrepreneurship majors, 75
business majors, 98 non-business majors.,
Levenson's Locus
of Control Scales Internal
Entrepreneurship majors scored significantly

higher than non-business majors and higher
than business majors on internal locus of
control,
54
Table 2.2 Selected summary of studies of personal control and entrepreneurs

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Ahmed (1985)
Entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs (n =

71,61 respectively) in Bangladeshi
immigrants living in London, UK
Rotter l-E Scale
Significant positive relationship between

internal locus of control and
entrepreneurship.
Perry, Macarthur,
Meredith &
Cunningham (1985)
Three Australian samples of new or intending

small business owners (71% were intending),
small business owners in the nursery industry
and super-entrepreneurs (defined as
owners of businesses generating $A10
million in annual sales revenue), where n =
118,165,18, respectively
Levensons Locus
of Control Scale:
Internal, Powerfulothers, Chance
The results indicated than small business

owners have a lower POLC and CLC score
than new and intending entrepreneurs, and
the super-entrepreneurs have a lower CLC
score than small business owners.
Founder and non-founder members of the

Smaller Business Association of New
England (n = 239)
Rotter l-E Scale
No significant difference was reported among

founders and non-founders on locus of
control (7.78, 7.73 respectively, with a
maximum score of 10).
Cromie (1987)
Male (n = 35) and female (n = 34) would-be

or very early entrepreneurs in northern
Ireland
Rotter's l-E Scale
Male and female subjects scored equally on

locus of control and significantly higher than
scores reported for validation sample of
managers.
Greenberger & Sexton

(1987a)
Undergraduate and graduate students

majoring in entrepreneurship, or functional
areas of business.
Rotter's l-E
Shortened Scale
Significant relationship between locus of

control and anticipation of new venture
initiation.
55
Table 2,2 Selected summary of studies of personal control and entrepreneurs

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Robinson, Stimpson,

Entrepreneurial
Scale
Entrepreneurs scored significantly higher on

attitude toward personal control in business
than non-entrepreneurs (p<.001)
Chay (1993)
Employees, small enterprise owners and selfemployed in the UK (n = 65, 34,18,

respectively)
Paulhus Spheres
of Control Scale
Significant difference on locus of control

between entrepreneurs (owners and selfemployeds) and employees,
Gatewood, Shaver &

Gartner (1995)
Intending entrepreneurs (SBDC pre-venture

clients) (n = 116)
Paulhus Spheres
of Control Scale
Locus of control items were significantly

correlated to intention to start a business,
Kaufman, Welsh &

Bushmarin (1996)
Russian entrepreneurs and students (n =

174,126 respectively)
Levenson's Locus
of Control Scale:
Internal, Powerful
others, Chance

levels of perceived internal control (I) than
either powerful others (P) or chance [C] (p. <
.01), although entrepreneurs scored lower on
internal locus of control. Russian
entrepreneurs scored significantly lower than
US normative entrepreneurs,
Brandstatter (1997)
Founders and heirs of small and medium

sized businesses and "intending"
entrepreneurs (n = 157, 98,113,
respectively) members of the Upper Austrian
chamber of commerce and industry
16 Personality
Adjective Scale
(16PA)
Brandstdtter (1988)
Individuals who found businesses are similar

to intending" entrepreneurs in terms of
emotional stability, desire for independence
and control (locus of control) and innovation.
Heir scores were significantly different from
founders and intending".
56
University and college students majoring in entrepreneurship, in the
functional areas of business or in non-business programs of study have been the
subjects of several personal control studies. One of the earliest studies of locus
of control and intention to start a business was Borlands (1975) study of
University of Texas intending and non-intending business students. Using
Levensons Locus of Control Scales, Borland reports significant differences in
internal locus of control scores between the two groups (p. < .05). In addition,
she reports strong positive and negative relationships between locus of control
scores and need for achievement, where high nAch scores were related to
internal locus of control scores, and low nAch scores were related to external
locus of control scores. Her results also suggested an interaction between
internal locus of control and need for achievement, where she reports that among
those with low nAch scores, those with higher internal locus scores were found to
have a greater expectancy than others of starting a business, while among those
with high nAch scores, level of internal locus of control made no difference in the
expectancy of starting a new venture (Borland, 1975).
In a replication of Borlands (1975) study, Hull, Bosley & Udell (1980)
report no significant differences in locus of control scores among University of
Oregon Business Administration graduates who had sought employment or small
business ownership upon graduation. Yet, in a study of entrepreneurship
majors, general business majors and non-business majors, Sexton & Bowman
(1984) report that entrepreneurship majors scored significantly higher than non
business majors (p. < .01), and higher than business majors (p. < .05) on
57
Levensons Internal Locus of Control Scale. The inconsistency of results
reported between these studies may be attributed to group differences, where
Sexton & Bowman (1984) collected data from entrepreneurship majors who, a
priori, may possess stronger intentions to start businesses than their business
and non-business counterparts.
In a comparative study of Russian entrepreneurs and students, Kaufman,
et al., (1996) report significantly higher levels of perceived internal control than
powerful-others or chance scores for entrepreneurs. O f interest, is the higher
total reported score on internal locus of control among students than
entrepreneurs, explained by the researchers as a difference in the perception of
the influence of powerful others between entrepreneurs and students, where
entrepreneurs are adjusting to new levels of actual personal control in a free
market system. Kaufman, et al., highlights the capability of Levensons I, PO, C
Scale to capture cultural influences on entrepreneurial behavior more accurately
than Rotters l-E scale, due to its multi-dimensionality.
However, Ahmed (1985)
reports a significantly positive relationship between internal locus of control and

entrepreneurs in his comparative study of Bangladeshi immigrants to London,
UK, using Rotters l-E Scale.
Comparisons of locus of control scores between founders, intending
founders and non-founders is another common theme in the literature relating to
person control of entrepreneurs. Perry, et al. (1985) utilized the three Levenson
Locus of Control subscales in a study of Australian normative founders, very
new or intending founders, and super-entrepreneurs, defined as owners of
58
businesses generating $A10 million in annual sales revenue. Rndings indicate
that super-entrepreneurs report the highest internal locus of control scores, while
new and intending entrepreneurs report the lowest internal locus of control
scores. In addition, the results indicate that the normative entrepreneurs have
lower powerful-others (POLC) and chance (CLC) scores than do new and
intending entrepreneurs. Interestingly, super-entrepreneurs reported significantly
lower CLC scores than the other two groups, suggesting that high-growth
entrepreneurs may differ in perception of control than other entrepreneurs.
In a study of male founders, intending founders, part-time MBA students
and managers, Cromie and Johns (1983) report significantly higher internal locus
of control scores for entrepreneurs than managers, while no other differences
between groups were significant. Similarly, in a study of New England Small
Business Association members, Begley and Boyd (1987) report no significant
differences between founders and non-founders on locus of control.
Utilizing an alternative conceptualization of entrepreneur, Brandstatter
(1997) conducted a comparative examination of psychological characteristics of
founders, heirs (defined more commonly in North American literature as family
business successors), and intending entrepreneurs in Austria. He reports that
founders and intending entrepreneurs are similar in terms of 1) emotional stability,
2) desire for independence and 3) perceived control of outcomes (locus of
control), measured with the 16-Personality Adjective Scale (Brandstatter, 1988).
Heirs, however, scored significantly differently from the other two groups on these
59
three measures, implying that conceptualizations of entrepreneur should include
family business successor" as one of the dimensions.
In sum, the personal control construct has been the subject of much
research and debate in entrepreneurship. There exists considerable
disagreement concerning the dimensionality of the construct, although more
recent studies have fairly consistently approached personal control as multi
dimensional. This debate has given rise to different approaches to
conceptualization and measurement, which may be the largest contributing factor
to the inconsistency of results reported here. Certainly, entrepreneurship
research would benefit from improved measurements and methods relating to the
association between personal control and entrepreneurship.
Self Esteem
Entrepreneurship literature suggests self-esteem as a related construct to
internal locus of control and achievement motive of entrepreneurs, although much
less attention has been given this construct both in entrepreneurship and in the
broader psychological literature. One reason for the paucity of studies
investigating self-esteem of entrepreneurs is the argument that internal
inconsistency characterizes most constructs concerning the self (Wylie, 1974).
More contemporary views of self-esteem include dynamic and interactive
concepts of the self:
the self is seen as a dynamic structure that mediates most significant
intrapersonal processes (including information processing, affect and
motivation), and a wide variety of interpersonal processes (including social
60
perception, partner and interaction strategy; and reaction to feedback).
(Markus & Wurf, 1987, p. 300).
Thus, a contemporary definition of self-esteem which captures the dynamic and
interactive nature of the self is:
the awareness of good possessed by the self; the degree to which an
individual perceives himself or herself to be good, a perception which is
open to feedback from self and others. (Campbell, 1984, p. 9).
There is agreement in the entrepreneurship literature that entrepreneurs
possess high levels of related, although unique concepts of self-esteem, selfconfidence and self-efficacy (Timmons, 1978; Brockhaus, 1980; McClelland &
Winter, 1969), and that these concepts are necessary but insufficient conditions
of successful entrepreneurship. Table 2.3 presents a summary of selected
studies of the association between self-esteem and entrepreneurship.
In a pilot study of 20 male Boston-area entrepreneurs, Homaday and
Bunker (1970) report that self-esteem and confidence, and high energy were the
most frequent responses given when subjects were asked to list psychological
factors believed by them to be associated with successful entrepreneurship. In a
follow-up study of 60 male and female entrepreneurs, Homaday and Aboud,
(1971) report that 77% of black subjects and 53% of white subjects rate
themselves as possessing a very high level of self-esteem. In two separate
studies of college students, Sexton and Bowman (1983, 1984) report significantly
higher self-esteem scores for entrepreneur-majors, than for general-business and
non-business majors. Using an attitude-based instrument, the Entrepreneurial
61
Table 2.3 Selected summary of studies of self-esteem and entrepreneurs
SELF-ESTEEM AND ENTREPRENEURS

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Hornaday & Bunker

(1970)
Pilot study of 20 male entrepreneurs in the

Boston area.
Structured
Interviews
Purpose of the study was to determine

psychological factors judged by
entrepreneurs to be related to success. Self
esteem and self-confidence, and high energy
were most frequent responses,
Hornaday & Aboud

(1971)

(n = 34 white males, 22 black males, 2 white
females, 2 black females),
Self-evaluation
Scale
53% of white founders reported having high"

levels of self-esteem, while 77% of black
founders report having high" levels of self
esteem (65% combined score for high levels
for self-esteem)
Kets de Vries (1977)
Business owner-managers (n = 40)
Clinical
observations and
interviews
Clinical observation and interviews provide

evidence of an association between low self
esteem and business creation.
Sexton & Bowman

(1983)
401 students arranged in four groups: 63

entrepreneurship majors, 115 business
majors with an entrepreneurship elective, 110
business majors, and 113 non-business
majors.,
Jackson
Personality
Inventory

than general business and business majors
with an entrepreneurship elective on self
esteem characteristic.
Sexton & Bowman

(1984)

business majors, 98 non-business majors,,
Jackson
Personality
Inventory

than business majors on self-esteem.
62
Table 2.3 Selected summary of studies of self-esteem and entrepreneurs
SELF-ESTEEM AND ENTREPRENEURS

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Robinson, Stimpson,

Entrepreneurial
Scale

attitude toward self-esteem in business than
non-entrepreneurs (p<,001)
Single clinical case study
Clinical
observation and
interviews
Behaviour of entrepreneurs may not be

based on a secure sense of self-esteem but
rather low self-esteem, where entrepreneurs
counteract feelings of low self-esteem and
inferiority through excessive control and
activity,
63
Attitude Orientation Scale, Robinson, et al., (1991) report a significant difference
between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs on perceived self-esteem in
business.
Kets de Vries, however (1977, 1996) argues that low, not high, self
esteem is associated with entrepreneurial behavior. In a series of clinical
observations and interviews reported as two single case studies, Kets de Vries
suggests that entrepreneurs may counteract feelings of low self-esteem,
inferiority and helplessness though excessive control and activity and that their
behavior is reactive in nature. His case studies suggest that as self-esteem
builds in the individual in business, usually as a result of positive business
outcomes and successes, excessive activity and the need to control appears to
diminish. He argues that levels of self-esteem rise and fall, a consequence of the
individuals interaction with the outer world.
One explanation for the apparently disparate findings related to the self
esteem construct could be the situational specificity in which the self-esteem
construct is being observed or measured. General levels of self-esteem as
reported by Kets de Vries can be misleading when applied to a specific situation
such as business ownership. These clinical studies are examples of the
weakness of the personality, or broad general tendencies approach to
understanding behavior in a specific domain such as entrepreneurship.
In sum, the self-esteem construct has received less attention in the
literature than achievement motive and personal control, yet, a positive
relationship between self-esteem and entrepreneurial behaviour is suggested by
64
extant literature involving quantitative measurement of self-esteem. Clinical case
studies suggest that the opposite is true, that many entrepreneurs are continually
in search of an admiring audience to shore up fragile and low senses of selfworth. Obviously, further investigation of the self-esteem construct and
entrepreneurial behaviour is warranted before any conclusions can be drawn
about its importance as a factor in new venture creation.
Innovation
A fourth psychological construct investigated in the present study is
openness to, or preference for, innovation. In the entrepreneurship literature, as
in the broader literature regarding innovative behavior in organization, innovation
is often equated with creativity, where the entrepreneur is viewed as a creative
person. The notion of entrepreneurs as innovators is deeply rooted.
Schumpeter (1934) is arguably the most noted theorist at the centre of the idea
that entrepreneurial activity is associated with change in the economic system.
He describes entrepreneurial change as innovation, meaning change that breaks
the circular flow of economic equilibrium by introducing new combinations of
the factors of production. Existing patterns are creatively destroyed by
innovation making room for new combinations. Thus, entrepreneurs innovate by
creating unique combinations of production factors, by discovering new products,
markets, methods of manufacturing or distribution, by identifying new sources of
material or by generating new forms of organization (Schumpeter, 1934). Drucker
(1985) also perceived innovation as being an integral part of entrepreneurship,
65
where he defines entrepreneurship as innovation in a business setting, and
innovation as the specific tool of entrepreneurs by which they exploit business
opportunities. While a majority of literature views economic innovation as a
necessary aspect of entrepreneurship, it is not sufficient to fully bound
entrepreneurial activity (Rosenfeld, et al.,1993).
Entrepreneurs face numerous challenges as they pursue business
opportunities thus, of interest in the domain of the psychology of entrepreneurs, is
how entrepreneurs go about solving problems presented in the pursuit of these
opportunities. Their innovativeness, problem-solving styles and creativity is of
interest to those who investigate the association between entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurial activity. Despite the stated association between entrepreneurs
and innovation and creativity, the number of studies empirically investigating the
relationship between entrepreneurs and personal innovation have been few, and
the measurement of creativity and innovation has been haphazard" (Robinson,
1987). A summary of studies investigating the relationship between innovation
and entrepreneurs is presented in Table 2.4.
Kirtons (1976) Adaption-lnnovation Theory has been used as a theoretical
framework for much of the investigation within entrepreneurship as well as within
the broader organizational literature, as a means of conceptualizing cognitive
styles of creativity, decision-making and problem-solving. Kirton (1976, 1987)
developed a theory which defines a continuum of problem-solving styles and
66
Table 2.4 Selected summary of studies of innovation and entrepreneurs
INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURS

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Business owner-managers (n = 40)
Clinical case
studies
An association between entrepreneurs and

innovative behavior exists,
Carland et al, (1984)
Founder owner-managers categorized as

either entrepreneurs or small business
owners (n = 77)
Patchen Measure

preference for innovation than small business
owners.
Sexton & Bowman

(1983)
401 students arranged in four groups: 63

entrepreneurship majors, 115 business
majors with an entrepreneurship elective, 110
business majors, and 113 non-business
majors.,
Jackson
Personality
Inventory

than general business and business majors
with an entrepreneurship elective on
preference for innovation,
Sexton & Bowman

(1984)

business majors, 98 non-business majors.,
Jackson
Personality
Inventory

than business majors on preference for
innovation.
Smith & Miner (1985)
Faster-growth founders, slower-growth

founders and non-founders (n = 50, 47, 37
respectively)
Miner Sentence
Completion Scale FormT
Faster-growth founders scored significantly

higher than slower-growth founders and non
founders on preference for personal
innovation scale.
Smith, Bracker & Miner

(1987)
National Science Foundation awardee

entrepreneurs (n = 195) and managerscientists (n = 45)
Miner Sentence
Completion Scale Form T
Entrepreneurs scored significantly higher

than scientist-managers of preference for
personal innovation scale,
67

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Corman, Perles &

Vancini (1988)
High-technology companies and founders (n

= 22)
In-depth interviews
Interview data was compared to that of

normative data and indicated that high-tech
founders did not differ from other
entrepreneurs in relation to preference for
innovation,
Miner (1990)
High-growth entrepreneurs defined as

founders whose companies employed at least
10 people, normative entrepreneurs,
managers (n = 65,135, 71 respectively)
Miner Sentence
Completion - Form
T
High-growth entrepreneurs score significantly

higher on preference for innovation than
normative entrepreneurs and managers.
Robinson, Stimpson,

Entrepreneurial
Scale

attitude toward innovation in business than
non-entrepreneurs (pc.OOl)
Buttner &Gryskiewicz
(1993)
Entrepreneurs, defined as founders, owners

and operators of the business (n = 81)
Kirton AdaptionInnovation
Inventory
Entrepreneurs scored significantly higher

than normative US managers.
Rosenfeld, WingerBearskin, Marcic &

Braun (1993)
Entrepreneurs, defined as founders, whose

business had a positive cashflow after 2
years and for whom the business was the
primary income (n = 44), manager from a
single division of a large company (n = 189)
and Kirton's original sample as the normative
group (n = 562)
Kirton's Adaption Innovation

Inventory
Total Kirton Inventory Scores and scores for

each subscale (originality, efficiency, rule
conformity) indicate significant differences
between all three groups, where
entrepreneurs scored highest and the general
population scored lowest on all three
subscales.
68

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Baum (1995)
Growth-stage entrepreneurs in the

architectural woodwork industry (SIC2431)
(n = 363)
Self-report
Competencies and
Growth Data
Innovativeness and creativity was found to

have a strong positive relationship to
business growth.
Walsh & Anderson

(1995)
Irish owner-managers grouped as either

founder or non-founder
Kirton AdaptionInnovation
Inventory
Significant difference in orientation toward

innovation between founders and non
founders.
Boter & Holmguist

(1996)
Six in-depth case studies of Nordic firms:

three innovative, three conventional
In-depth case
analysis
Conventional companies possess

characteristics typical of family-owned
businesses; whereas the innovative
companies worked in teams often with
partners from other companies and/or
organizations; where innovative and change
behaviour was part of the culture.
Kassicieh, et at.,
(1996)
Survey of spin-off entrepreneurs (n = 24)

versus internal corporate venture (ICV)
inventors (n = 213) at three US laboratories
personal
characteristics,
situational
variables and EAO
Scales
Significant differences in attitude orientation

were found between inventors and spin-off
entrepreneurs, where spin-off entrepreneurs
scored significantly higher on measures of
achievement, innovation, self-esteem and
personal control,
69

Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Brandstatter (1997)
Founders and heirs of small and medium

sized businesses and intending"
entrepreneurs (n = 157, 98,113,
respectively) members of the Upper Austrian
chamber of commerce and industry
16 Personality
Adjective Scale
(16PA)
Brandstatter (1988)
Individuals who found businesses are similar

to intending" entrepreneurs in terms of
emotional stability, desire for independence
and control (locus of control) and innovation.
Heir scores were significantly different from
founders and "intending".
Zapalska (1997)
Male and female entrepreneurs in Poland (n

= 110, 40 respectively)
Self-report of
psychological
characteristics
60% of male, and 100% of female

respondents indicated possession of
innovative and creative characteristics.
Author jyear)
70
contended that an individual can be placed along a dimension of adaption and
innovation, where innovators see guidelines as part of the problem and often
incorporate new and untried processes into their solutions (Buttner &
Gryskiewicz, 1993). Innovators are risk-takers who challenge and attempt to
change the guidelines, who prefer less structured work environments and to do
things more effectively than efficiently. Conversely, adaptors work within a
cognitive system or framework where problems are defined and analyzed within
that existing system or framework. Adaptors tend to be more conservative and
their behavior and solutions tend to be reinforcing of existing frameworks and
guidelines. Thus, Kirtons theory has gained fairly recent popularity within the
entrepreneurship domain as a way to differentiate entrepreneurs (innovators)
from managers (adaptors) (Buttner & Gryskiewicz, 1993; Rosenfeld, etal., 1993;
Walsh & Anderson, 1995).
The instrument developed by Kirton to operationalize his theory is the
Kirton Adaptive-lnnovation (KAI) Inventory, a 32-item self-report with three
subscales: 1) originality, 2) group/rule conformity, and 3) efficiency. Studies
utilizing the KAI in entrepreneurship suggest the general finding that
entrepreneurs are innovators and managers or non-founders are adaptors.
Buttner & Gryskiewicz (1993) studied the problem-solving styles of 81
entrepreneurs who were founders, owners and operators of their firms,
comparing the results to normative US managers scores. The authors report
significantly higher scores for the entrepreneur group on ail three subscales than
for those reported by US managers and that no significant differences were
71
reported among male and female entrepreneurs. The authors caution that a
small entrepreneur sample size compounded by self-selection by respondents
may have influenced the results and that further research is necessary to verify
the absence of gender differences in problem-solving styles.
In a comparative study of entrepreneurs, managers and the general
population (Kirton's (1976) original study sample) Rosenfeld, etal., (1993) report
that entrepreneurs scored significantly higher than did managers and the general
population on the total KAI inventory score as well as on each subscale score.
Rosenfeld, et al., (1993) introduces the concept of KAI subscale zones,
suggesting that the KAI inventory may be logically divided into four zones:
adaptive, mid-range adaptive, mid-range innovative and innovative. They argue
that zones make more conceptual sense than using raw score reports, and that
zone terminology can facilitate interpretation of complex patterns of subscale
scores within populations.
In a comparative study of founders and non-founders in Belfast, Ireland,
Walsh and Anderson (1995) investigated the potential link between
entrepreneur's adaptive or innovative decision making preference and the firm's
employment performance. They report a clear difference in orientation toward
innovation between owner/founders and non-founders, that Irish founders are not
as innovative as a normative sample of US entrepreneurs and that the adaptiveinnovative preference of the founders was not related to either the level of
employment or the employment growth of their businesses. The authors suggest
that any relationship between owner/founder innovativeness and employment
72
performance is influenced by intervening variables, such as the rate of new
product development, or prevailing economic conditions. Although studies of
entrepreneurs and preference for innovation as measured by the KAI are scarce,
the results so far suggest that entrepreneurs are indeed more innovative than
managers or non-founders.
Other measures have been used to assess the relationship between
entrepreneurs and preference for innovation. In two separate studies, Sexton &
Bowman (1983,1984) applied the Jackson Personality Inventory to measure the
preference for innovation among business and non-business university students.
In both studies, the results indicate that entrepreneurship majors score higher on
preference for innovation than do general business and non-business students.
Smith and Miner (1985, 1987) examined the preference for innovation
between faster-growth and slower-growth entrepreneurs and non-founders in the
first study and between entrepreneurs and manager-scientists in the second
study. Both studies indicated significantly higher scores for the faster-growth
entrepreneurs and for the entrepreneurs, than for scientist-managers and nonfounders.
Using an attitude-based instrument, the Entrepreneurial Attitude
Orientation (EAO) scale, Robinson, etal. (1991) reporta significant difference
between founders and non-founders on attitudes toward innovation in business.
Kassicieh, et al. (1996) examined the differences among spin-off corporate
entrepreneurs and internal corporate venture inventors at three US laboratories
on attitudes toward entrepreneurship measured by the EAO scale, including
73
attitudes toward innovation as well as personal characteristics and situational
factors. The authors report significant differences in attitude toward innovation
exist between corporate and spin-off venture entrepreneurs and suggest that
effectiveness of spin-off entrepreneurship could be enhanced by selecting
persons with a predisposition toward entrepreneurship, as measured with the
Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation scale (Robinson, etal., 1991).
A number of studies have reported an association between preference for
innovation and entrepreneurship from clinical observations, case studies and indepth interviews. Kets de Vries (1977, 1997) reports that an association between
entrepreneurs and innovative, creative behavior exists, but that this behavior
could be labelled the dark-side of the entrepreneurial mind. He argues that
those interested in the entrepreneur would do well to heed the complex drama
playing in the inner world of [entrepreneurs]. They will discover the extent to
which many decisions and actions in organizations turn out to be ex post
rationalizations (pp. 877-878). He suggests that entrepreneurs occupy a position
on a continuum of normality and pathology which produces a mix of creative and
irrational thought and action, which he sees as the hallmarks of the entrepreneur
(Kets de Vries, 1997). Corman, Perles and Vancini (1988) conducted a series of
in-depth interviews with high-technology founders, reporting that high-tech
founders did not differ from other entrepreneurs in terms of their preference for
innovation, thus supporting the results from the Sexton & Bowman (1983, 1984)
studies of high-growth and high-tech founders.
74
Other studies have suggested that the entrepreneur construct is
multidimensional in nature, and that degree of innovation preference can be used
as a delineating measure among types of entrepreneurs. A study conducted by
Cariand, et a!., (1984) validates a conceptualization of entrepreneurs as either
growth-oriented or lifestyle-oriented, as significant differences on preference for
innovation were discovered between entrepreneurs and small business owners.
In addition, Brandstatter (1997) discovered significant differences among Austrian
founders, heirs and intending entrepreneurs, where heirs, defined as individuals
who inherited a family-run business, scored lowest on preference for innovation
than did the other two groups.
In a study of internationalization processes of
small Nordic firms, Boterand Holmquist (1996) report significant differences in

innovative behavior between three innovative and three conventional, family-run
businesses. Two distinct forms of processes emerged between innovative and
traditional firms. Innovative companies and founder/owners demonstrated a
global focus, while traditional firms demonstrated internationalization processes
which were dictated by a strong commitment to the region, country, industry and
controlling family members.
In sum, the research which investigates the relationship between
entrepreneurship and preference for innovation is limited, although recent studies
which utilize Kirton's adaption-innovation inventory to establish the presence of a
relationship between entrepreneurs and preference for personal innovation may
spark additional investigations. Of those studies reviewed here, few applied
consistent instrumentation or methods, however, making study comparisons
75
risky, if not impossible. Yet, the notions of innovation and creativity have been
linked with entrepreneurs since the early eighteenth century, where
entrepreneurship played a significant role in the change from feudal to open
market system (Drucker, 1985). Thus, preference for innovation holds promise
as a line of inquiry for further understanding the entrepreneur.
Preference for Business Growth in Revenue and in Employment

The final two psychological constructs examined in this study are
preference for business growth in revenue and in employment. That business
growth objectives are synonymous with those of the owner-manager of a micro
enterprise, particularly in the pre-start-up, launch and early-growth stages of a
new venture, is generally agreed upon in the entrepreneurship literature (Birley &
Westhead, 1994). Consequently, the choice of a growth orientation rests
primarily with the owner-manager of a small firm, and most definitely with selfemployed owners. Thus, business growth decisions are not only influenced by
commercial decisions but by personal lifestyle choices as well.
Multidimensional conceptualizations of entrepreneurs, such as
entrepreneurs and small business owners (Carland, etal., 1984), fastergrowth and slower-growth entrepreneurs (Smith & Miner, 1983, 1984); superentrepreneurs and entrepreneurs (Perry, et al., 1985); or high-potential and
lifestyle entrepreneurs (Timmons, 1990), suggest preference for business
growth as a means for differentiating among micro- and small business owners.
McClelland (1961) posited that individuals differ with respect to the value
attributed to economic achievements and that these differences affect

entrepreneurial efforts. Yet, only very recently and by a handful of researchers,
has the preference for business growth construct, most often operationalized as
growth motivation, been examined as a cognitive process, rather than as a
performance outcome, of entrepreneurship. Table 2.5 presents a selected
summary of studies which examine the association between entrepreneurs
preference for business growth and venture creation and growth. Of those
studies adopting a cognitive view of business growth preference, many and
varied measures of growth motivation were used and an unfortunate lack of
discussion relating to scale development undermines the significance of the
results reported.
A significant amount of effort in the literature has been expended on
determining factors associated with small firm growth and performance. Birchs
(1979) study of job creation in the United States generated a firestorm of activity
by academics, governments and policy makers promoting small business as a
panacea for economic problems in view of their apparent potential for job and
wealth creation (Westhead & Birley, 1995). Associations between growth and
performance and a host of factors including: 1) founder characteristics, 2)
personality traits, 3) industrial characteristics, 4) firm capitalization, 5) competitive
structure, 6) growth strategies, 7) environment, and 8) support services have
been examined and found to have an influence on the level of firm success
achieved (Dunkelberg & Cooper, 1982; Dunkelberg, et al., 1986; Woo, et al.,
1989). Preference for business growth, as it pertains to the present study, is
77
Table 2.5 Selected summary of studies of preference for business growth in revenue and in employment
PREFERENCE FOR BUSINESS GROWTH AND ENTREPRENEURS

"T
Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Dunkelberg & Cooper

(1982)
National Federation of Independent Business

(NFIB) members (n = 1805)
Questionnaire
No significant differences among founders

between growth goals and actual growth.
Davidsson (1989)
Owner/managers of small firms in Sweden ( n

= 337 for both telephone and mail-follow-up)
Self-report of
expected growth
outcomes and
growth willingness
For majority of owner-managers, deterring

growth outcome expectations override
motivating incentives once firm size of 5-9
employees is reached.
Davidsson (1991)
Owner/managers of small firms in Sweden (n

= 423)
Self-report of
actual growth rates
and growth
motivation
Two distinct types of entrepreneurs emerged:

status quo and growth-oriented, and that
perceived ability, need and opportunity
influence growth motivation.
Birley & Westhead

(1994)
Owner-managers of new independent

business in the UK ( n = 405)
23-item
questionnaire
concerning start-up
and growth
motivations
The desire for high earnings ranked 7th out of

23, while the desire to contribute to the
welfare of the community, or of the people
around me, ranked 17th and 19th respectively.
Study identified 8 types of entrepreneurs.
Westhead & Birley

(1995)
Owner-managers of new independent

businesses in the UK (n = 744)
Questionnaire
testing 88
independent
variables
Owner-manager characteristics including

growth motivations are not correlated to
actual business growth.
78
Table 2.5 Selected summary of studies of preference for business growth in revenue and in employment
PREFERENCE FOR BUSINESS GROWTH AND ENTREPRENEURS

Author (year)
Sample
Instrumentation
Key Findings
Gartner, Shaver, Allen,

Bhat, Gatewood (1997)
San Francisco retail, wholesale,

manufacturing, service and distribution firms
(n = 1288)
Self-report of
growth
expectations and
factors affecting
business growth
Growth expectations in revenue and in

employment were found to be associated with
the ownership of larger and older businesses.
Growth expectations were negatively
correlated to ownership of certain types of
firms, ie. neighbourhood grocery stores,
service stations, and to perceptions of
neighbourhood crime.
Solymossy (1997)
Longitudinal study of Hungarian

entrepreneurs (n = 40 in 1990, n = 341 in
1996)
Self-report
measures of
motivations for
venture initiation
Success is viewed as economic necessity, no

growth or employment motivation. Survivalist
mentality due to recent economic turmoil.
WiKlund, Davidsson,
Delmar & Aronsson
(1997)
1271 Swedish small business owner/founders

representing four size categories 1-4, 5-9,
10-19,20-49 employees
Self-report
measures of
growth willingness
and expected
consequences of
growth
Strong relationship exists between growth

willingness (in employment and revenue) and
expected consequences of growth, and that
expectations concerning the effect of growth
on employee well-being" is the singlemost
important determinant of over-all grwoth
willingness.
79
considered to be an internal, cognitive construct which directs business growth
activity. Thus, only cognitive-based studies will be reviewed in this section.
Davidsson (1989, 1991; and Wiklund, et al., 1997) embarked on a
research program which investigated Swedish entrepreneur's expectations of
growth outcomes and associated growth willingness in sales revenue, asset
turnover and employment. Respondents in three separate investigations were
asked to indicate how a doubling of the number of employees in their business
would affect each area including: workload, work tasks, employee well-being,
personal income, control of operations, level of independence, survival of crises
and product or service quality. Findings from these studies suggest that
deterring growth outcome expectations override growth motivating incentives
once a firm size of 5-9 employees is reached, where concern for employee well
being was identified as the single most important determinant of overall growth
willingness. Wiklund, et al., (1997) caution that cultural idiosyncracies and
Swedish legislation prohibiting most employment lay-off situations lower the
generalizability of the findings. Nonetheless, Swedish entrepreneurs appear to
balance growth motivation with a strong desire to protect their employees well
being. The authors suggest further research will help to determine the level of
cultural influence on their findings.
In a series of studies of UK owner-managers, Westhead & Birley (1995)
and Birley & Westhead (1994) report that while the desire for high earnings was
ranked 7th out of 23 business growth outcomes, growth motivations are not
correlated to actual business growth. The authors suggest that growth motivation
80
is a complex, multidimensional construct which is influenced by many factors
outside of the entrepreneur, which explains why some individuals end up as
entrepreneurs somewhat unintentionally.
Gartner, et al., (1997) investigated over 1200 firms in San Francisco in an
effort to determine ex post factors associated with growth expectations.
Intentions toward future growth in revenue and in employment were significantly
related to past behavior, where growth expectations were associated with the
ownership of larger and older businesses. Growth expectations were negatively
correlated to ownership of certain types of firms, i.e., neighborhood grocery
stores, dry cleaners, and service stations, as well as to perceptions of levels of
neighbourhood crime.
Business growth, as a cognitive construct, has only recently received
attention in the entrepreneurship literature. In the small and micro-business
context, preference for business growth is clearly associated with life-style choice
and thus, the level of business success desired by the business owner. These
recent studies suggest an entrepreneur's attitude toward the growth of his or her
business may hold promise as a means of differentiating high-potentials from
life-styles. Nowhere is this differentiation more necessary than in the homebased entrepreneurship population.
The discussion of the literature to this point has revolved around an
explication of the six constructs investigated as attitudes toward entrepreneurship
in the current study as related to entrepreneurs. This study involves a
comparison of attitudes among entrepreneurs as well as a comparison to
81
attitudes of white-collar employed workers. In the next section, the studies which
have compared entrepreneurs and white-collar, professional employees are
discussed.
Comparative Studies of Psychological Characteristics Of Entrepreneurs and O f

White-Collar Workers
Relatively few studies have been conducted which compare entrepreneurs
and white-collar (professional) workers on the basis of the six psychological
constructs which inform the present study. Much more attention has been
directed toward comparisons of entrepreneurs and managers (Cromie & John,
1983; Hines, 1973; Begley & Boyd, 1987) in attempts to clearly delineate a set of
entrepreneurial over managerial characteristics. Attention is directed in this
study not to a comparison of entrepreneurs and managers which has been the
most common comparative approach in the literature, but to a comparison of
home-based entrepreneurs, non-home-based entrepreneurs and white-collar,
non-management employees. There are two reasons for this comparison: 1)
white-collar workers are the theoretical equivalent of home-based business and
small commercial business owners due to the homogeneity of the home-based
and non-home-based entrepreneur and white-collar, non-management worker
populations in terms of demographic and human capital characteristics of age,
education and experience (Rowe, 1992; Silver, 1993), and 2) many home-based
entrepreneurs in the population of interest created a home-based business in
response to non-management job loss due to economic restructuring and
82
corporate downsizing initiatives in the oil and gas industry in Alberta (Roberts, et
al., 1995). Thus, a comparison of entrepreneurs and non-management
employees was conducted for the current study.
Of those few studies which examine entrepreneurs and the general
population, or entrepreneurs and employees on the basis of psychological
characteristic differences, a few consistent findings have emerged. In general, 1)
entrepreneurs are higher in achievement motive than are workers (McClelland,
1961; Hines, 1973; Hull, Bosley & Udell, 1980; Begley & Boyd, 1987; Robinson,
etal., 1991; Chay, 1993); 2) high-growth entrepreneurs exhibit higher
achievement motive scores than normative entrepreneurs (Miner, 1990; Perry, et
al., 1985); and 3) entrepreneurs are higher in need for achievement than are
members of the general population (Ahmed, 1985; Begley & Boyd, 1987). In
terms of perceived person control, entrepreneurs report: 1) higher internal locus
of control scores than do workers (Hull, Bosley & Udell, 1980; Ahmed, 1985;
Robinson, etal., 1991; Kaufman, Welsh & Bushmarin, 1996; Chay, 1993); and 2)
higher levels of self-esteem than workers (Robinson, et al., 1991). Entrepreneurs
also have a higher preference for personal innovation over workers (Smith &
Miner, 1985; Smith, Bracker&Miner, 1987; Robinson, etal., 1991; Rosenfeld, et
al., 1993; Walsh & Anderson, 1995). No comparative studies of entrepreneurs
and workers on the basis of preference for business growth were found, although
Davidsson (1997) suggests that employee opinions on business growth are likely
to impact the growth orientations of small firms, particularly micro-businesses,
owner/managers of very small firms.
83
Collectively, the findings of studies which have compared entrepreneurs
and workers on the basis of psychological characteristics, tend to support the
general proposition that an individual who undertakes the initiation of a new
business venture is different from one who does not, given comparable situational
and environmental circumstances. The findings reviewed here support the
generalized notion that entrepreneurs are higher in achievement motive, desire
for innovation, perceived personal control, self-esteem and preference for
business growth than are managers and workers.
Summary of Psychological Characteristics

The underlying assumption of the majority of research reviewed here is
that entrepreneurs share a similar set of personality characteristics, and that this
common set of personality traits distinguishes an entrepreneur from others. Yet,
these studies have been unable to consistently identify common entrepreneurial
traits which distinguish entrepreneurs from other business people, namely
managers. In addition, the psychological characteristic approach to
understanding entrepreneurs covers many and varying definitional, conceptual,
theoretical and methodological approaches. These variations in approach have
contributed to inconsistency and inaccuracy of findings, poor statistical power,
poor construct validity and non-reliability (Sexton & Bowman, 1984), leading
some researchers to call for an end to this line of inquiry (Gartner, 1988).
Robinson, Stimpson, Huefher and Hunt (1991) argue that the lack of
progress in personality research is not so much attributable to a lack of
84
psychological characteristics that distinguish entrepreneurs firom others, but to
problems with the theories, methods and measures used to test supposed
associations with entrepreneurs. In fact, when these empirical issues are
addressed, studies of the psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs have
yielded statistically significant results of practical and theoretical significance
(Sexton & Bowman, 1983, 1984).
An understanding of the psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs
provides a basis for understanding the process of new venture creation. From
this perspective, the entrepreneur, including his or her psychological
characteristics, is important because the entrepreneur is seen as the energizer of
the entrepreneurial process (Johnson, 1990). Studies which can contribute to
the understanding of the entrepreneurial process, including new firm creation and
performance, are needed. What is needed more urgently, however, are more
rigorous approaches to sampling, measurement and instrumentation and models
which are dynamic and account for the influence of person-situation interaction.
Although situational and environmental variables are considered to be key
elements of the entrepreneurial process and of theories of person-situation
interaction, the scope of this study is limited to an investigation of personal and
organizational characteristics associated with home-based and non-home-based
entrepreneurship. Thus, only approaches to understanding individual and
organizational characteristics applied in entrepreneurship research are reviewed
in the following section of the literature review.
85
Individual and Organizational Characteristics
Although a recent shift in the entrepreneurship literature toward
entrepreneurial process-based studies has been noted (Ratnatunga & Romano,
1997), individual and organizational level variable research has contributed a
great deal to an understanding of the characteristics of individuals who choose to
initiate new business ventures and of the types of organizations initiated.
Although this line of inquiry in entrepreneurship has been labeled shotgun
empiricism (c.f. Mumford & Stokes, 1996), the study of human individuality
accepts that people are the sum total of their behavior and experience (Allport,
1937), where an individuals background and experiences play a crucial role in
determining future courses of actions. Thus, an understanding of an
entrepreneur's demographic and human capital characteristics play a necessary,
if insufficient role in understanding entrepreneurship.
Two types of individual-level variables will be overviewed in this section:
1) demographic (biodata) characteristics including gender, age, and life-cycle
stage; and 2) human capital characteristics including education and experience.
The majority of studies within the realm of home-based work and home-based
entrepreneurship have been undertaken to determine background characteristic
data of home business owners, and characteristics of the enterprises being
operated. Table 2.6 presents a selected summary comparison of demographic
and human capital characteristics of entrepreneurs and of home-based
entrepreneurs.
86
Table 2.6 Selected summary comparison of demographic and human capital characteristics
of entrepreneurs and of home-based entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurs
Characteristic
Studied
Finding
Gender
Age
Life-cycle
Stage
Home-based Entrepreneurs
Author (year)
Finding
Author (year)
More male than female

small business
ownership (70% male)
Brush(1992)
More male than female

home-based ownership
(60% male)
Foster & Orser, 1993

Rowe, Stafford & Owen, 1992
Roberts, et al,, 1995
Lee, 1991
Between 25 - 40 years of
age at time of start-up

Cooper & Dunkelbeg (1987)
Between 35 - 55 years of
age at time of start-up
Masuo, Walker & Furry, 1992

Foster & Orser, 1993
Roberts, et al., 1995
Entrepreneurs are no
more likely to have
children at home than
general population
Robinson & Sexton (1994)
Full-nest family stage

with an average of two
children at home
Rowe, Stafford & Owen, 1992

Heck, 1991
Desire to be home with

family is key motivation
women owners
Masuo, Walker & Furry, 1992
Table 2,6 Selected summary comparison of demographic and human capital charar.tftristir.ft
ofentrepreneurs and of home-based entrepreneurs
Characteristic
Studied
Education
Entrepreneurs
Finding
Author (year)
Finding
Entrepreneurs are better

educated than the
general population
Cooper, Gimeno-Gascon, Woo

(1994)
Cooper & Dunkelberg (1987)
Brockhaus(1980)
Home-based
entrepreneurs are better
than high school
educated
Foster & Orser (1993)
Self-employed are better

educated than the
general population
Robinson & Sexton (1994)

Bates (1990b)
Roberts, et al., (1995)
Female self-employed
entrepreneurs are better
educated than male selfemployeds
Home-based
entrepreneurs possess
university or college
education
Bates (1990b)
Dolinsky, et al., (1993)
Positive correlation
between advanced
education and business
longevity
Bates (1990b)
Founders are less

educated than non
founding owners
Author (year)
88
Table 2.6 Selected summary comparison of demographic and human capital characteristics
of entrepreneurs and of home-based entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurs
Characteristic
Studiecj
Finding
Experience
Author (year)
Average number of years

of work experience prior
to self-employment 17.4
for males, 10,5 for
females
Bates (1995)
Experience is multi
dimensional: technical,
managerial,
entrepreneurial
Butt & Khan (1996)
Pre-ownership task
similarity experience
related to performance
Chandler (1994,1996)
Chandler & Hanks (1994)
Prior venture experience

related to performance
Stuart & Abetti (1988,1990)

Birley & Westhead (1993)
Bird, 1993
Finding
None found
Author (year)
89
Gender
Most research in entrepreneurship has focused on male business owners
(Brush, 1992), thus only a handful of studies have been conducted which
examine the venture creation process and characteristics according to gender
differences. Research suggests systemic differences exist among male and
female business owners. Female entrepreneurs tend to be better educated and
older than other females in general, and better educated than male managers
(Humphries & McClung, 1981), although female levels of experience are half that
of male entrepreneurs (Bates, 1990b, 1995; Robinson & Sexton, 1994).
Bates
(1990b) posits that female entrepreneurs compensate for less work experience
by obtaining higher levels of education or more experience. Srinivason, Woo &
Cooper (1994) discovered systemic differences between male and female-owned
ventures in performance, where female-owned businesses were more likely to
succeed if the venture was closely related to past work experiences.
Characteristic studies have suggested that the typical entrepreneur makes

the decision to initiate a new venture between 25 and 40 years of age (Cooper &
Dunkelberg, 1987), yet, home-based entrepreneurs appear to be somewhat older
than other entrepreneurs, between 35 and 55 years of age at time of founding
decision (Foster & Orser, 1993; Roberts, et al., 1995). This founding age
difference may be explained in part due to organizational restructuring and
corporate downsizing programs which provide opportunities for late-career
90
employees to initiate home-based consulting ventures. Bates (1995) reports the
US Bureau of Statistics average age of white male and female entrepreneurs as
37.6 and 37.8 years, respectively, whereas Robinson and Sexton (1994) report
the mean age of self-employed workers and wage workers as 44.13 and 40.95,
respectively. Thus, entrepreneurs appear to be slightly older than salaried
employees, and no significant differences exist in the age of male and female
entrepreneurs although the age of the business owner at founding may impact
the growth intentions of the owner. For example, late career home-based
entrepreneurs may be less concerned with employment or revenue growth, where
the home-based income can be seen as a substitution of full-time employment
income. At the present time, no study has been conducted to investigate the
growth intentions of home business owners at various life-cycle or career stages.
Life-cycle Stage
Sociological investigations of home-based entrepreneurship have
examined the relationship between the presence of young children and the
propensity to start a home-based venture. Clearly, the presence of young
children influences the home-based venture decision for many home-based
entrepreneurs (Gritzmacher, 1992; Heck, 1992). Interestingly, findings suggest
that female home business owners with young children at home combine work
and family roles, whereas male home business owners with young children at
home report the presence of a spouse who attends to childcare as well as to parttime work in the home business (Rowe, et al., 1992). Compared to entrepreneurs
91
in general, home-based business owners are more likely to have young children
at home than other entrepreneurs (Rowe, et al., 1992), yet as a whole,
entrepreneurs are no more likely to have young children at home than are
members of the general population (Robinson & Sexton, 1994; Bates, 1990b).
Education and Experience

Perhaps the most consistent characteristics which distinguish
entrepreneurs from the general population are the human capital variables of
education and experience.
Robinson & Sexton (1994) report a strong positive
relationship between levels of education and experience and earning potential of

self-employed individuals. Bates (1990a, 1990b, 1995) concurs, suggesting level
of education is the most important factor in identifying entrants into skilled
services self-employment, followed by number of years of experience. Cooper
and Dunkelberg (1981) report that level of education is associated with the type
of entry into business ownership, where individuals who initiate or purchase a
business have a lower level of education than do individuals who inherit or are
brought in to operate the business. Additionally, education and experience levels
tend to vary significantly by industry. Bates (1995) reports that, in the
construction industry for instance, years of work experience has no relationship to
self-employment entry, whereas college education reduces the likelihood of selfemployment.
The findings related to education and experience and home-based
entrepreneurship are inconsistent or nonexistent. Reported levels of education
92
vary cross-regionally, where a national study of home-based entrepreneurs in
Canada suggests a level of education consistent to that of population norms,
high school completion (Foster & Orser, 1993). Yet, a municipal study of homebased entrepreneurs in Calgary, Alberta suggests a higher mean level of
education than the Canadian norm, university or college completion (Roberts, et
al., 1995). No studies were found to report levels of work experience of homebased entrepreneurs.
The majority of demographic and human capital research has been
conducted with sample frames limited by geographic area, or business type
(Bates, 1990b) and usually limited to unidimensional conceptualizations of
experience and education. Thus, to suggest that a characteristic profile of a
typical entrepreneur, or home-based entrepreneur exists is risky. Nonetheless, a
handful of large scale studies have contributed to an understanding of a profile
based on key demographic and human capital variables in the entrepreneurship
literature (Bates, 1990a; Cooper & Dunkelberg, 1987), but not, however, in the
home-based entrepreneurship literature.
Organizational Characteristics
In an earlier review of psychological studies of the entrepreneur,
Brockhaus & Horowitz (1986) note that a focus on founder characteristics
neglects the significance of the types of businesses being operated by
entrepreneurs, and call for increased attention to the types of businesses being
operated and to comparisons of entrepreneurs and businesses across industry
93
and geographic location. This concern for broadening the scope of psychological
studies of the entrepreneur to include situational, organizational and
environmental factors has been expressed by many in the field (Bygrave, 1993;
Bygrave & Hofer, 1991; Jacques, 1992) and has been responsible for the
increase in process-oriented studies of late.
The majority of research relating to organizational characteristics in the
entrepreneurship literature has involved net change performance measures of
sales revenue, profit, asset turnover, employment, as well as characteristic
measures of type of business and number of years of operation (Smith & Miner,
1984, 1985; Smith, Bracker, & Miner, 1987; Begley& Boyd, 1987; Chandler &
Hanks, 1994; Chandler, 1996; Greening, etal., 1996; Mullins, 1996; Westhead,
1995; Begley, 1995; Box, et al., 1994). Growth in employment and growth in
revenue have emerged as distinctive growth orientations of small firm owners,
where an expressed desire for business growth may mean in revenue, in
employment, or in both (Westhead, 1995).
Summary of Individual and Organizational Characteristics

A great deal of effort has been expended in the entrepreneurship and
home-based entrepreneurship literatures on measuring characteristics of owners
and of the businesses being operated, yet this line of inquiry has been subject to
criticism. Whereas characteristic variables inform the breadth and depth of an
area of entrepreneurship inquiry in an exploratory sense, prediction of who will or
will not become an entrepreneur is unimproved (Robinson, et al., 1991). A
94
characteristic approach to understanding entrepreneurial behavior assumes that
behavior is strongly influenced by demographic, situational or organizational
characteristics, which is contrary to what psychologists believe about experiences
- that it is not the experiences one has, but the conclusions one draws from ones
experiences, that influence future actions (Rokeach, 1968; c.f. Robinson, et al.,
1991). As well, both personality trait and characteristic approaches are based on
a psychological paradigm that assume temporal and situational stability of traits
and characteristics. The argument put forth recently by Kets de Vries (1996)
that entrepreneurial behavior and the entrepreneurs sense of self at any given
point in time is a response to the entrepreneurs interaction with persons and with
the environment, although a reactive perspective of human behavior, suggests
that a more dynamic and interactive approach to understanding entrepreneurs is
needed.
Attitude theory, which forms the theoretical framework of the present
study, is discussed in the following section and summarizes the major areas of
attitude theory which inform the present study including attitude theory of human
behavior, the tripartite model of attitude, inconsistencies in the attitude-behavior
relationship, factors affecting the attitude-behavior relationship, attitude
measurement and the development and validation of the Entrepreneurial Attitude
Orientation (EAO) scale which will be used in the present study to determine
home-based business and non-home-based business owners attitudes toward a
constellation of entrepreneurial attitudes.
95
Attitude Theory
The attitude concept has recently reentered the social psychology arena
following a foray into personality models of human behaviour and a call for more
dynamic, interactive, holistic and open-system models of human behaviour
(Mitchell & James, 1989). Attitude theory and attitudinal models of behaviour are
beginning to appear in the entrepreneurship literature (Robinson, et al., 1991;
Christensen, 1994; Gasse, 1982; Greenberger & Sexton, 1987; Carsrud &
Johnson, 1989; Kassicieh, et al., 1996). The foundations of attitude theory are
presented in this section to provide a theoretical framework for the current study,
beginning with a review of attitude definitions.
Definitions of Attitude
Most definitions of attitude imply a relationship between attitude and
behavior. Thus, definitions of attitude incorporate phrases indicating the
influence of attitude on behavior. Three definitions of attitude which illustrate the
relationship between attitude and behavior are presented below.
Attitude is a mental and neural state of readiness organized through
experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individuals
response to all objects and situations with which it (attitude) is related
(Allport, 1935);
Attitude is a drive-producing response considered socially significant in
the individuals society (Doob, 1947);
An attitude is a general and enduring positive and negative feeling about
some person, object, or issue (Petty and Cacioppo, 1981).
96
Although formal definitions of attitude vary, most contemporary social
psychologists agree that the characteristic attributes of attitude are its evaluative
(pro-con, positive-negative) dimension (Ajzen, 1989), and its essential feature as
a preparation or readiness for response (Allport, 1971). This view is
strengthened by the fact that virtually all standard attitude scaling techniques
result in a score that locates an individual on an evaluative continuum in relation
to the attitude object: the person, place, institution, event or any discriminable
aspect of an individuals world, at which the attitude is directed (Greenwald,
1989). These definitions demonstrate two theoretical assumptions which underlie
contemporary views of attitude: 1) that attitudes drive behavior either through a
mental or neural state of readiness, (Allport, 1935) and 2) that attitudes are either
a unidimensional or multidimensional construct (Rajecki, 1990).
The definition proposed by Petty and Cacioppo (1981), that an attitude is
a general and enduring positive and negative feeling about some person, object,
or issue (p. 31) is an example of a unidimensional attitude construct comprised
of an affective component only, referring to a persons evaluation of or feelings
toward an attitude object (Thurstone, 1931). Affective response measures would
be comprised of statements relating to ones feeling toward an attitude object.
For example, statements such as: Being my own boss is one of the most exciting
things I could imagine or I couldnt stand to work for someone else are
examples of affective-only responses. A more complex view of attitude suggests
that an attitude is comprised of three distinct components: affective, cognitive and
conative components which manifest as thoughts, feelings and actions directed
97
toward an attitude object This multi-dimensional view of attitude is represented
with the tri-partite model of attitude, the model which forms the theoretical
framework for this study.
Tripartite Model of Attitude

A more complex classification system of attitudes distinguishes among
three categories of responses: affective, cognitive, and conative (Allport, 1954;
McGuire, 1985), or expressed as feelings, thoughts and actions. According to
McGuire (1985), this trichotomy was first used by early Greek philosophers as a
way of conceptualizing general human experience rather than attitudes but was
seen to influence early social psychologists nonetheless (e.g. Bogardus, 1920).
Triandis (1971) credits Rosenberg and Hovland (1960) as the originators of the
tri-partite model of attitude depicted in Figure 2.1. They argue that attitudes can
be conceptualized as consisting of cognitive, affective and conative components
and that traditional physiological measures of attitude (changes in pulse or
breathing rates, eye movement, pupil dilation) are informative of only the affective
component of attitude (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960, p.3).
It is generally acknowledged that attitude is a latent (directly unobservable)
construct and must be inferred from measurable responses, and that these
responses must reflect positive or negative evaluations of the attitude object.
Based on Rosenberg and Hovlands (1960) model, Ajzen (1989) distinguishes
different types of responses from which attitudes can be inferred. Ajzens (1989)
classification of responses is presented in Table 2.7.
98
Figure 2.1; Schematic conception of attitudes
Measurable independent
variables
Intervening variables
Measurable dependent
variables
Sympathetic nervous
responses/
Verbal statements
of affect
Stimuli:
Individuals, events,
social issues, groups,
objects
M iM r w-
Perceptual responses/
Verbal statements of
belief
.^lt
Overt actions/ Verbal

statements about
behavior
Adapted from Rosenberg, M.J. and C, I, Hovland (1960) Cognitive, affective and behavioral components of attitudes, from Attitudes, Organization
and Change: An analysis o f consistency among attitude components, edited by M.E. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland, W. J. McGuire, R. P. Abelson,
and J. W, Brehm, Yale University Press, p. 3.
99
Table 2.7: Aizens (1989) classification of responses used to infer attitudes
Response Category
Response
Mode
Cognition
Affect
Conation
Verbal
Expressions of
beliefs about
attitude object
Expressions of
feelings toward
attitude object
Expressions of
behavioral
intentions
Nonverbal
Perceptual
reactions to
attitude object
Physiological
reactions to
attitude object
Overt behaviors
with respect to
attitude object
From Ajzen, I. 1989. Attitude, Structure and Behavior, in A. Pratkanis, S. Breckler, S. and A.
Greenwald, (eds.) Attitude, Structure and Function, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates,
p.242.
100
Affective responses reflect a subjects feelings or emotions toward an
attitude object. Verbal affective responses are expressions of feeling toward an
attitude object. In the context of the present study, an example of a verbal
affective response is: I get excited about the prospect of running my own
business. The cognitive category of responses reflect perceptions of and
information about the attitude object held by the subject. Verbal cognitive
responses are usually expressions of beliefs that link certain characteristics or
attributes with an attitude object, such as I know home-based businesses allow
greater flexibility of scheduling, or I believe that a home business will let me
spend more time with my family. Conative responses are expressed behavioral
intentions, commitments and actions relating to the attitude object. Thus, verbal
conative responses would be expressions of behavior, planned behavior or
reasoned behavior under certain circumstances, such as I plan to increase my
companys revenue by 10% next year.
An attitude can be viewed as a system of evaluated concepts, images,
schemas related to an attitude object (McGuire, 1989), and although the three
components are conceptually distinct, there is evidence that the three
components of attitude are highly interrelated (Triandis, 1971). In a study
designed to validate the affective-cognitive-conative structure of attitudes,
Kothandapani (1971) measured womens attitudes toward contraceptives. He
constructed a multi-trait, multi-method matrix to measure the convergent validity
of the tri-partite model, developing four different scales (Thurstone-, Likert-,
Guttman- and Guilford-type) for each of the three attitude components, then
101
measuring womens feelings, beliefs and behavioural intentions toward
contraception. Intercorrelation measures indicated that each component
correlated higher with itself than with other components over different methods of
measurement, thus lending support to the separate validity of the tri-partite model
(Rajecki, 1982). Figure 2.2 presents a structural representation of a tripartite
model of attitude illustrating the interrelationships among the three attitude
components adapted from Rajecki (1982, p. 3).
Attitude - Behavior Relationship

Inconsistency in the attitude-behavior relationship has been the source of
academic debate for decades. At issue: can attitudes be used to predict
behavior? In an early and oft-quoted experiment of the attitude-behavior
relationship, LaPiere (1934) traveled through parts of the US with a Chinese
couple, stopping at 66 hotels and motor inns and 184 restaurants and was
refused service only once. Six months after the trip, LaPiere directed a letter to
the establishments visited, as well as to a control group of establishments not
visited, asking if the establishment would provide service to Chinese guests. Of
the 128 responses received, 92% indicated that service would not be provided to
Chinese guests, suggesting that individuals shift behavior regardless of
expressed attitudes. The inconsistency between attitudes and behavior has been
attributed to a number of factors: 1) situational hurdles, Campbell (1963); 2)
inadequate assessment of the attitude (Rokeach, 1968); 3) perceived degree of
CM
~-1w "
--x j,
I
\
c
o
c
o
O
X I
e
o
33
C
03
<
O
O
^k.1
<ni
x
o
:|^T\
c
e
e
<
<
o
Q.
So
*3
= Factor
loadings
Eigure 2,2 Structural representation of a tri-partite model of attitude
2<
103
dissonance which may alter overt behavior; and 4) attitude-object incompatibility
(Greenwald, 1989).
In the 1970's and 1980's two major programs of research succeeded in
clarifying attitude-behavior relations: 1) Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) demonstrated
that attitude and behavior are correlated: i) when the observed behavior is judged
to be relevant to the attitude; ii) when attitude and behavior are observed at
comparable levels of specificity; and iii) when mediation of the attitude-behavior
relation by behavioral intentions is taken into account; and 2) Fazio (1986)
showed that attitude and behavior are correlated when the attitude is based on
direct experience with the attitude object and when the attitude is cognitively
accessible (Greenwald, 1989). Inconsistencies in the attitude-behavior
relationship suggests that researchers must use care when specifying the attitude
object in attitude measurement.
It has been posited that inconsistencies in the attitude-behavior
relationship result from a failure to define the context in which the attitude objects
are to be evaluated (Greenwald, 1989). For example, if the attitude object is a
rose, a respondent might evaluate the rose in terms of its appearance, fragrance
or colour, its membership in the larger categories of flowers, or its purpose as a
symbol of love between two people, all of which will be quantitatively different.
According to Ajzen (1989), this issue of ambiguity in the interpretation of an
attitude object is best dealt with by the principle of compatibility, explained as:
Any dispositional measure, whether verbal or nonverbal, can be defined in
terms of four elements: the action involved, the target at which the action
is directed, the context in which it occurs, and the time of its occurrence.
104
Two indicators of a disposition are compatible with each other to the extent
that their action, target, context, and time elements are assessed at
identical levels of generality or specificity. The generality or specificity of
each element depends on the measurement procedures employed (p.
249).
According to the compatibility principle then, consistency between two
indicators of a given disposition is a function of the degree to which the indicators
assess the disposition at the same level of generality or specificity. Thus, the
more similar the action, target, context, and time elements of a verbal response
to an object (the attitude) to the elements of a nonverbal response (the behavior),
the stronger should be the statistical relation between the two. For example, the
correlation between responses regarding the attitude object home-based
business employment growth and the home-based business owner's stated
intention of employing more people would be higher than the correlation between
responses regarding the attitude object employment growth in business and the
intended behavior of employing more people in my home business because of
the increased specificity of the attitude object.
The importance of compatibility for ensuring strong attitude-behavior
correlations, i.e., measures of the relationship between ones thoughts, feelings
and intended behaviors toward an attitude object and ones actual behaviors, has
been well documented. According to Ajzen (1989), research over the years has
demonstrated three points consistent with the compatibility principle: 1)
correlations tend to be low when verbal measures of global attitude are correlated
with nonverbal measures of specific behaviors; 2) verbal measures of attitude
toward a general target correlate well with equally general measures of behavior
105
with respect to the same target; and 3) attitudes toward a specific behavior tend
to correlate well with performance of the behavior in question. Ajzens principle of
compatibility suggests that if the specificity of the attitude object is matched by
the specificity of the behavior used to validate the attitude, then relatively strong
attitude-behavior correlations will result.
Greenwald (1989) proposes an alternative classification of cognitive
concepts, suggesting that relations among these concepts can be interpreted in
terms of levels of representation. In a levels of representation (LOR) system,
representational units of each of several systems (levels) are constructed from
units of an immediately subordinate, but qualitatively distinct, system of
representations. Each higher level succeeds in representing properties of the
environment that are not captured by lower levels (Greenwald, 1989, p. 430).
Greenwald suggests that a specific LOR theory, the LORh5 (levels of
representation (LOR) human (h) with 5 levels of representation) can be used to
interpret cognitive concepts. The five levels of the LORh5 are features, objects,
categories, propositions, and schemata and attitude objects can be
representations at any of the highest four levels of the LOR. Table 2.8 presents
Greenwalds LOR^ with examples of appropriate attitude objects as well as the
motivational constructs that apply at each level.
Greenwald argues that the breadth of the current concept of attitude
precludes precise reference and suggests that attitude object specificity is
assured by restricting the interpretation of an attitude to the level or domain from
which the attitude is chosen, thus increasing precision. For example, attitudes
106
Table 2.8: Greenwald's LORh5 System
Level
Description
Attitude object examples
Constructs
Feature
deals with primitive sensations
taste, temperature, texture, sound
affect, appetite, drive, feeling
Object
individual items, combinations of

features
a friend, an automobile, an insect, a

poison ivy plant
attitude, emotion, incentive
Category
class membership relation permits

objects to be grouped into units of the
third level
Eskimos, paintings, snakes,

Christmas trees
attitude, value
Proposition
syntactic relations among categories
terrorists hijacking airplanes, citizens

paying income taxes, drinking to
become intoxicated
attitude, belief, intention, opinion,

value
Schema
rule-governed groupings of
propositions
psychoanalytic theory, the game of

baseball, the ten commandments, a
career in medicine
attitude, motive, emotion, plan,

ideology, script, justification
Adapted from Greenwald, A. 1989. Why attitudes are important, in Pratkanis, Breckler and Greenwald (eds.) Attitude, Structure and Function,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 430-433,
107
toward an attitude object such as a rose are a combination of object level
concepts, thus interpretation of an attitude toward an individual rose should be
restricted to the object level and not to all flowers in general (category level),
gardening for relaxation (propositional level) or horticulture (schema level)
(Greenwald, 1989).
Although attitude remains a powerful approach to understanding and to
predicting human behavior, it has not escaped criticism. Festinger (1964)
observed a lack of support for the expectation that changes in attitudes should
lead to changes in behavior toward their objects. Similarly, Wicker (1969) found
only weak correlations between measures of attitudes and measures of overt
behavior.
However, it has also been reported that trait-behavior correlations
typically range from .10 to .30 (Epstein, 1984), while attitude-behavior

correlations typically range from .40 to .70 (Ajzen, 1982; Ajzen & Madden, 1986,
Triandis, 1971) . Within the domain of entrepreneurship research, no studies
were found to have investigated attitude-behavior consistency.
Attitude is recognized as a central theoretical construct for describing the
motivational significance of mental objects: cognition of mental objects and the
objects instrumentality in achieving desired goals. There is hope that attitude
theory will inform new avenues of entrepreneurship research. In the following
section, four approaches to attitude measurement are briefly reviewed.
108
Attitude Measurement
Standardized verbal-specific methods of attitude measurement are by far
the most popular (Triandis, 1971; Rajecki, 1990). The classic approaches to this
type of attitude measurement include types developed by Thurstone (1928),
Likert (1932), Guttman (1944) and Edwards (1957) and involve statements about
the attitude object in question. Tripartite models of attitude generate three
attitude scales per attitude object: respondents beliefs about the attitude object
understudy (cognitive component), respondents feelings regarding the
desirability of the attitude object (affective component) and the respondent's
intended behavior toward the attitude object (conative component).
Four methods of attitude scaling will be briefly discussed in this section: 1)
semantic differential, a direct self-report scaling technique; 2) Thurstones method
of equally-appearing intervals; 3) Guttmans cumulative scales; and 4) Likerts
method of summated ratings. The latter three scales are referred to as indirect
scales which combine the respondents judgements on several questions in order
to develop a measure of their position on the attitude object in question. Indirect
scales are often referred to as attitude scales.
The semantic differential scale, originally developed by Osgood (Osgood,
Suci &Tannenbaum, 1957) is a multi-dimensional attitude measure. The
semantic differential method presents a single concept (the attitude object) to be
evaluated on a seven-point rating scale bound by polar adjectives. Respondents
are instructed to check the blank location which most accurately reflects their
position regarding the object in connection with each of the polar adjectives. For
109
example, if the attitude object was starting your own business and the polar
adjectives were risky-not risky, necessary-unnecessary, inexpensive-expensive,
the respondent would indicate using one of the seven points where he or she
would place their attitude toward the attitude object of starting a business. Each
position on the scale can be assigned a numerical value such as 1 to 7, or -3 to
3. Although the semantic differential is a versatile and discriminating research
tool, one limitation relates to the requirement that the scales be composed of true
bipolar adjectives or phrases.
Thurstone, Guttman and Likert scales involve uni-dimensional attitude
measures. One of Thurstones measures, the method of equally appearing
intervals, involves the development of a large number of statements expressing a
wide range of equidistant degrees of attitude toward an attitude object under
study. Judges sort the statements according to the objects favourability and to
their own feeling regarding the attitude object. The median position assigned to
each statement by the judges is the scale value of that statement, resulting in an
ordinal scale.
The Guttman scale places all attitude statements toward a given attitude
object on a continuum of high to low intensity. It is assumed that a respondent
will endorse all statements up to a certain point of the intensity continuum. If the
most extreme statement the respondent would endorse is known to them, other
less intensity statements can be predicted. A persons score on a Guttman scale
is found by examining the pattern of items endorsed (Christensen, 1994; Shaver,
1987).
110
Perhaps the most popular indirect scaling technique is the Likert scale
which involves a series of statements related to the attitude in question. The
respondent is required to indicate the degree of agreement or disagreement with
each of these statements, usually in terms of five categories: strongly agree,
agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. Responses
are given a numerical score that will reflect the direction of a persons attitude on
each statement. The respondents total score is calculated by summing scores
for all statements. The statements are analyzed to determine which of them
discriminate most clearly between high scorers and low scorers. Statements
which do not indicate a substantial correlation with the total score or do not elicit
different responses from those who score low on the overall test are eliminated.
This process, referred to as the method of summated ratings, increases the
internal consistency or reliability of the measurement technique Atkinson, et al.,
1996; Triandis, 1971). Although reliability and validity of these measurements are
comparable, Likert measures appear to be more valid, based on a criteria of
reported behaviours (Triandis, 1971).
Summary of Attitude Theory

It has been suggested that attitude theory, specifically the tripartite model
of attitude, be used as an alternative approach to personality trait and
characteristic approaches in investigations of entrepreneurial behavior (Robinson,
1987; Robinson, et al., 1991; Gasse, 1982). An attitude approach to studying
entrepreneurs holds several advantages: 1) attitude theory rests on a substantial
111
base of research in the broader social science literatures as well as in certain
streams of management literature, namely consumer behavior; 2) attitudes are
seen as being less stable than personality traits, changing across time and
situation through interactive processes with the environment (Triandis, 1971;
Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960), thus attitudes are dynamic; 3) attitude-based
instruments account for more variance in behavior than do trait or characteristic
instruments (Ajzen, 1982; Ajzen & Madden, 1986); and 4) standardized scale
development techniques should increase the validity and reliability of findings in
the area. The Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) scale is one instrument
which incorporates an attitude orientation in the measurement of attitudes toward
entrepreneurship. Underlying assumptions, and theory, measurement and
development issues concerning the EAO scale are considered below.
The Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) Scale

Robinson (1987) developed the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO)
scale to test the hypothesis that attitude measures have a higher discriminant
validity than do personality trait-based measures or demographic measures in
distinguishing entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs, where a refined instrument
was reported by Robinson, Stimpson, Huefherand Hunt (1991). Since 1991, the
Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation scale has been applied in descriptive,
attitudinal-based studies of the entrepreneur (Shaver, et al., 1996; Hoge, 1995)
as well as in comparative studies of business starters and non-starters
(Christensen, 1994) and of internal corporate venture managers and spin-off
112
entrepreneurs (Kassicieh, et al., 1996), where significant differences in attitude
orientation were reported in both comparative studies.
Although a relatively new attitudinal instrument when compared to some
reported in the psychological characteristics section of the literature review such
as the Kirton (1976) adapter-innovator scale, or the Paulhus (1983) spheres of
control scale, the EAO scale incorporates several advantages. First, the EAO
scale is comprised of four attitudinal subscales including: 1) achievement in
business, 2) innovation in business, 3) perceived personal control of business
outcomes, and 4) perceived self-esteem in business achievement. Thus,
consistent theoretical, measurement and scale development techniques were
applied in its development and testing, representing a strength over other studies
which have seemingly patched together different scales with little or no thought to
compatibility issues. Second, the four attitude subscales were selected from an
extensive review of the literature on entrepreneurship as being four of the most
highly relevant and studied psychological variables (Robinson, 1987). Third, the
EAO scale is based on the tri-partite model of attitude discussed previously in this
section and therefore captures not only affective measures but cognitive and
conative measures as well. Fourth, the EAO scale was developed within the
domain of entrepreneurship and thus, because of attitude-object specificity, will
likely produce more accurate measurements of attitudes toward entrepreneurship
than broad-based general tendency instruments reviewed in the previous section
of the literature. Finally, the EAO was developed and tested according to
113
standard attitudinal scale development techniques. The EAO development and
testing procedures are described in more detail below.
Over 700 scale items were generated based on achievement, innovation,
personal control and self-esteem and which captured either affect, cognitive or
conative measures. The attitude items were screened for content validity and
appropriateness, a process which lowered the number of scale items to 262.
Each of the attitudes is assessed using 10-point Likert-type scale items. The
questionnaire was administered to 91 introductory psychology students who
classified each scale item as being either affective, cognitive or conative. Items
which did not achieve at least 60% agreement as to which component of the
tripartite model of attitude was being assessed were removed, reducing the
number of items in the questionnaire to 91.
Test-retest reliability of the EAO was established with the second class of
introductory psychology students, where 63 students were administered the test,
then retested in one week. The test-retest correlations for each subscale were
personal control r = .71, p < .001; need for achievement r = .74, p. <.001;
innovation r = .85, p < .001; and self-esteem r = .76, p. <.001. Robinson et al.,
(1991) discuss the variation in reliability scores and suggest that one reason
could be the use of naive subjects in calculating test-retest reliability, and suggest
that using subjects more familiar with business or entrepreneurship such as
undergraduate business or entrepreneurship students for test-retest reliability
may have resulted in higher correlations.
114
Known groups of entrepreneurs (n = 54) and non-entrepreneurs (n = 57)
were used to validate the EAO. The entrepreneur group consisted of 54
businessmen who had started at least one other business within the past five
years and had started other businesses at other times in their lives. The non
entrepreneur group consisted of 57 career white-collar non-managers from two
high-technology companies, a municipal government and the financial department
of a major university. These subjects were primarily professionals, accountants
and engineers. Uni-variate f-tests indicated a highly significant difference
between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs in each case. A step-wise
discriminant analysis was run to determine the predictive validity of the EAO,
where the authors report a 77% correct classification of respondents as either
entrepreneurs or non-entrepreneurs.
In the following section of literature, extant home-based entrepreneurship
literature is reviewed. Although not directly related to the current study, this
review of home-based work literature is offered here as a primer for readers of
this dissertation who wish to leam about the origin, development and future of
this emerging area of inquiry.
Home-based Entrepreneurship
The home-based business phenomenon emerged in the literature in the
late 1970's in the area of telecommunication and information technology as the
study of remote office work. Since that time, studies of home-based work and
115
home-based entrepreneurship have appeared in the areas of. 1) sociology, 2)
economics, 3) environmental design and architecture, and 4) entrepreneurship.
Origins of Home-based Entrepreneurship Literature

The study of contemporary home-based work can be traced to the early
1970's following the OPEC energy crisis of 1973 and the work of Nilles (1977)
who, coining the term telecommuting, proposed that paid office work could be
done in the home or in satellite offices close to a worker's home in order to
partially or completely eliminate the commute to a centralized office site, thus
conserving energy. Telecommuting is the use of computer and
telecommunication technologies which permits organizational employees to
substitute telecommunication for transportation thereby permitting some or all of a
job to be performed at a remote work site (Ramsower, 1985, p.2). Recent
estimates place the extent of telecommuting activity in the US at around five
percent of the workforce (Case, 1996), far away from the early estimates which
suggested telecommuting would involve upwards of 15-20% of the workforce by
the mid-1980's (Nilles, 1977; Bell, 1980).
Nonetheless, several early and influential studies of the organizational and
behavioral effects of telecommuting attempted to identify the most beneficial
telecommuting arrangement for both employee and employer and were indirectly
responsible for the interdisciplinary studies of home-based work which followed
(Ramsower, 1985; Pratt, 1993; Bailyn, 1989; Allen &Wolkowitz, 1987; Prieto &
Martin, 1990; Dykeman, 1989). The findings of these telecommuting studies
116
suggested that the success of a telecommuting arrangement is highly dependent
on three considerations: 1) the number of days a telecommuter works at home, 2)
the types of tasks conducted, and 3) the people who are selected to participate in
a telework program (Pratt & Davis, 1985; Ramsower, 1985). In essence, parttime, highly technologically-based jobs conducted by motivated, self-managed
individuals were the most likely to succeed according to early telecommuting
researchers. Translated, the best corporate home-worker was a young, working
mother, with small children at home who desired to combine work and family on a
part-time basis and whose job was likely data-input or clerical (Christensen, 1985;
Ambry, 1988; Costello, 1989). The study of remote, white-collar work has grown
significantly since the early 1980's resulting in several scholarly journals
dedicated to studying the impact of information technology on workers, however,
a review of this literature is beyond the scope of this study due to the employed
status of the worker. These early exploratory telecommuting studies published in
the mid-1980's, however, fostered the major themes present in the home-based
worker literature today.
Several authors point to the highly public conflict between home-based
knitters and the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) which
brought national attention to textile-related home-based work as an alternative
occupation and as a social policy issue, as an important event in the history of
home-based work (Loker & Scannell, 1992b; Boris, 1987). After lengthy
testimony and hearings, the Fair Labor Standards Acts restriction of home-based
production in seven industries, including knitted outerwear, was rescinded in
117
1984, ending a forty year prohibition of home-based production in the United
States and opening the door to new forms of technologically-based as well as
traditional production work at home.
With the recession of the Fair Labor Standards Act restrictions on homebased production, came a flood of controversy surrounding the impact of homebased production on the lives of home-based workers. Many argued that new
forms of home-based economic production, if not carefully controlled through
adequate regulations, standards and practices, would return western
industrialized nations to the sweat-shop and piece meal labor practices of the
past. As studies by Christensen (1985, 1987), Olson (1983, 1985), and Costello
(1989) illustrate, clerical home-based work has taken on some of the
characteristics of industrial home production: women work for piece rates and the
quality and quantity of work performed is controlled by a contractor. Silver (1993)
and Silver and Goldscheider (1993) argue that homework, specifically the
employment of women to do piecework at home, involves a complex web of
questions about class relations, gender relations, and the nature of state power"
(Silver, 1993, p. 13). Silver states:
While the shift of the United States economy from an industrial to a
service base is changing the face of homework, the nature of the
work done at home has not necessarily been transformed.
Homework has maintained a constant presence in older industrial
occupations, but it has also expanded into newer sectors of the
service economy. Still, homeworkers tend to be employed in the
secondary sector, where wages are low, jobs have been
segmented and de-skilled, and workers are neither unionized nor
protected from economic downturns (p. 4).
118
This overlap of work and family life yielded a new field of interdisciplinary
inquiry focused on the complexities of home-working life (Smith, 1994). Three
major areas will be reviewed in this section: 1) characteristic studies which helped
to explain the nature and extent of home-based work, as well as the motivations
of home-based workers for selecting home as the site for work activity; 2)
sociological studies which have investigated the interrelationship between work
and family life; and finally, 3) a relatively recent field of inquiry - the architectural
and environmental responses to home-based work.
Characteristic Studies of the Home-worker and the Home-based Business

The recent rise of home-based work has given researchers a new context
in which to study the interrelatedness of work and family life. Although the
literature in this area is limited (Rowe, Haynes & Bentley, 1993), several studies
have examined the characteristics of the home-based worker, their families, and
their business or work activities, thus establishing the conceptual and empirical
boundaries of this emerging area. Although definitions, samples, and methods
vary from study to study, a consistent profile of the home-based worker (including
home-based entrepreneurs), home-based work and motivations is emerging from
this line of research.
Home-based workers are more likely to be: men than women (average
60%) (Foster & Orser, 1993; Rowe, Stafford & Owen, 1992; Roberts, et al., 1995;
Lee, 1991); between 35 and 55 years of age (Masuo, Walker & Furry, 1992;
Foster & Orser, 1993; Roberts, etal., 1995); better than high school educated
119
(Foster & Orser, 1993; Roberts, etal., 1995); white than non-white (Christensen,
1988); in full-nest families (61%) which represents a household manager,
married, with children present (Rowe, Stafford & Owen, 1992); with an average of
two children at home (Heck, 1991); home-based entrepreneurs than teleworkers
(75%) (Pratt, 1993); owning their own homes (Silver, 1993); employed full-time
over part-time (Foster & Orser, 1993; Roberts, et al., 1995; Masuo, Walker &
Furry, 1992; Pratt, 1993), and operating their home business for an average of
eight years (Rowe, Stafford & Owen, 1992).
From an economic standpoint, home-based business owners hire, on
average, at least one full-time employee (Roberts, et al., 1995; Good & Levy,
1992) and more often hire family members than non-family members (Beach,
1993); and are more likely to be generating the primary source of family income in
both the US and Canada (Foster & Orser, 1993; Roberts, et al., 1995; Rowe,
Stafford and Owen, 1992). Interestingly, the characteristic by which these
studies vary the most is annual income. Controlling for international currency, the
range of annual full-time home-based business income reported in the literature is
a minimum of $17,921.38 (Masuo, Walker & Furry, 1992) to a maximum of
$66,817.00 (Pratt, 1993).
In Canada, the average annual full-time home-based
business income reported is $30,300.00 (Foster & Orser, 1993) and $35,300.00
(Roberts, et al., 1995). Sampling differences could be responsible for the broad
range of annual income reported.
Less is known or understood about part-time home-based businesses than
full-time, as most studies have subsumed part-time home-based operation in
120
investigations of home-based businesses, or part-time businesses have been
excluded all together by research focused on job creation and income generation
elements of inquiry. Orser and Foster (1992) defined a part-time home-based
business as one which operated four days or less per week, and estimated that
at least as many part-time businesses were operating in Canada as full-time, or
nearly two million businesses, many of which were being run to provide a
supplemental or secondary family income. In a study of home-based venture
creation processes, Roberts & Robinson (1996) report that for some, part-time
home business operation enabled employeds to test the waters with an
entrepreneurial idea before leaving full-time employment, while others used a
part-time, low risk home business to teach their children about small business
fundamentals. Clearly, part-time home-based business ownership warrants
further investigation to determine the nature and extent of the phenomenon.
In terms of the characteristics of home-based work, home-based workers
are more likely to be involved in non-seasonal, full-time, service-based work
(Masuo, Walker & Furry, 1992; Pratt, 1993; Foster & Orser, 1993; Good & Levy,
1992; Priestnitz, 1989, 1993; Mallett, 1994; Steier & Greenwood, 1992). Studies
employing a narrower conception of home-based work which exclude multi-level
marketing and sales agents and telecommuters, have found that home-based
entrepreneurs are primarily involved in business and professional consulting
(Foster & Orser, 1993; Masuo, W alker & Furry, 1992; Roberts, etal., 1995).
Studies employing a broader conception of home-based workers which include
teleworkers, contract marketing and sales people, and home-based business
121
owners, report marketing and sales as the highest percentage of activity (33%)
(Masuo, Walker & Furry, 1992; Heck, 1991; Rowe, Stafford & Owen, 1992). It
should be noted that different classifications of workers and work types are
common, making cross-study comparisons a difficult and somewhat risky
practice.
The majority of studies investigating home-based work motivation have
pointed to family life as the overriding motive for the decision (Christensen, 1988;
Horvath, 1986; Pratt, 1993; Reed, 1992; Cromie, 1987). Heck (1991) cites the
following reasons for the increase in home-based work: 1) flexibility in meeting
household demand; 2) the need for a second income; 3) distaste of corporate-life
or commuting; 4) transforming a hobby into income production; 5) a sense of
independence; and, 6) desire to spend more time with family. Other motives
associated with the decision to work at home include: lower the financial start-up
risk of a new venture (Good & Levy, 1992); corporate retirees wishing to
supplement pension income (Pratt, 1993; Roberts & Robinson, 1996); gain
entrepreneurial experience and skill (Roberts & Robinson, 1996); and reduce
overhead and tax liabilities (Heck, 1991; Heck & Walker, 1993).
Together, these studies have helped to map uncharted territory. Since the
mid-1980's, more is known about the individuals who choose home-based
business ownership and about the types of businesses being operated. Another
substantial area of the literature is that which examines the effects of homebased work on the worker and on the family.
122
Sociological Considerations of Work and Family Life
Two major themes in the home-based business literature relating to sociopsychologica! impact of home-based work on the worker and on the family are
discussed in this section. First, is the notion that, although work tasks are
somewhat similar, home-based work experiences are quite different for men and
for women; and second, are studies which have investigated ways in which home
workers combine management of the household with management of their
business or home-based work tasks.
Research in the area of work and family life has involved a focus on one
sphere to the exclusion of the other, due in part to a belief that work and family
operate independently (Rowe & Bentley, 1992; Stoner, Hartman & Arora, 1990).
Kanter (1977) called this the myth of separate worlds, which has given way to a
growing body of literature that links work and family life. Kanter (1977) states:
... if the emotional climate of work can affect the family, so can the
familys emotional climate and demands affect members as
workers. Family situations can define work orientation, motivations,
abilities, emotional energy, and the demands people bring to the
work place (p. 56).
The first theme identified in the literature, that mens and womens homebased work experiences are distinct, developed from a recognition that home and
work were intertwined (Heck, Winter & Stafford, 1992; Lambert, 1990). Beach
(1993) studied family support in the home-based business and argues that the
extent of family support and activity within the home business is defined by the
ideology of the family. If the ideology is family - referring to those who choose
to work at home in order to meet family-related needs - then these families
123
display greater amounts of work-family interaction than those working at home for
non-family reasons. Thus, men and women who are motivated by family needs,
or who have a family ideology (Beach, 1993), may operate differently from other
home-based workers; for example: they may work fewer hours during the day to
accommodate dependent care (Rowe & Bentley, 1992); work time may be
interrupted by other family members (Beach, 1993; Winter, etal., 1993) and they
may be less likely to work in a private work space apart from family goings-on
(Rowe & Bentley, 1992).
According to Beach (1993) and Silver (1993) it is more likely to be women
home-workers who hold more traditional gender role and parenting attitudes than
male home-workers and thus, women who select home-based work due to a
family ideology. Silver (1993) showed that male home-workers were more likely
to have a full-time household manager (wife and mother) who, in addition to
responsibility for dependent care and domestic work, often participated in the
day-to-day operations of the home business, such as clerical or administrative
work or running errands, and that male homeworkers were no more likely to
participate in housework or child care than men working elsewhere. Female
home workers were found to receive less family assistance with their homebased work, and were subject to more interruptions from family than were male
home workers. However, Heck, et al., (1992) investigated the utilization of child
care by home-working households and found no significant relationship between
the gender of the homeworker and the use of child-care, which contradicted
earlier findings (Horvath, 1986). Together, these studies suggest that gender
124
inequality persists regardless of workplace, and although homeworking women
perceive less tension between their work and family roles than do outside
employed women (Silver, 1991), gender continues to determine who performs
unpaid home work.
The second theme advanced in the literature relates to combining and
managing the dual roles of work and family and that although roles overlap, there
appears to be little role conflict. In a study of professional home-based workers,
Ahrentzen (1990) found that homeworkers experience some degree of mental
and temporal overlap of roles, but little spatial overlap. For instance,
homeworkers generally did not supervise their children while working and
wherever possible, they worked while their children could be cared for by others,
were sleeping, or when they were in school. Respondents also reported role
overlap involving child-related interruptions such as driving children to school and
other activities, as well as interruptions from family, relatives and neighbours who
made demands on the homeworker while he or she was working. Of interest is
the reportedly low role conflict of homeworkers who reported experiencing higher
levels of role conflict when they worked outside the home. Apparently,
eliminating travel time and having more control over one's work schedule made
role overlap more manageable, resulting in less conflict. Also, Ahrentzen (1990)
reports that low role conflict does not mean that none existed, but more likely to
mean that homeworkers had made adjustments to accommodate home-based
work prior to her study. Gritzmacher (1993) found that home-based workers are
more likely to be very satisfied with their quality of life and with the personal
125
control over their lives, where homeworkers in this study also reported feeling
less conflict between work and family roles than when they were employed
outside of the home.
The inquiry into the interrelatedness of work and family spheres is in the
very early stages. Still, these studies indicate that home and work can be
combined successfully under one roof provided necessary adjustments are made
by family members and by home workers, such as scheduling work activities
around family activities, evidenced by the number of homeworkers working very
early in the morning and late at night (Heck, Winter & Stafford, 1992). The final
area of the literature to be reviewed here relates to architectural responses to
home-based work and to importance of physical and psychological boundaries
between home and work.
Architectural and Environmental Responses to Home-based Work

Nilles (1977) reported that telecommuters missed the period of transition
between work and home that the journey to and from outside work provided,
suggesting that physical and temporal transitions may be desirable in switching
from one role to another. A recent area of literature pertaining to the physical and
psychological considerations of home-based work is that originating with
researchers who focus on human settlement, urban planning and design, urban
sociology and work environments. In the past few years, several studies have
been conducted which examine the impact of home-based work on use of home
and neighborhood, as well as proprietary studies which are investigating
126
development of specially designed home-based work residences and urban
communities.
The general theme in this area of literature is that physical and
psychological boundaries need to be established in order to minimize the impact
of home-based work on family, home and community. Gurstein (1991, 1995)
argues that spatial barriers within the home, i.e., dedicated, non-sharing work
space, is of critical importance for homeworker privacy within the home, as is
establishment of codes of conduct which prevent unnecessary interruptions by
family, friends and neighbours. Home-based workers in her study reported
having difficulty separating themselves psychologically from their work at the end
of the day and often worked in their offices in the evening or on weekends
because the office is always there (p. 12), underscoring the importance of a
dedicated office space which Gurstein argues will help the worker walk away
from the office at the end of the day (p. 27).
Gurstein (1995), Ahrentzen (1990), Frazer (1988) and Hayward (1991)
suggest that residential communities must be adapted to accommodate the social
as well as infrastructure needs of home-workers. The planning of services, and
social and recreational amenities should recognize the presence of home-based
workers in the neighbourhood, and orient amenities and activities to encourage
their participation (Gurstein, 1995, p. 12). Amenities which would benefit homebased workers are facilities such as satellite business centers equipped with
meeting rooms, administrative equipment and support, and common social areas
where home-based workers can share ideas and experiences with one another to
127
combat isolation reported by many as a significant disadvantage to home-based
work (Foster & Orser, 1993; Roberts, et al., 1995; Gurstein, 1995; Gumpert &
Boyd, 1984). Gurstein (1995) argues that home-based businesses can have a
positive impact on a community by reducing vehicular traffic and increasing
informal surveillance of neighbourhood activities, but that future housing for this
population needs to be designed with more appropriate work spaces.
Summary of Home-based Entrepreneurship

The literature reviewed in this section underscores the relative infancy of
home-based entrepreneurship and home-based work as fields of inquiry, while
pointing to many opportunities for future investigations. Interestingly, the bulk of
home-based business literature falls outside that of entrepreneurship and general
management literature and into sociological, home economics and household
management, and psychological literatures. The majority of studies in the area
published since 1990 in North American academic publications can be traced to a
five-year research initiative funded in 1989 by the Cooperative State Research
and Extension Service (CSREC) of the US government. Using a nine state panel
of 899 home-based working families, the National Home-based Business Project
Team studied many issues related to home-based work which have been
reviewed in this section. Although researchers involved in this project argued for
an interdisciplinary approach to the study of home-based work, one which
captures the family/business interrelationship, entrepreneurship issues were not
reflected in their research program.
The majority of Canadian research, however, has separated home-based

work from home-based entrepreneurship creating two separate streams of
research, one examining home-based entrepreneurship from an economic
perspective by estimating the potential of home-based entrepreneurship's
contribution to economic development through job creation and income
generation (Foster & Orser, 1993; Roberts, etal., 1995; Wehrell, 1995; Good &
Levy, 1992; Crawford, 1994, 1995; Stafford, et al., 1992) and one examining
organizational and behavioral effects of telecommuting on employees and on the
organization. The diverse nature of literature reflects the complexity of the
phenomenon and the differing underlying assumptions of researchers. Canadian
researchers apparently are more concerned with entrepreneurship and the
contribution home-based businesses can make to economic development
whereas US interest in home-based entrepreneurship and work has centered
around work and family issues.
Summary of the Literature Review

The review of literature began with an exposition of six psychological
constructs, individual and organizational level characteristics investigated in the
present study. Attitude theory was presented as an alternative to personality trait
and characteristic approaches to understanding the entrepreneur. Finally, a
review of extant home-based business literature was presented in order to
provide a theoretical and empirical foundation from which to evaluate the findings
129
of this study. Although these four areas of literature are fairly distinct and unique
areas of research and inquiry, several commonalities or themes are observable.
First, definitional, theoretical and methodological inconsistencies are
apparent in both the home-based and broader entrepreneurship literatures.
Variations in operationalization and instrumentation, as well as in sampling
approaches, have produced inconclusive and at best inconsistent findings. Small
samples sizes have limited statistical power, yet sweeping generalizations have
been claimed by researchers. Nowhere have inconsistencies been more
apparent than in psychological studies of the entrepreneur. Yet, calls for more,
not less, research of this kind suggest that psychological studies of the
entrepreneur will help to inform a necessary, but insufficient element of a model
of entrepreneurial process: the entrepreneur who initiates new ventures.
Second, is an observed tendency for researchers to borrow and apply
theory and methods from other disciplines with little or no regard for the
assumptions which underpin them. Theoretical assumptions, or the historical
routes of a theory as well as the ideas about the world that are necessary for the
theory to be true (Slife & Williams, 1995, p. 3) on which theories and models rest
are rarely, if ever, addressed openly. In the context of entrepreneurship, these
hidden assumptions frame the way entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial processes
are viewed, shape research programs, and restrict ability to see beyond method
to other possibilities of inquiry and understanding. Studies of entrepreneurs
based on a personality trait approach assume, for example, that entrepreneurs
possess certain real, observable, temporally and situationally stable, measurable
130
personality traits or characteristics which distinguish them from other members of
the general population. Yet, the new view of dispositional and situational causes
of behavior stresses the important attributes of people, their contexts and their
interactions.
Third, understanding why individuals behave differently given comparable
circumstances is a noble, if not entirely fruitful undertaking. Successful
entrepreneurial activity is a major source of job creation and a vital part of a
healthy market economy (Jackson & Rodkey, 1994), thus understanding
differences in entrepreneurial behavior is a significant line of inquiry. This
literature review highlights most importantly, the need for better theories, models
and methods to support us in the quest to understand these differences more
precisely.
Fourth, descriptive studies of home-based entrepreneurs that go beyond
simple demographic designs, or comparative studies of home-based
entrepreneurs and other types of entrepreneurs, managers or workers are
nonexistent. Although descriptive studies have enabled us to determine the
nature and extent of the businesses being operated, little is known or understood
about the individual at the centre of the home-based entrepreneurship process,
and even less is known about how these entrepreneurs compare to those
entrepreneurs who operate small businesses outside the home.
Therefore, a research opportunity exists to investigate this subset of the
entrepreneur population in a more complex, theory-testing manner incorporating
contemporary attitude theory, proper scale development and sampling techniques
131
to overcome weaknesses identified in existing approaches to the study of the
entrepreneur. The research framework which results from the review of literature
and which forms the basis of inquiry for the current study is presented in Chapter
three.
132
CHAPTER III: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The review of literature presented in the previous chapter establishes a

theoretical foundation for the specification of hypotheses relating to the
psychological constructs and individual and organizational level characteristics of
interest in this study. Due to the lack of foundational literature in home-based
entrepreneurship and the inconsistencies observed in the broader
entrepreneurship literature, this study is exploratory rather than confirmatory in
nature. Although specific hypotheses are developed from the literature, the focus
is hypothesis generating rather than hypothesis testing. The hypotheses below
are presented according to the six psychological constructs represented and are
generated so that differences among home-based and non-home-based
entrepreneurs can be investigated and compared to a control group of whitecollar, non-management workers.
Specification of the Model

Figure 3.1 illustrates the six psychological constructs investigated in this
study from an attitude tripartite approach as six unique attitudes which converge
to form an entrepreneurial attitude orientation, represented as a constellation of
attitudes toward achievement, innovation, personal control, self-esteem and
business growth in employment and in revenue. Also of interest is the extent to
134
which individual and organizational level variables moderate the relationship
between an entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial behavior, expressed in
the model as either home-based business ownership, non-home-based business
ownership and non-entrepreneurial behavior (white-collar, non-management
worker). The attitude objects are labeled to reflect appropriate levels of attitudeobject specificity, i.e achievement motive is referred to as achievement in
business, personal control is referred to as perceived personal control of
business outcomes, and so on.
Hypotheses
This section presents the hypotheses investigated in the present study, by
psychological construct.
Achievement in Business
Investigations of achievement motive of entrepreneurs such as McClelland
(1961), Homadayand Bunker (1970), Homaday and Aboud (1971), Hines (1973),
and more recently Perry, etal., (1985), Begley & Boyd (1987), and Chay (1993)
suggest that entrepreneurs are higher in achievement motive than the general
population. Comparisons of achievement motives of types of entrepreneurs
based on revenue and on employment growth measures (Miner, 1990; Cromie &
Johns, 1983), suggest also that owner/managers of high-growth businesses
demonstrated a higher need to achieve in business than slower or no-growth
entrepreneurs. Studies of motivations for starting a home-based business
135
suggest that for many, the home-based business is a life-style business, an
alternative to employment (Wehrell, 1995; Silver, 1993; Roberts, etal., 1995) and
thus, not as likely to experience significant growth as non-home-based
businesses. Based upon these findings, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a.
Non-home-based entrepreneurs will demonstrate stronger attitudes

toward achievement in business than will home-based
entrepreneurs, as measured by the EAO Achievement in Business
subscale.
H1 b.

toward achievement in business than will white-collar, non
management employees, as measured by the EAO Achievement in
Business subscale.
H1c.
Full-time home-based entrepreneurs will demonstrate stronger

attitudes toward achievement in business than will white-collar, non
Business subscale.
H1d.
Part-time home-based entrepreneurs will demonstrate stronger

attitudes toward achievement in business than will white-collar, non
Business subscale.
H1e.

attitudes toward achievement in business than will part-time homebased entrepreneurs, as measured by the EAO Achievement in
Business subscale.
Innovation in Business
The literature regarding entrepreneurs and innovation suggests the
presence of a strong association between innovative behavior and entrepreneurs.
The preponderance of evidence suggests than entrepreneurs are more
innovative in nature than the general population (Smith & Miner, 1985; Walsh &
136
Anderson, 1995; Brandstatter, 1997) and that entrepreneurs are more innovative
than managers or workers (Smith, Bracker & Miner, 1987; Miner, 1990;
Rosenfeld, et al., 1993).
Logically, those entrepreneurs who have chosen to
locate their businesses in a commercial location face an additional small business

management challenge over those choosing to operate businesses from home,
namely how to draw customers to the commercial business location where an
emphasis on say, marketing strategies would make the commercial entrepreneur
perhaps more innovative in nature than the home-based entrepreneur. However,
municipal regulations prevent home-based business owners in Calgary, Alberta
from placing business signs on residential property, suggesting that perhaps
home-based entrepreneurs must be more innovative in order to advertise and
market their businesses. A reasonable argument could be made either way.
However, given the increased financial commitment of commercial business
operation, and allowing for risk and return on investment issues non-home-based
business owners will be considered more innovative in nature. Thus, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H2a. Non-home-based entrepreneurs will demonstrate stronger attitudes

toward innovation in business than will full-time and part-time homebased entrepreneurs, as measured by the EAO Innovation in
Business subscale.
H2b.

toward innovation in business than will white-collar, non
management employees, as measured by the EAO Innovation in
Business subscale.
137
H2c.

attitudes toward innovation in business than will white-collar, non
Business subscale.
H2d.

attitudes toward innovation in business than will white-collar, non
Business subscale.
H2e.

attitudes toward innovation in business than will part-time homebased entrepreneurs, as measured by the EAO Innovation in
Business subscale.
Perceived Personal Control of Business Outcomes

Although different approaches to instrumentation and measurement, and
to conceptualization of personal control, have been applied in studies of locus of
control and entrepreneurs, and in comparative studies of entrepreneurs and
workers, the preponderance of literature suggests a relationship between a desire
for personal control or belief that personal control exists and entrepreneurship.
Chay (1993) cites significant differences in perceived locus of control among
employees, self-employed individuals and entrepreneurs, where entrepreneurs
produce high scores (internal locus) and employees produce low scores (external
locus). Robinson, et al., (1991) reports significant differences in attitude toward
personal control between founders and non-founders.
To the extent that home-based business owners are entrepreneurial in
behavior, this literature suggests that home-based business owners are more
likely to produce higher perceived personal control scores than are white-collar
138
employees, and that full-time home-based entrepreneurs are more likely to
produce higher perceived personal control scores that are part-time home-based
entrepreneurs. There is evidence, albeit anecdotal, which suggests that many
home-based entrepreneurs end up running businesses out of their homes, a
result of corporate downsizing initiatives, retirement or choice. Although no
published empirical estimates of the proportion of home-based entrepreneurs
who are pushed or pulled into entrepreneurship were found, a significant
number of these business owners have done so as a result of major
organizational restructuring programs, programs most likely beyond the control of
these individuals. By extension, it is likely the part-time home-based business
owner - the semi-retired, retired or late-career individual - would be more likely to
report lower perceived personal control scores than full-time home-based
entrepreneurs, non-home-based entrepreneurs, or currently employed, whitecollar workers having been subject to emotional, psychological and often financial
turmoil of employment layoff. It is also posited that full-time business owners will
perceive more personal control of business outcomes than will part-time homebased entrepreneurs, due to the nature of and commitment to the operation of a
full-time business venture. Based on the findings presented above, and the
reasoning behind differences among home-based business owners on perceived
control of business outcomes, the following hypotheses are proposed:
139
H3a.

toward perceived control of business outcomes than will full-time
and part-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the EAO
Personal Control subscale.
H3b.

toward perceived control of business outcomes than will whitecollar, non-management employees, as measured by the EAO
H3c.

attitudes toward perceived control of business outcomes than will
white-collar, non-management employees, as measured by the
EAO Personal Control subscale.
H3d.

white-collar, non-management employees, as measured by the
EAO Personal Control subscale.
H3e.

part-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the EAO
Perceived Self-Esteem in Business

Although the findings related to self-esteem of entrepreneurs are mixed,
the majority of literature suggests that entrepreneurs possess high regard for
their skills, talents and abilities, resulting in strong measures of self-worth, and
self-esteem. Studies of intending entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship students
indicate higher self-esteem scores for intending entrepreneurs and for
entrepreneurship majors than for non-business majors (Sexton & Bowman, 1984,
1983). In addition, significant differences were reported between founders and
non-founders using the EAO self-esteem subscale (Robinson, etal., 1991).
140
Case studies, however, suggest entrepreneurial behavior is a manifestation of
low self-esteem where, although the individuals studied demonstrated
achievement motive and need to control, this behavior was seen as a result of
poor senses of self (Kets de Vries, 1997).. The hypotheses presented here
reflect the generally held position that entrepreneurship is related to higher levels
of self-esteem in business:
H4a.

toward perceived self-esteem in business than will full-time and
Self-esteem in Business subscale.
H4b.

toward perceived self-esteem in business than will white-collar, non
management employees, as measured by the EAO Self-esteem in
Business subscale.
H4c.

attitudes toward perceived self-esteem in business than will whitecollar, non-management employees, as measured by the EAO Self
esteem in Business subscale.
H4d.

attitudes toward perceived self-esteem in business than will whitecollar, non-management employees, as measured by the EAO Self
esteem in Business subscale.
H4e.

attitudes toward self-esteem in business than will part-time homebased entrepreneurs, as measured by the EAO Self-esteem in
Business subscale.
Preference for Business Growth in Revenue and in Employment

Emerging in the entrepreneurship literature are multi-dimensional
conceptualizations of the entrepreneur which suggest that distinct types of
141
entrepreneurs exist and are based on the business growth motivations of the
founders of small businesses (Timmons, 1990; Carland, etal., 1984; Perry, etal.,
1985). Additionally, business growth is emerging as a multi-dimensional
construct, where growth can be viewed as occurring along financial and
managerial lines, or operationalized as small firm growth in revenue and in
employment (Westhead, 1995; Biriey & Westhead, 1994; Westhead & Biriey,
1995). One of the most common conceptualizations of the entrepreneur
appearing in the entrepreneurship literature is that proposed by Carland, et al.,
(1989), who suggest a distinction between entrepreneurs and small business
owners, where small business owners are unlikely to engage in any new
marketing or innovative practices. Alternatively, Carland, et al., suggest that
entrepreneurs, by virtue of their focus on increased growth and profits, would be
more likely to pursue new avenues of growth for the business than small
business owners.
The home-based business literature suggests that the majority of homebased business owners differentiate growth in revenue from growth in
employment. Silver (1993) reports that, although the majority of home-based
business owners expressed a desire to increase business revenue, they did not
wish to hire additional individuals in order to reach revenue goals. Based on the
literature, the following hypotheses related to preference for business growth in
employment and in revenue by type of entrepreneur and involving only homebased entrepreneur and non-home-based entrepreneur groups are proposed:
142
H5a.
Non-home-based entrepreneurs will demonstrate stronger

attitudes toward preference for business growth in revenue than will
full-time and part-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by
the Preference for Business Growth in Revenue subscale.
H5b.

attitudes toward preference for business growth in revenue than will
part-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the
Preference for Business Growth in Revenue subscale.
H6a.

attitudes toward preference for business growth in employment than
will full-time and part-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured
by the Preference for Business Growth in Employment subscale.
H6b.

attitudes toward preference for business growth in employment than
will part-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the
Preference for Business Growth in Employment subscale.
Chapter Summary
This chapter presents the conceptual framework which informs the present
study, and involves a tripartite model of entrepreneurial attitudes toward types of
entrepreneurial behavior. Six psychological constructs were presented as
forming a constellation of attitudes toward entrepreneurship: achievement in
business, perceived control of business outcomes, self-esteem in business,
preference for innovation in business, and preference for business growth in
employment and in revenue. In addition, individual and organizational level
variables were illustrated as potential moderators of the entrepreneurial attitude behavior relationship.
143
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH METHOD
This chapter presents the research methods and procedures of the study
according to the following major topics: subscale development and testing,
populations and sampling, procedures, measures, data diagnostics and data
analysis. According to Creswell (1994), the objectives of a study should dictate
the most appropriate research design. A mailed survey was selected as the
most appropriate research design for this study for three reasons: 1) the nature of
the hypotheses proposed for this study involving the collection of attitude
measurements in order to test the hypotheses; 2) the desire to generalize the
findings from this study to other populations of entrepreneurs and home-based
entrepreneurs; and 3) the desire to predict entrepreneurial behavior from the data
collected in this study. A questionnaire composed of six attitude subscales as
well as individual and organizational level variables was developed and mailed to
samples of home-based entrepreneurs, non-home-based entrepreneurs and
white-collar, non-management workers. The methods utilized in this study are
summarized in Table 4.1.
Subscale Development and Testing

The instrument developed for this study was composed of the
Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) scale (Robinson, et al., 1991) and two
subscales developed by the researcher for this study: 1) preference for business
144
Table 4.1 Overview of Methods
Method
Overview of Procedure
Scale Development and Testing
Two new subscales were developed and tested according to standard scale development
procedures to measure attitudes toward business growth in employment and in revenue,
Sampling
Sample frame for home-based and non-home-based entrepreneurs -1997 Key Contacts
Business Directory records, and all white-collar, non-management employees of a Calgarybased information technology consulting firm who participated as control group.
2703 questionnaires mailed, 156 returned undeliverable, 544 completed and useable surveys
(21.4% response rate)
Instrumentation
Combination of existing instrument - two new subscales, EAO Scale (Robinson, et al,, 1991),
and individual and organizational characteristic data.
Dependent Variable Categorization
Self-report of primary business category: full-time home-based, part-time home-based, non

home-based business or white-collar, non-management worker (control group).
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics; one-way ANOVA's; forward, stepwise LOGIT regression; and LISREL
structural equation modeling techniques were used to evaluate the instrument, the model and to
test hypotheses.
145
growth in revenue (RG) subscale and 2) preference for business growth in
employment (EG) subscale. Cronbach (1946) argued that researchers, by
designing questions, response sets and conditions for participation, can introduce
bias into the design of a questionnaire. Careful attention was paid to
instrumentation and to potential sources of bias in this study. This section
describes development and testing of two subscales designed to measure
attitudes toward business growth in revenue and in employment and used
simultaneously with the EAO subscales.
Scale Item Development

In order to establish content validity, to assist the development of revenue
and employment scale items, and to identify potential systemic differences
between home-based and non-home-based entrepreneurs perceptions of
business growth, a focus group was conducted by the researcher with
entrepreneurs. Six home-based and five non-home-based entrepreneurs (four
females and seven males), operating full-time businesses who were known to the
researcher were asked to describe what each construct meant to them in the
context of business ownership. The two hour discussion was audio-taped,
transcribed, and content-analyzed for major themes relating to perceptions of
revenue and employment growth in business in general, and in their own
businesses. There were no apparent differences in meaning among homebased and non-home-based entrepreneurs. In other words, growth in revenue
and in employment, dimensions of growth, and effects of business growth on the
146
lives of the owners were described similarly by both groups. The major themes
which emerged from the focus group are discussed below.
Participants described multiple themes of revenue growth including sales,
selling activities, profits, business income relatedness to personal income, family
dependence on business income, planning, opportunities, early retirement, risktaking, security and success. Employment growth themes included implications
of working with others, leadership, giving back to the community, creating jobs for
others, managerial skills, hiring, helping those less fortunate, sharing control of
the business, people-skills and working with like-minded individuals. The focus
group discussion highlighted the complex and multi-dimensional nature of the
revenue and employment growth constructs. The themes provided the
foundation for the development of the subscale items which were carefully
constructed to reflect the multi-dimensionality of the constructs (Walsh, Kirchoff &
Boylan, 1996).
Ten to fifteen items (statements) per attitude component (affective,
cognitive and conative) for each subscale were generated for a total of 75 test
items (40 revenue and 35 employment subscale items). An example of an
employment growth subscale item representing the affective component of
attitude is: I feel good when my business is in a position to hire more people. An
example of a revenue growth subscale item representing the cognitive
component of attitude is: I think that earning lots of money in business is the most
important aspect of business ownership.
147
The 75 items were edited by the researcher, her doctoral supervisor and
several faculty members of the School for Business and Entrepreneurial Studies
at Mount Royal College. The 75 revised scale items were administered to a
panel of judges consisting of 51 volunteer undergraduate students enrolled in a
small business management course at the University of Calgary who, after a brief
presentation on the tripartite model of attitude, were asked to identify the attitude
component each scale item represented (either affective, cognitive or conative).
The 51 judges received course credit for their assistance. As unidimensionality
of each attitude component is important in the tripartite theory (Triandis, 1971), a
standard of .75 inter-rater reliability was used to evaluate the 75 items tested.
Ten items failed to pass the 75% inter-rater agreement mark.
The remaining 65 items were constructed into a questionnaire using a 10point Likert-type response format and administered on two separate occasions,
one week apart, to 53 undergraduate students from another section of the same
small business management course.
Forty-seven students completed both test
and retest administrations of the questionnaire. Thirty scale items did not
achieve r = .70 standardized Cronbachs alpha and were rejected. Test-retest
correlations of r =.78, p < .001 for the revenue growth subscale, and of r =.85, p
<. 001 for the employment growth subscale were achieved with the remaining 35
items. Inter-item, scale and scale-if-item-deleted analyses were conducted on
the remaining 35 items (17 revenue growth items and 18 employment growth
items), where Cronbachs alphas of .7711 and .8917 were achieved for the
revenue growth and employment growth subscales, respectively. Tables 4.2 and
148
4.3 present the results of the item and scale reliability analysis for each subscale.
The tables indicate the value of alpha if each of the items constituting the scale
was removed. The analysis of both scales indicates removal of any item makes
no significant improvement to the overall scale alpha measure, indicating that
both scales are internally consistent. Scale alpha values of .7711 for the
Revenue Growth subscale and .8917 for the Employment Growth subscale are
acceptable (Nunnelly, 1978). A questionnaire comprised of the 17-item Revenue
Growth subscale; 18-item Employment Growth subscale; 75-item Entrepreneurial
Attitude Orientation (EAO) Scale which includes four subscales: 23-item
Achievement subscale, 26-item Innovation subscale, 12-item Personal Control
subscale and 14-item Self-esteem subscale; individual and organizational level
questions was assembled.
Final Survey Development

The final survey was comprised of two main sections: attitude measures
and individual and organizational level questions. The 35 employment and
revenue growth subscale items were randomly imbedded within the 75-item EAO
Scale producing 110 contiguous items, followed by ten characteristic questions.
A schematic of the subscale items and summated scales is presented in Figure
4.1. Feedback on the cover letter and classification questions was received from
the doctoral supervisory committee as well as from four faculty members of the
School for Business and Entrepreneurial Studies. The instrument and cover
Table 4.2 Reliability analysis for Revenue Growth subscale
ITEM
Scale
mean if
item
deleted
Scale
Variance if
item
deleted
Squared
Multiple
correlation
r2
Scale
Alpha if
item
deleted
I never waste time worrying about my next business opportunity
114.16
243.21
.451
.803
I feel good when my organization makes a successful sale
110.56
219,41
.668
.755
I feel businesspeople should be well compensated for the risks they take
112.07
220,39
.513
.764
I know that my family is depending on my business income for their security
113.79
195.56
.569
.743
I spend a great deal of time planning how to increase my firm's revenue
112.36
198,75
.746
.732
I get a sense of pride when my work results in more revenue for my

organization
111.02
208,53
.778
.742
I think there are lots of rewards in business more important than earning
money
111.11
237.64
.711
.790
I feel great when someone says that I'm really going to make it in business
110.70
209.09
.726
.746
I create business opportunities that will make money
112.14
202.49
,690
.738
10
I feel that I should earn lots of money now so that I can retire while I'm still
young
111.93
202.57
.729
.751
11
I spend lots of time planning the sales growth of my company
112.23
204.45
.761
.740
12
I believe there's more to life than financial success in business
110.88
235.12
.466
.779
150
Table 4.2 Reliability analysis for Revenue Growth subscale
Scale
mean if
item
deleted
Scale
Variance if
item
deleted
Squared
Multiple
correlation
r2
Scale
Alpha if
item
deleted
ITEM
13
I only go after business opportunities that I feel could make me more money
112.31
206.78
.622
.745
14
I know Im not in business for the money
113.97
269,65
.628
.828
15
I believe that a successful businessperson should earn a lot of money
112.18
195.54
.712
.734
16
I believe that my family and friends will admire me for my financial success in
business
111.65
199.95
.734
.743
17
I think that earning lots of moneyjn business is the most important thing
113.97
189.13
.717
.739
Statistics for scale: Mean = 119.18, Variance = 238.19, SD = 15.43, N = 17

Statistics for items: Mean = 7,01, Min. = 5.02, Max. = 8.61, Variance = 1.35
Standardized item alpha - .7987
Alpha = .7711
Table 4.3 Reliability analysis for Employment Growth subscale
ITEM
Scale
mean if
item
deleted
Scale
Variance if
item
deleted
Squared
Multiple
correlation
r*
Scale
Alpha if
item
deleted
I get excited when I think about being the boss
122.36
334.14
.603
.896
I feel sad when companies reduce staff
123.23
313.57
.511
.890
I think its important for businesses to create jobs for the community
122.89
300,48
.736
.881
I always try to meet people who would make good employees in my business
123.00
305,86
.720
.881
I get excited about the prospect of running a successful business with lots of
employees
122.80
309,89
.693
.882
I know I have what it takes to be a good leader
121.93
325.62
.865
.889
I think people have to create their own business opportunities
122,55
328.55
.584
.897
I spend time planning how to grow my business so that I can hire more
people
124.36
296,62
.774
.880
I think a successful business is one that can hire other people
123.82
295.57
.755
.880
10
I spend time planning how to grow my business so that I can hire other
people
124.17
290.01
,854
,875
11
I often go out of my way to find work for other people
124.63
294.49
.856
.879
12
I make a conscious effort to provide business opportunities for others
124.29
296.43
.863
.880
152
Table 4.3 Reliability analysis for Employment Growth subscale
ITEM
Scale
mean if
item
deleted
Scale
Variance if
item
deleted
Squared
Multiple
correlation
r2
Scale
Alpha if
item
deleted
13
I know I have what it takes to be a good manager
122.21
323.69
.877
.889
14
I believe I'm in business to help others who are less fortunate than me
124.08
306,81
.693
.888
15
I believe that in order to successful, a business must hire competent people
121.42
334.11
.676
.891
16
I know that I can share control of my business with others
123,02
315.63
.621
,890
17
I think businesses have an obligation to be responsible for their employees
121.76
330,92
.598
.890
18
I feel good when my organization is in a position to hire more people
123.19
302,37
.834
.878
Statistics for scale: Mean = 130.34, Variance = 346.88, SD = 18.62, N = 18

Statistics for items: Mean = 7.24, Min. = 5.70, Max. = 8,91, Variance = 1,65
Standardized item alpha - .8912
Alpha = .8917
Figure 4.1 Schematic of subscale items and summated scales

154
letter were revised, and a survey package comprised of a personalized cover
letter, a copy of a letter of support from the Calgary Business Information Centre
general manager which emphasized the need for this study, the instrument, and a
prepaid-postage-reply envelope was developed.
A face-to-face pretest of the survey package was conducted with 17 nonhome-based and home-based entrepreneurs, a convenience sample of
entrepreneurs whose names were provided by School for Business and
Entrepreneurial Studies faculty members. The objectives of the pre-test were to
ensure ease of understanding of all instructions, scale items and classification
questions, to determine the length of time for survey completion, and to assess
the boredom factor. Pre-test participants expressed no difficulty understanding
completion or return instructions, and found the survey items to be interesting,
although one participant indicated confusion over the individual level question
dealing with level of education. Based on the comments received, slight
modifications were made to the wording of the education level question, however,
the balance of the survey, cover letter and instructions for completion remained
unchanged on the final version of the survey. The revised education level
question, as it appears on the final version of the survey, was reviewed with
members of the doctoral supervisory committee and three faculty members of the
School for Business and Entrepreneurial Studies but not pre-tested again with
members of the sample populations prior to field administration of the survey.
155
Populations and Sampling
Reviews of entrepreneurship research have highlighted definitional
inconsistencies, small sample sizes and inappropriate use of methodologies as
deficiencies which contribute to inconsistency of findings in the area. Gartner
(1989) argued that careful attention to defining populations and sampling were
imperative in psychological studies of the entrepreneur, particularly in
comparative studies, where careful sample selection assists in identifying and
controlling for variation. Orser (1991a) reviews methodological issues of homebased business research, suggesting that one of the major challenges facing
researchers is that of identifying sufficient sample frames. The typical sample
frame utilized for sample selection in the majority of studies of home business
owners has been the local home-based business association (Orser, 1991a).
Inherent biases such as self-selection into membership, small numbers of
members, and geographic concentration of members limits the generalizability of
these study findings. No home-based business association was operating in
Calgary, Alberta at the time of the study, necessitating the use of a large,
commercial business directory.
Entrepreneur Subjects
Home-based business owners and non-home-based entrepreneurs whose
names and business characteristic data were listed in the 1997 Key Contacts
Business Directory formed the sample frame utilized in this study. There were
several advantages to using Key Contacts Business Directory records as the
156
sample frame. First, the 1997 directory contains a listing of 4,800 home-based
business owners operating from a residential location and 23,000 non-homebased business owners operating a business from a commercial location within
the Calgary, Alberta area. Although the number of home-based businesses
operating within the Calgary, Alberta area is estimated to be between 38,000 and
51,000 businesses (p<.05) (Roberts, et al.,1995), the Key Contacts Directory
listing of home-based business owners is the largest accessible database for this
study. Second, Key Contacts listings are compiled annually from new business
telephone listings in the Calgary and Area Telephone Directory, are provided free
of charge to business owners, and are continuously checked for accuracy, thus
improving the soundness of the data file and reducing potential self-selection
biases. One final advantage of the directory is that complete data records are
available, and include organizational and business owner information which
permits theoretical sampling (Gartner, 1993). A disadvantage of the Key
Contacts Directory, however, relates to the method of listing selection which
increases the potential for home-based businesses to be under-represented.
New listings in the directory are selected from new business telephone listings in
the Calgary and Area telephone directory. Thus, if a home-business owner
chooses to use an existing residential phone for business purposes, no new
business listing would appear in the Calgary and Area telephone directory, and
the home business would not be identified for inclusion in the Key Contacts
Directory. Additionally, part-time home-based businesses are possibly under
represented in the directory for the same reason.
157
A cross-sectional, systematic random sample was selected from each of
the home-based and non-home-based entrepreneur populations. From files
arranged in ascending alphabetical order based on the first word appearing in the
business name (or last name of the business owner if no business name was
available), every 4th home-based entrepreneur record and every 19th non-homebased entrepreneur record from the 1997 database was selected. The nonhome-based business owner population was stratified by number of employees,
where only those business owners employing less than five employees entered
the sample. This procedure resulted in the selection of 2400 sample units: 1200
home-based entrepreneurs, and 1200 non-home-based entrepreneur records,
received as two separate data files in ascii format. The ascii files were merged
with the cover letter file, and 2400 personalized letters and address labels were
printed. The letters were carefully scanned by the researcher, a procedure which
resulted in the removal of eighty-seven home-based business records and ten
non-home-based business records deemed by the researcher to be
inappropriate, i.e., a junior baseball team, several churches and other
associations which were included in the data file in error, leaving 2303
entrepreneur subjects (sampie units).
Control G ro u p Subjects
The control group consisted of professional, white-collar, non-management

employees of the Calgary branch office of a large, information technology
consulting organization with head offices in Toronto, Ontario. At the time of the
158
study, the organization employed 475 individuals, and 400 of these were deemed
to be non-management, white-collar workers by the Human Resources Director
of the Calgary office. Thus, the control group consisted of 400 subjects (sample
units). The intent in selecting a control group population was to select nonentrepreneur subjects as demographically similar to entrepreneurs as possible,
particularly on level of education, which has fairly consistently been shown to be
higher for entrepreneurs than for members of the general population (Robinson &
Sexton, 1994; Cooper & Dunkelberg, 1987).
The control group population exhibited comparable age and educational
levels to that of the home-based entrepreneur population, where a report
indicates a mean age of 38.5 years, and mean level of education of college or
university completion for home-based entrepreneurs in Calgary, Alberta (Roberts,
et al., 1995). In addition, the control group subjects exhibited similar job
characteristics to those types of occupations performed by home-based
entrepreneurs, typically white-collar, professional consulting occupations
(Roberts, et al., 1995). The majority of white-collar workers in the control group
performed out-sourced consulting services for clients, including programming,
database management, information technology and systems consulting, and
management of information systems. Control group responses were screened to
remove moonlighting entrepreneurs, subjects who were employed workers but
who were additionally operating full- or part-time businesses. It should be noted
that at the time of the study, the information technology industry in southern
Alberta, and indeed across the country, was experiencing rapid growth. The
159
control group organization was anticipating hiring an additional 300 Calgary
personnel by the end of 1998 in order to satisfy local demand for outsourced
information technology consulting services.
Sample Size
The theoretical model to be tested in this research consists of six
independent variables, or six composite attitudinal scores for each subscale, as
well as individual and organizational level variables and the association with
entrepreneurial behavior. According to Cohen & Cohen (1983), very large
samples of 1,000 observations or more make multivariate statistical significance
tests overly sensitive, indicating that almost any relationship is statistically
significant. Adopting the rule of thumb that 15 to 20 observations per
independent variable is required to generate sufficient power for multivariate
statistics (Hair et al., 1995), approximately 120 responses would be required from
each of the three population samples, for a total of 360 responses. Adopting
more sophisticated statistical power tables, a response size of 100 per sample
will yield a statistical power of .80 for an effect size of .12 at a significance of
p<0.05. In other words, employing five independent variables, specifying the .05
significance level, a sample of 100 responses per sample will detect R2 values as
small as 12 percent as significant.
Due to the lack of empirical research relating to home-based
entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs within the province of Alberta, Canada, reliable
responses rate estimates were non-existent, and best guesses obtained from
160
two marketing research consultants in Calgary suggested possible response
rates ranging from 2-3% to 20-25%. An estimate of a 15-20% response rate for
the entrepreneur samples (Foster & Orser, 1993; Roberts, et al., 1995), and a
25% response rate for the control group sample was used to estimate the size of
the total survey mailing required, approximately 3000 surveys. In the end, the
research budget dictated the number of surveys distributed, where significant
effort was made to obtain as high a response rate as possible.
Procedures
A review of literature suggested several procedures which have been
found to positively affect response rates, and which were incorporated into the
survey design and administration of this study. Two separate cover letters were
developed: a personalized cover letter for the entrepreneur samples (n=2303)
and a non-personalized form letter for anonymous control group subjects
(n=400). The letters were printed on University of Calgary letterhead and each
was signed by the researcher. Letterhead, a symbol of institutional affiliation, and
actual signatures are two attributes which have been shown to be related to
acceptable general population response rates (Dillman, Sinclair & Clark, 1993).
A third-party letter of support for the research has also been shown to increase
general population response rates (McDaniel & Gates, 1995). A letter of support
was obtained for this study from the Calgary Business Information Centre general
manager, and a copy of the letter was included in each survey package
immediately following the cover letter. The cover letter directed to the
161
entrepreneur sample, letter of support and instrument is presented in Appendix 1.
Prepaid postage reply envelopes included with surveys have been shown to
significantly increase both general population and high interest population
response rates (Dillman, 1978). In the present study, numbered prepaid postage
return envelopes were included with the survey. Return envelopes for the
entrepreneur populations were numbered 600 though 3000, to permit early
versus late response bias testing; return envelopes 1 through 599 were reserved
for the control group sample.
Groves (1989) reports that the use of individual stamps, as opposed to
postage metered stamps or bulk mail envelopes, are associated with higher
general population response rates, although more costly. He suggests that a
stamp increases awareness of the envelope and perception of the importance of
the envelope contents by the respondent. The survey envelopes directed to both
entrepreneur samples (n=2303) received a single stamp. The control group
surveys were distributed internally by the organization and did not require
postage. The distribution of the control group surveys was preceded by an
electronic memo from the human resources director in Calgary, informing all non
management employees that a research questionnaire was being distributed to
them and that their participation in the study was voluntary.
Marketing research literature suggests seasonal general population
response fluctuations. According to McDaniel and Gates (1996), slightly more
favourable North American general population response rates are obtained when
data collection occurs between the months of February and April, and October
162
and November, periods which avoid spring and summer holidays and Christmas.
A total of 2703 surveys were distributed on March 1, 1998:1113 to home-based
business owners, 1190 to non-home-based business owners and 400 to whitecollar, non-management workers in the control group.
Measures
This section describes the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO)
scale which was used in the study to measure the strength of subjects attitudes
toward achievement, personal control, self-esteem and innovation. The
development of the revenue growth and employment growth subscales was
discussed in the previous section. Individual and organizational level measures
are also presented.
Attitude Measures
The Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) scale was developed by
Robinson (1987) to maximally discriminate between known groups of
entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs on the basis of attitudes toward
achievement in business, perceived personal control of business outcomes, self
esteem in business, and preference for innovation. The EAO was chosen
because of the unique attitudinal approach to understanding differences in
entrepreneurial behavior presented, its basis in current attitude theory, its use in
previous research to successfully discriminate entrepreneurs from nonentrepreneurs (Hoge, 1996; Robinson, et al., 1991) and the use of standard scale
163
development procedures. The reliability and validity of the EAO was discussed in
the Chapter two.
Subscale Scoring Procedure

The 110 subscale items (35 employment and revenue growth subscale
items and 75 EAO Scale items) comprised the first section of the instrument and
were scored by taking a mean score value of the items for each attitudinal
component on each subscale. This procedure resulted in 18 component mean
scores for each respondent, or affective, cognitive, and conative scores for each
of the six subscales. Next, a mean of the three component scores for each
subscale was calculated, referred to as the subscale value or strength of the
attitude for that subscale, resulting in six subscale value scores for each
respondent. Finally, a total attitudinal score (constellation of attitudes toward
entrepreneurship) was derived by taking the sum of the six subscale scores. The
subscale scoring key is presented in Table 4.4.
Although various approaches to summated scale scoring exist, calculating
the mean response score to a set of responses is the most common scoring
technique (Sullivan & Feldman, 1979; Nunnally, 1978). Use of multivariate
measurements (summated scales) permits more precise measurement of a
construct and does not place total reliance on a single response measurement
(Hair, et al., 1995). In addition, summated scales lessen the potential impact of
missing data, where mean score calculations are computed with more than one
measure.
Table 4.4 Subscale scoring kev for the instrument
ENTREPRENEURIAL ATTITUDE ORIENTATION (EAO) SCALES
A
Achievement
Innovation
A
Personal Control
Self-esteem
Revenue Growth
Employment
Growth
Affective Items
1, 49, 53, 83, 94,

97, 99
6, 16, 23, 25, 91,

100, 104,107
55, 67, 69
5*, 17*, 31*, 44*.

51*, 79
9,19,21,40
27, 34,109
Cognitive Items
7, 14, 37, 39, 48

52, 60, 87, 89
50, 61,68, 78,

81, 82, 95, 98*,
101
13, 18,62
22, 32, 38, 80
10, 20, 30, 64,

73, 85, 86, 88, 93
29, 35, 41,56,

65*, 71,72, 92,
110
Conative Items
3, 12, 36, 43, 66,

70, 102
2, 58*, 59, 63, 75,

84, 103, 105*,
106*
4, 8, 57*, 77, 90,

96
15, 24*, 45*, 76*
11,26, 74, 108
28, 33, 42, 46,

47, 54*
* indicates reverse scoring
165
Individual and Organizational Measures
Data concerning entrepreneurs, firms and control group members were
collected. The individual-level variables included gender; birth year; family life
cycle stage; education level operationalized as total number of years of
education, the type of program completed, and the area of study; experience
level incorporating a multidimensional view of experience to include management,
entrepreneurial and technical experience in similar and dissimilar industries; level
of family business experience; and presence of family members advice in the
operation of the business.
Organizational-level variables included type of business being operated
(either full-time home-based, part-time home-based, non-home-based or non
entrepreneur); nature of business; previous year, current year and next year
forecasted revenue; previous year, current year and next year forecasted number
of full-time employees; and number of years of business operation since first sale.
Data Diagnostics
Each survey was examined upon return for missing data and inconsistent
responses. A total of 545 surveys were returned. One survey was incomplete
and was rejected, leaving 544 completed and useable surveys for data entry.
Response rates are discussed in the following chapter. The surveys were
entered into a Microsoft Excel v.5.0 spreadsheet under the data validation
subroutine which alerts the researcher to attempted entries which fall outside the
data entry parameters. The majority of response values ranged from 1 through
166
10. Visual scans of the data file were conducted frequently during data entry to
identify data entry errors. As a second check on the accuracy of the data file,
every 10th case was checked against the corresponding original survey for data
entry errors upon completion of the data entry. No errors in the data file were
found with this procedure, suggesting a high level of data entry integrity
(McDaniel & Gates, 1995). The Excel data file was transferred at this point to
SPSS-PC v.7.0 for data diagnostics and analysis.
Missing Data
Missing data was coded as either system missing data, as in the case of
the control group subjects, who were not required to complete organizational
level questions, or as user missing data. Error analysis was conducted on user
missing values, where mean missing data scores were less than 0.5 percent, or
four responses out of 544 per question or item for all attitudinal and
organizational indicators. Missing data levels for individual level indicators of
1996 business revenue, 1997 business revenue, and anticipated 1998 business
revenue produced missing data percentages of 6.3, 6.4 and 8.3, respectively,
which are acceptable given the sensitive nature of the question (Little & Rubin,
1987; Hair, et al., 1995). As the three measures of revenue are effectively
measuring the same construct and no relationship was discovered between the
missing revenue data and other missing data, the missing revenue data can be
termed missing completely at random (MCAR), meaning that the missing revenue
data is randomly missing in equal proportions for other variables. The most
167
common approach for dealing with MCAR data is to include only observations
with complete data in the analysis, provided sufficient observations remain for
analysis (Hair, et al., 1995). For the purposes of this study, only observations
with complete data were included in the analysis.
Outliers
Univariate box-plots of all continuous variables were produced in order to
identify outliers. Outliers were discovered in respondents age; 1996, 1997, 1998
employment; and 1996, 1997, 1998 revenue data. The cases which represented
the outliers were examined and deemed to be valid representations of the
populations and were retained for analysis.
Tests for Normality. Homoscedasticitv. Linearity. Independence and Equality of

Variance-Covariance Matrices
In general, multivariate analysis requires that data be assessed for the
extent to which three underlying assumptions are met: 1) normality, 2)
homoscedasticity and 3) linearity. In order for analysis of variance (ANOVA) test
procedures to be valid, two additional assumptions must be met: 4) observations
must be independent, and 5) variance-covariance matrices must be equal for all
groups. The assumption of univariate normality requires the data distribution of
an individual variable to be normally distributed, where multivariate normality
implies linearity between ail pairs of variables. The assumption of
homoscedasticity states that the dependent variable is a random variable
168
producing equal variances around fixed values of independent variables, so that
variability of dependent variable scores is approximately the same at all levels of
independent variables. The assumption of linearity implies that a linear
relationship between the dependent variable (y) and independent variables (xs)
exists, and that the pairs of observations produce parameter estimates a
(constant) and b (the effect of x on y) in such a way that the error in estimation is
the minimum (Chou, 1975). The assumption of independence refers to the
extent to which observations are independent (Hair, et al., 1995) and can involve
experimental and non-experimental situations. The final assumption of equality
of variance-covariance matrices is concerned with identifying substantial
differences in the amount of variance of one group over another group for the
same variables. The extent to which the data analyzed in this study meets the
five underlying assumptions of multivariate analysis is discussed below.
Assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity and linearity were assessed
by visually scanning univariate histograms, a scatterplot matrix and normal Q-Q
probability plots produced with SPSS-PC software. Histograms indicated
approximate normal distributions for all variables with the exception of EMP1996,
EMP1997, AEMP1998, (number of employees in 1996, 1997 and 1998) and
YEARSOP (number of years since business first sale) where positively skewed
distributions were identified. A modified Kolmogorov-Smimov test, used in this
study to assess the normality of distributions of all metric variables, indicated
normality statistics of .343, .314, .322, and .207 respectively. YEARSOP was
transformed to achieve normality by taking the logarithm (base e) of YEARSOP
169
(TRANSYOP), however, normality was not achieved for EMP1996, EMP1997, or
AEMP1998.
A scatterplot matrix identified no violations of homoscedasticity
where scatters of data points were roughly equal and random. Normal Q-Q
probability plots indicate the assumption of linearity has been met for all
continuous independent variables except EMP1996, EMP1997, and AEMP1998
and for the dependent variable ORGTYPE (type of entrepreneurial behavior).
The degree to which observations are independent in this study is
assumed to be high for entrepreneur subjects, who completed the mailed
instrument independently, however, the situation for the control group is more
difficult to estimate as the degree of dependence among respondents is
unknown. A violation of equality of variance-covariance matrices has a minimal
affect on ANOVA tests where groups are of approximately equal size (Hair, et al.,
1995). Approximately equal occurs if the largest group size divided by the
smallest group size is less than 1.5. In the present study, the largest group size
(non-home-based entrepreneurs, n=189) divided by the smallest group size (parttime home-based workers, n=59) is 3.16, thus a test of unequal variances, the
Levene Test, was conducted and no significant unequal variances between
groups was found. Histograms, the scatterplot matrix, normal Q-Q plots, and
variance-covariance matrices used to explore the data are presented in Appendix
2.
170
Data Analysis
Following data diagnostics, response rates, frequencies and percentages,

means, selected cross-tabulations and correlation matrices were produced for all
variables in order to obtain an understanding of the characteristics of the
responding groups. Tests were conducted to determine estimates of non
response bias and early versus late response bias. Hypotheses were tested with
one-way ANOVA, a statistical technique for analyzing differences within and
between groups, the principal concern of this study. Next, a forward, stepwise
LOGIT regression analysis was used to determine the effect of individual and
organizational level variables on the selection of non-home based operation.
Finally, a structural model was developed using LISREL to illustrate the degree to
which individual and organizational level variables moderate the entrepreneurial
attitude - entrepreneurial behavior relationship, where number of employees (a
continuous variable) was selected as the dependent variable so as not to violate
the parameters of LISREL analysis. The latter two analyses were compiled and
run on the University of Calgary mainframe computer using BMDP and SPSS
statistical software.
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented an outline of the methods for the study. A survey
research design is used, where the instrument contains revenue and employment
growth subscales and four Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation subscales of
achievement, innovation, personal control and self-esteem. The reliability and
171
validity of the EAO scale has been established, and reliability was established for
the two subscales developed for this study. A large sample of entrepreneurs and
white-collar workers was attained with a mailed distribution of the questionnaire.
ANOVA is the principal data analysis technique in order to assess differences
within and between entrepreneurs and workers on attitudes toward
entrepreneurship. The following chapter presents the results of the univariate
and multivariate analyses used to test the hypotheses presented in Chapter
three.
172
CHAPTER V: RESULTS
This chapter presents the data analysis conducted for this study which
consisted of several stages and procedures associated with three major areas: 1)
representativeness of the sample, 2) reliability and validity of the instrument, and
3) testing of the hypotheses. The chapter begins with an analysis of the samples
and includes a presentation of response rates, frequencies of individual and
organizational sample characteristics and comparisons to samples of other major
studies of entrepreneurs. This is followed by an analysis of non-response and
early versus late response bias. Next, results of reliability and validity tests on
the instrument are presented.
Finally, results of one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) used to test hypotheses proposed in chapter three are presented along
with the results of LOGIT regression and LISREL structural equation modeling
used to: 1) determine the probability of commercial business ownership, and 2)
evaluate the mediating effects of individual and organizational variables on the
entrepreneurial attitude - behavior relationship. A complete discussion of the
findings and the implications of findings is presented in the following chapter.
Analysis of the Samples

A total of 2703 surveys were distributed on March 1, 1998, and 545
surveys were returned between March 3 and May 31, 1998. One survey was
deemed unuseable as the respondent did not complete the back sides of all
173
pages, reducing the total number of returned and useable surveys to 544.
Response rate information and calculations are presented in Table 5.1.
Descriptive statistics are provided for individuals including respondent gender;
age; life-cycle stage; number of years, type and area of education; and levels of
managerial, technical and entrepreneurial experience in similar and dissimilar
industries. Individual characteristics of each of the three samples are displayed
in Table 5.2.
Descriptive statistics of organizational variables include type of
business; 1997 business revenue; number of employees in 1997; and number of

years of business operation. Characteristics of the businesses of full-time and
part-time home-based entrepreneurs and non-home-based entrepreneurs are
displayed in Table 5.3.
Predictably, the sample contains more males than females, and the
distribution of gender across the dependent variable is comparable at all levels.
Although the level of male full-time and part-time home-based business
ownership reported here (.76, n=229) exceeds that reported by Roberts, et al.,
(1995) (.59, n=76) and Orser & Foster (1992) (.58, n=253), it is comparable to
levels of male business ownership reported in other large sample studies (Bates,
1990; Robinson & Sexton, 1994), where x 2 = 4.26 (df=1, a =.05).
Age of the
individuals ( x = 46.5 years, n=536) is also comparable to that reported in other

studies of small business owners (Robinson & Sexton, 1994; Bates, 1995; Silver,
1993) and of white-collar workers (Robinson & Sexton, 1994; Cromie, 1987),
where the majority of small business owners in the sample are between the ages
of 25 and 55. A significant difference between part-time home-based
174
Table 5.1 Response Rates
Home-based
Entrepreneurs
Non-home-based
Entrepreneurs
White-collar Workers
TOTAL
Number of surveys distributed
1113
1190
400
2703
Number returned undeliverable
65
92
157
Number returned due to

business closure
14
16
1046
1084
400
2530
193
122
545
230
192
122
544(3)
Response rates (2+1) per

sample
21,99%
17.71%
30.05%
21.50%
Percentage of total sample

(2+3)
42.3%
(32% full-time and
10,5% part-time)
35,3%
22.4%
100%
Net number distributed (1)

Number of responses
Unuseable
Net useable (2)
230
(n = 174 full-time and
n = 56 part-time)
Table 5.2 Individual-level sample characteristics
Number Reporting
Characteristic
Full-time homebased
entrepreneurs
Part-time homebased
entrepreneurs
Non-home-based
entrepreneurs
White-collar
workers
TOTAL
19
138*
53
83*
38
395
146
(n=541)
Gender:
Male
Female
137*
36
Age: (x years)
48.3
51.12
47.6
40.0
46.5
(n=536)
Life-cycle Stage:
Not married, no children
Single-parent family
Married, with children
Adult only family
20
3
90*
59
6
1
27*
21
23
8
94*
65
20
4
70*
28
172
55
190
122
(n=539)
CO
175
Number Reporting
Characteristic
Education
x Years
Full-time homebased
entrepreneurs
Part-time homebased
entrepreneurs
Non-home-based
entrepreneurs
White-collar
workers
TOTAL
14.91
16.58
16,31
16,00
15,82
(n=533)
11
30
31
34
39*
16
5
0
0
6
7
12
10
17*
2
0
6
21
20
31
53*
23
16
8
0
12
6
31
54*
9
2
0
17
69
64
108
156*
65
25
40
31
3
16
12
6
12
42*
12*
10
4
11
4
3
4
7
27
37*
24
30
14
6
12
29
27
32
1
34*
3
1
4
12
Type:
Less than high school
High school graduate
Trade school
College
Undergraduate
Graduate
PhD
MD/DDS
Program of study:
Technical/trade
Business
Medical
Sciences
Social sciences
Fine Arts
Other
Did not complete a program
* indicates sample modal response
CM
CO 5 }
II
176
106
110*
32
91
33
16
32
90
(n=510)
177
Table 5.3 Oraanizational-level sample characteristics
Number Reporting
Characteristic
Full-time homebased entrepreneurs
Part-time homebased entrepreneurs
Non-home-based
entrepreneurs
TOTAL
85
45
109*
37
62
44
36
33
24
15
33*
13
18
13
11
8
88
48
98*
37
69
48
48
36
197
108
232*
87
149
105
95
77
Experience:
Management - similar industry
Management - dissimilar industry
Technical - similar industry
Technical - dissimilar industry
Entrepreneurial - similar industry
Entrepreneurial - dissimilar
industry
Family business experience
Receive fam ily advice
(n=420)
Number Reporting
Characteristic
Non-home-based
entrepreneurs
TOTAL
7
5
8
57*
6
6
55*
7
11
6
3
2
1
1
2
6
4
22*
4
9
1
4
30
8
11
17
3
14
33
13
48*
2
12
39
14
20
76
15
24
110*
24
68
9
19
Type of business:
Retail trade
Wholesale trade
Manufacturing and processing
Construction/related trade
Multi-level or contract sales
Finance, insurance or real estate
Business services, ie. accounting
Oil and Gas services
Health, social, personal services
Craft and artisan
Other types of businesses
(n=418)
Business Revenue 1997:
Less than $24,999
$25,000 - 49,999
$50,000 - 74,999
$75,000 - 99,999
Greater than $100,000
17
38
20
23
62*
25*
9
7
2
7
12
32
22
29
81*
54
79
49
54
150*
(n=386)
179
Number Reporting
Non-home-based
entrepreneurs
TOTAL
plumber of employees 1997 (x )

(Including founder)
2.35
1.23
5.69
3.72
dumber of years of operation ( x )
11.6
9.6
11.4
11.2
Characteristic
* indicates sample modal response
180
entrepreneurs and both non-home-based entrepreneurs and full-time homebased entrepreneurs was noted at the .05 level of significance. Part-time homebased business owners in this study are on average three years older than full
time entrepreneurs and 3.5 years older than non-home-based entrepreneurs.
The mean age of individuals in this study (x = 46.5 years) is also comparable to
that of the general Calgary, Alberta population, where x 2 = - 1 9 (df=535, a =.001).
Life-cycle stage and number of years of education of the sample is
comparable to similar studies (Bates, 1995; Silver, 1993; Robinson & Herron,
1994) where the majority of entrepreneurs and white-collar workers are married,
with children living at home and the mean number of years of education is 15.82.
A significant difference in mean number of years of education was noted for parttime home-based entrepreneurs ( x =16.58, n=56) and full-time home-based
entrepreneurs ( x =14.91, n=172), at the .05 level of significance. In addition, the
mean number of years of education of individuals in this study (x = 15.82 years)
is comparable to that of the general Calgary, Alberta population, where x 2 = -12
(df=532, a =001).
Organization level characteristics consist of presence of managerial,
technical and entrepreneurial experience in similar and dissimilar industries, type
of firm, number of employees and sales volume and are reported for full-time and
part-time home-based entrepreneurs and for non-home-based entrepreneurs.
Technical experience in a similar industry to that of the respondents current
business was the most frequently reported type of experience by all three
181
samples, consistent with that reported in a study of small business owners
conducted by Butt & Khan (1996).
The majority of businesses in the total sample are service organizations,
although a bimodal distribution was noted for full-time home-based
entrepreneurs, where construction or construction-related trade (n=57) and
business services (n=55) were reported nearly equally. The statistics for the
number of employees and volume of sales are consistent with the categorization
of the dependent variable.
In general, comparisons between individual and organizational
characteristics of the three samples of entrepreneurs in this study and the
characteristics of samples of other studies of home-based entrepreneurs and
small business owners indicate similar sampling frames.
In general, the
demographic characteristics of respondents for each sample are comparable to

those of Robinson & Herron (1994) and Bates (1995), with the exception of parttime home-based entrepreneurs, where significant differences in age and level of
education were noted. In general, organization level characteristics of this study
are consistent with those reported in other studies of home-based entrepreneurs
(Roberts, etal.,1995; Orser& Foster, 1992; Wehrell, 1995; Silver, 1993) and of
small business owners and self-employed individuals (Robinson & Sexton, 1994;
Bates, 1990). Moreover, individuals in this study appear to be representative of
individuals in the general population on age and number of years of education.
Due to incomplete or inadequate information about other samples and
populations, however, it cannot be determined with certainty that the samples in
182
this study are wholly representative of individuals and small businesses in the
general population.
Representativeness o f the Samples

The response rates for home-based entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs
are 21.99% and 17.71%, respectively, indicating that the samples need to be
tested for representativeness. The results of the non-response bias and early
versus late response bias tests are presented below.
Non-response bias
One common approach for estimating non-response bias is the selection
of a random sample of non-respondents, who are asked to complete the
questionnaire. These responses are then compared to those in the responding
group, where any statistically significant differences between responses may
indicate a possible response bias (Emory & Cooper, 1991). Participants in this
study were assured of anonymity, thus further contact with non-respondents was
deemed to be a breach of this assurance. Where contact with non-respondents
is not possible, certain known demographic indicators can be compared for
groups of respondents and non-respondents. In this study, the only known
demographic characteristic on which respondent and non-respondent groups
could be compared is gender, where the chi-square x2 statistic for a test
concerning differences among proportions for the entrepreneur samples was
calculated:
183
(1)
X2 = YA o - e )z
e
where o is the observed sample proportion (the observed proportion of

male business ownership) for the home-based entrepreneur and non-homebased entrepreneur samples, equal to .76 and .72, respectively, and e is the
expected sample proportion (the expected proportion of male business
ownership) for the home-based entrepreneur and non-home-based entrepreneur
samples equal to .83 and .80, respectively. Thus, x2 equals .59 and .80 for
home-based and for non-home-based entrepreneurs, respectively, and as neither
value exceeds 3.841, the value for x2.os with 1 degree of freedom, two-tailed test,
the null hypothesis that no differences among proportions exist for the two
groups, cannot be rejected. In other words, although differences among the
actual proportions for the two groups of entrepreneurs may exist, there is no
evidence for it at the .05 level of significance.
Earlv versus Late Response Bias

As the data collection period spanned three months, there exists the
possibility for extraneous effects on respondents scores. For example, during
the data collection period the West Texas Intermediate crude oil price per barrel
fell to a ten year record low of US$11.20, potentially impacting the attitudes of
respondents. Thus, in addition to an examination of the differences between
respondent and non-respondent groups, the respondent group was further
184
examined for early versus late response bias. Tests for significance of
differences in mean age, years of education, number of years of business
operation and innovation subscale scores for the first and last fifty cases in the
total sample were conducted. The innovation subscale was selected for the
analysis as it was believed to be the most likely of all the attitude subscafes to be
affected by extraneous events. The results of the t-tests for significant
differences in means are presented in Table 5.4 and indicate no statistically
significant differences were found for age, number of years of business operation,
or innovation subscale scores between the two groups, although a significant
difference was noted for mean number of years of education, where =<,=16.39
and x2=15.25, at the .05 level of significance.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Internal consistency of the six subscales was analyzed in this study using
standardized Cronbachs Alpha, a measure of the pattern of variability of
responses over all cases, where the standardized alpha value is the value that
would be obtained if all of the items were standardized to have a variance of 1.0.
According to Nunnally (1978) alphas above .80 indicate an acceptable amount of
error. The alphas ranged from .31 to .79: revenue growth = .71, employment
growth = .74, EAO achievement = .79, EAO innovation = .74, EAO personal
control = .53, EAO self-esteem = .31. The revenue, employment, achievement
185
Table 5.4 Tests for significance of differences in mean indicators of early versus late respondents
Cases 1-51
Cases 494-544
Age
Education
Age
Education
46.49
1.34
16.39
.4867
10.51
1.10
6,93
,1276
43.68
1.37
15.25
.4337
10,76
1,29
7.16
.1126
25
65
10
23
1
35
4.8
9.06
28
74
9
24
3
28
5.63
9.07
Difference in means
2.81
1.14
-.25
-.23
Standard Error of
Differences
1.91
.6519
1,69
.1702
t-ratio
1.47
1.74
.1497
1.35
i"crtt
(df=98, ct=.05)
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
Difference
NS
NS
NS
Mean
Standard Error
Minimum
Maximum
Years
operating
Innovation
Subscale
Scores
Years
operating
Innovation
Subscale
Scores
186
and innovation subscales have better reliability than the self-esteem and personal
control scales as measured by internal consistency, which is consistent with
reliability results reported by Robinson (1989) and Christensen (1994). Lower
reliability scores could be a result of the use of naive subjects in both item
selection and test-retest procedures. The overall reliability of the six subscales
was .79, (p.<.001) which is acceptable.
Validity
According to Keriinger (1967), validity can be classified as three types: 1)
content, 2) criterion-related (concurrent and predictive), and 3) construct
(convergent and discriminant). As the content validity of the revenue and
employment growth and EAO subscales was discussed in the previous chapter,
and construct validity is implicit in the results of the hypothesis testing, the focus
of this section will be on criterion-related validity.
Criterion-related Validity
Criterion-related validity reflects the success of measures used for some
estimating purpose (Emory & Cooper, 1991). In the present study, criterionrelated validity was assessed in two ways: 1) correlations between component
(affective, cognitive, conative) scales and the six attitude subscales were used to
assess concurrent validity and 2) discriminant analysis was used to assess the
predictive validity of the instrument, which refers to the ability of the instrument to
187
correctly classify known subjects into group membership as either home-based or
non-home-based entrepreneurs and white-collar, non-management workers.
The correlation matrix of independent variables presented in Table 5.5
indicates that the strongest correlations are found between the three component
scores and the corresponding attitude subscale, an indication of the concurrent
validity of the instrument. For example, correlations of .808, .868, and .846 are
found between achievement-affective, achievement-cognitive and achievementconative scores and the achievement in business subscale scores, respectively.
This correlation analysis suggests that the six attitude subscale scores could be
used as independent variables for further analysis in the study, reducing the
number of attitudinal independent variables from the original 110 scale items, to
eighteen component scores, and finally to six subscale scores. The covariance
matrix is presented in Appendix 2.
The analysis used to determine the predictive validity of the instrument
was discriminant analysis, which creates new variables called discriminant
functions, or variables which are linear combinations of the original variables
which maximally separate the groups. The multivariate F statistic (Wilks lambda)
indicates the statistical significance of the discriminant functions, or in other
words, the probability that the linear combination of the variables available to
discriminant analysis is due to chance. Interpretation of the discriminant function
can be determined by the canonical correlation coefficient, which explains the
substantive utility of the discriminant function.
188
Table 5.5 Correlation matrix of component and subscale independent variables
2
10
11
12
IB
19
,54
.42
20
.36
.39
53
.45
.25
.44
.38
.65
.47
06
.10
-.18
22
-.03
27
.26
.25
60
.75
.83
.42
.45
.48
.65
.38
.59
.08
47
.47
.38
.85
.73
.83
.49
.37
.42
-0 3
.55
13
14
15
16
VARIABLES
1. Achievement-affective
2. Achievement-Cognitive
61
3. Achlevement-Conatlve
.47
.60
4. Innovation-Affective
.58
.43
.42
5. Innovation-Cognitive
.43
,48
43
.54
6. InnovaUon-Conative
.25
.13
.14
,52
.42
7. Personal Control-Affective
.48
.37
.34
.43
.40
29
8. Personal Control-Cognitive
.27
.40
.28
.17
24
02
.18
9. Personal Control-Conatlve
.47
.47
.58
.45
.38
.20
.34
.30
10. Self-esteem-Affective
-.07
-.37
-.03
06
-.03
26
.01
.-07
.09
11. Self-esteem-Cognltlve
.53
.56
.38
.35
.28
07
.32
.30
.36
-.09
12. Self-esteem-Conatlve
.18
.08
.07
.08
.02
.16
.07
.01
.13
.40
.09
13. Revenue Growth-Affective
.49
.52
.43
.37
31
07
.34
.34
.40
-2 0
.42
-08
14. Revenue Growth-Cognitive
.43
.50
.48
.37
39
18
35
,26
46
-.12
36
06
45
15. Revenue Growth-Conative
.28
.34
.46
22
32
12
.28
22
.52
.00
27
-04
42
48
16. Employment Growth- Affective
.21
.27
.30
.25
20
03
.18
09
.31
24
.24
27
40
34
28
17. Employment-Growth-Cognltive
.42
.50
.43
.44
.32
13
21
.30
.47
-.02
.42
08
41
43
28
45
18. Employment Growth-Conative
.25
.34
.45
.40
.33
22
.18
.20
.48
-.09
.23
-.16
37
41
.38
.50
.51
18. Achievement Subscale
.80
.86
.84
57
,53
21
.46
.37
61
09
58
13
57
56
44
.31
20. Innovation Subscale
.51
42
.40
85
78
61
46
.17
.41
.12
.28
11
30
38
27
21. Personal Control Subscale
.54
57
.54
.47
.46
22
.69
.74
.71
00
.45
09
.49
47
22. Self-esteem Subscale
.29
.21
.19
.24
.12
.26
.19
.10
.28
.72
.44
.76
03
23. Revenue Growth Subscale
.49
.56
.57
.39
.42
.15
.40
.34
.58
-.13
.43
07
24. Employment Growth Subscale
.34
.42
.47
.43
.34
.15
.23
.22
.50
-.17
.34
-.18
Correlations above .15 are significant at .05 level of significance.
17
20
21
22
23
24
189
Like all correlations, canonical correlation has a range of-1 to 1, where a
high coefficient value (positive or negative) indicates a strong relationship
between the groups and the function while a low value indicates a weak
relationship. If the groups are not very different on the variables being analyzed,
then the correlations are likely to be low, as discrimination cannot be created
where none exists. In addition to the canonical correlation coefficients, the
structure coefficient indicates the strength of the relationship between a variable
and a discriminant function. When the absolute value of the structure coefficient
is near 1.0 it suggests that the function is carrying nearly the same information as
the variable, and when the value is near zero, the function and variable have little
in common.
Of particular interest is the ability of the instrument used in this study to
correctly classify known subjects into group membership. This is assessed with
the classification function of discriminant analysis. The classification functions
calculate separate posterior probabilities that a given subject will be located in a
particular group. In this analysis, three probabilities are calculated for each case
(individual), i.e., p (home-based business owner), p (non-home-based business
owner), and p (white-collar, non-management worker). The individual is assigned
to the group for which it has the highest posterior probability of belonging
(Norusis & SPSS, Inc., 1994). The hit rate, or the performance of the
classification function, can be calculated by dividing the number of correct
classifications by the actual group membership. If the hit rate exceeds the
190
probability of classification by chance, the instrument is said to be performing
better than chance.
The results of the discriminant analysis using all six subscales, presented
in Table 5.6, indicate a 66% correct classification for entrepreneur and worker
groups (two group analysis with adjustment for unequal sample sizes, p. = .5) and
a 44% correct classification for home-based and non-home-based entrepreneurs
and workers (three group analysis, p. = .33). Table 5.6 also presents the results
of two- and three-group discriminant analysis conducted independently for EAO,
RG and EG subscales. All of the first functions derived by the discriminant
analysis are statistically significant in terms of Wilks lambda and chi-square. It
can be concluded from the analysis that since the EAO, RG, and EG can be used
individually and together to discriminate between the groups, the instrument has
predictive validity as the classification functions for both two and three group
analysis perform better than chance, .5 and .33, respectively.
Hypothesis Tests
The primary statistical analyses conducted for the present study entail
three techniques: 1) determination of differences between subsamples on
attitudes toward entrepreneurship using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA);
2) determination of the probability of non-home-based business ownership along
with identification of variables which are significant in the choice of business
ownership, using forward, stepwise LOGIT regression; and 3) development of a
structural model to estimate the mediating effects of individual and organizational
Table 5.6 Summary of Discriminant Analysis results for EAO. RG and EG subscales
EAO, RG, EG
EAO only
RG, EG
RG only
EG only
44.1
43.8
39,3
35.8
34.6
,877/.993
70.64/4.05
.902/,994
55.85/2.98
.948/1.0
28.94/,026
.955
24.90
.998
1.2
12/5
,000/, 542
8/3
.000/.393
4/1
,000/,872
2
,000
2
.547
Two Group Analysis (p, = .50)

Percentage of correct group
classification:
66,2
66,0
62.5
61.0
51.8
Wilk's Lambda (Function 1)

X2
,885
66.11
.909
51.63
.948
28.69
.955
24.76
.998
1.20
6
.000
4
.000
2
.000
1
.000
1
.272
ANALYSIS
Three Group Analysis (p. = .33)
Percentage of correct group
classification:
Wilks Lambda (Function 1/2)
X2
df
significance
df
significance
192
variables on the relationship between entrepreneurial attitudes and

entrepreneurial behavior, using LISREL analysis.
Differences between full-time and part-time home-based entrepreneurs, non

home-based entrepreneurs and white-collar workers
Differences between full-time and part-time home-based entrepreneurs,
non-home-based entrepreneurs and white-collar workers were tested with one
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the six attitude subscale scores as
dependent variables and type of entrepreneurial behavior as the categorical
independent variable. Table 5.7 presents the descriptive statistics including
means, standard deviations, standard errors, Eta and Eta2 of subscale means for
each group as well as for the total sample. The Eta2 statistic is an effect-size
measure which describes the proportion of total variability explained by the
grouping variable, type of entrepreneurial behavior.
In analysis of variance, the observed variability in the sample is divided
into two parts: 1) variability of the observations within a group, i.e., the variability
of the observations around their group mean and 2) the variability between group
means. The statistical test for the null hypothesis that all groups have the same
mean is based on the ratio of the between-groups mean square and the withingroups mean square. If the null hypothesis is true, the mean squares should be
approximately equal, where the ratio should be close to 1.0.
193
Table 5.7 Summary of descriptive statistics for mean comparisons
SUBSCALE
STATISTICS
Full-time
Home-based
Part-time
Home-based
Non-home-based
White-collar
workers
Total
Achievement
Mean
N
SD
SE
Eta
Eta2
F ratio
Significance
7.8162
174
.9062
.0068
7,5090
56
,8360
.1117
7.8048
192
.8153
.0058
7,5416
122
.8519
.0077
7.7189
544
.8633
.0037
.152
.023
4.264
,005
Innovation
Mean
N
SD
SE
Eta
Eta2
F ratio
Significance
6,9607
174
.7462
.0056
7.0136
56
.7862
.1051
7.0352
192
,8736
,0063
6.9411
122
.8830
.0799
6.9880
544
.8269
.0035
.048
.002
.420
.739
Personal Control
Mean
N
SD
SE
Eta
Eta2
F ratio
Significance
7.2670
174
.9052
.0068
6.8234
56
.9361
,1251
7.0846
192
.8907
.0064
6.558
122
1.0092
,0091
6.9980
544
.9634
.0041
.279
,078
15.226
,000
194
SUBSCALE
STATISTICS
Full-time
Home-based
Part-time
Home-based
Non-home-based
White-collar
workers
Total
Self-esteem
Mean
N
SD
SE
Eta
Eta2
F ratio
Significance
7.6042
174
.8140
.0061
7.5187
56
.7339
.0098
7.6199
192
.7561
.0054
7.2652
122
.7595
.0068
7.5249
544
.7846
,0033
.182
.033
6.156
.000
Revenue Growth
Mean
N
SD
SE
Eta
Eta2
F ratio
Significance
7.1707
174
.8140
.0061
6.6954
56
.8740
.1168
7.0443
192
.9586
.0069
6,5351
122
.9646
.0087
6.9143
544
.9651
.0041
.243
.059
11.326
.000
Employment Growth
Mean
N
SD
SE
Eta
Eta2
F ratio
Significance
6.2892
174
1.1974
.0097
5.9818
56
1,0225
.1366
6.2078
192
1.2452
.0089
6.0790
122
1.0739
.0097
6.1817
544
1.1728
.0050
.087
.008
1.376
.249
195
Significant F values exist for achievement in business, personal control of

business outcomes, self-esteem in business, preference for revenue growth in
business, where F ratios of 4.264, 15.228, 6.158, and 11.326, respectively, were
identified at the .001 level of significance. A significant F value indicates only that
the sample means are not all equal and not which pairs of groups appear to have
different means. Post hoc multiple comparison procedures are used to determine
which means are significantly different from each other. By adjusting for the
number of comparisons being made, post hoc procedures lower the probability of
type I error, that is, the probability of finding a significant difference where none
exists. Several multiple comparison procedures are available, and differ in how
the observed significance level is adjusted. For the purposes of this study, the
Scheffe multiple comparison test procedure was selected as a conservative test
that requires larger differences between means for significance than other
multiple comparison tests (Norusis & SPSS, Inc., 1993). Scheffe computes the
limits of the confidence intervals for each difference in means. If I is smaller than
the difference between means, then the difference in significant. Table 5.8
presents the results of the post hoc multiple comparison tests.
In general, significant differences between groups were found for self
esteem in business, perceived personal control of business outcomes, and
preference for business growth in revenue. No significant differences were found
between groups for achievement in business, innovation and preference for
business growth in employment using Scheffe. Less conservative algorithms
found significant differences between groups in attitude toward achievement,
Table 5.8 Post hoc multiple comparison tests of significance of differences between full-time and part-time home-based
entrepreneurs, non-home-based entrepreneurs and white-collar workers
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE:
Type of Entrepreneurial Behavior

(1)
Achievement in
Business
White-collar workers
Significance
Mean
Difference
(W)
Standard
Error
Full-time home-based
Part-time home-based
Non-home-based
-.2745
.0032
-.2631
.101
.138
.099
.062
.997
.071
Non-home-based
.2745
.3072
.0011
.101
,131
,090
.062
.142
.999
Non-home-based
-.0032
-.3072
-.2958
.138
,131
.130
.997
,142
.160
Non-home-based
White-collar worker
.2631
,0011
.2958
.099
.090
.130
.071
.999
,160
(J)
197
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE:
Innovation in
Business
(1)
(J)
Significance
Mean
Difference
(l-J)
Standard
Error
Non-home-based
-.0019
-.0072
-.0094
.098
.134
.096
,998
.961
.810
Non-home-based
.0019
-.0053
-.0074
.098
,127
.087
.998
.982
,864
Non-home-based
.0072
,0052
-.0021
,134
.127
.126
,961
.982
.999
Non-home-based
White-collar worker
.0094
,0074
,0021
.096
.087
.126
.810
.864
.999
198
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE':
Personal Control of
Business Outcomes
Significance
Mean
Difference
(l-J)
Standard
Error
Non-home-based
-.7086*
-.2650
-.5262*
.110
.150
.107
.000
.373
.000
Non-home-based
.7086*
.4436*
,1824
.110
.142
,097
.000
.022
.318
Non-home-based
.2650
.4436*
.2612
,150
.143
.141
.373
.022
.330
Non-home-based
White-collar worker
,5262*
-.1824
.2612
.107
.097
.141
.000
.318
.330
(1)
(J)
199
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE:
Self-esteem in
Business
(I)
(J)
Significance
Mean
Difference
(l-J)
Standard
Error
Non-home-based
-.3389*
-.2535
-.3547*
.091
.125
.090
,003
,250
.001
Non-home-based
,3389*
.0085
-.0015
,091
.119
,081
.003
.915
.998
Non-home-based
.2535
-.0085
-.1011
.125
,119
.117
,250
.915
,864
Non-home-based
White-collar worker
.3547*
.0015
.1011
.090
.081
.117
.001
.998
.864
200
dependent
VARIABLE:
Preference for
Business Growth in
Revenue

0)

(J)
Significance
Mean
Difference
(l-J)
Standard
Error
Non-home-based
-.5720*
-.1602
-.5091*
.111
.152
.109
.000
.773
.000
Non-home-based
,5720*
.4118*
.0062
.111
.144
.098
.000
.044
,938
Non-home-based
.1602
-.4118*
-.3489
.152
,144
.143
.773
.044
.113
Non-home-based
White-collar worker
,5091*
-.0062
.3489
.109
,098
.143
.000
.938
.113
201
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE:

0)

(J)
Preference for
Business Growth in
Employment
Significance
Mean
Difference
(l-J)
Standard
Error
Non-home-based
-.2102
.0097
-.1289
.138
,189
.136
.511
,967
.825
Non-home-based
.2102
.3073
.0081
.138
,180
,123
.511
.406
.932
Non-home-based
-.0097
-.3073
-.2260
.189
.180
,178
.967
,406
.657
Non-home-based
White-collar worker
.1289
-.0081
.2260
.136
.123
.178
.825
.932
.657
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
202
however. The results of the post hoc comparison tests permit the testing of the
hypotheses presented in Chapter three. A summary of the results of tests of
hypotheses is provided in Table 5.9. A discussion of the tests for each of the
hypotheses follows whereas a discussion of the findings is presented in Chapter
six.
Hypotheses 1a and 1b posited that non-home-based entrepreneurs would
exhibit higher scores on achievement in business than would full-time and parttime home-based entrepreneurs and white-collar employees, hypotheses 1c and
1d proposed that home business owners would exhibit higher scores on
achievement than would employees and hypothesis 1e posited that full-time
home business owners would exhibit higher scores for achievement in business
than would part-time home-based entrepreneurs. Although differences in scores
were reported, no significant differences were found among the three types of
entrepreneurs, or between entrepreneurs and workers on the achievement
subscale. Thus, hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e are not supported.
A homogenous subset analysis using Student-Newman-Keul (S-N-K)
procedure derived two subsets, however 1) part-time home-based entrepreneurs
and white-collar workers (achievement means = 7.50, 7.54, alpha = .05) and 2)
non-home-based entrepreneurs and full-time home-based entrepreneurs
(achievement means = 7.80, 7.81, alpha = .05) suggesting that although no
statistically significant differences between mean scores for achievement in
business were found, some similarities exist among types of entrepreneurs and
203
Table 5.9 Summary of tests of hypotheses
Hypothesis - Achievement in Business
Results
H1a.

attitudes toward achievement in business than will full-time or
Achievement in Business subscale.
NS
H1b.

attitudes toward achievement in business than will white-collar,
non-management employees, as measured by the EAO
Achievement in Business subscale.
NS
H1c.

attitudes toward achievement in business than will
white-collar, non-management workers, as measured by the
EAO Achievement in Business subscale.
NS
H1d.

white-collar, non-management workers, as measured by the
EAO Achievement in Business subscaie.
NS
H1e.

part-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the
EAO Achievement in Business subscale.
NS
204
Hypothesis - Innovation in Business
Results
H2a.

attitudes toward innovation in business than will home-based
entrepreneurs, as measured by the EAO Innovation in Business
subscale.
NS
H2b.

attitudes toward innovation in business than will white-collar,
Innovation in Business subscale.
NS
H2c.

NS
H2d.

NS
H2e.

attitudes toward innovation in business than will part-time
home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the EAO
NS
205
Hypothesis - Personal Control in Business
Results
H3a.

attitudes toward perceived control of business outcomes
than will full-time and part-time home-based entrepreneurs,
as measured by the EAO Personal Control subscale.
NS
H3b.

than will white-collar, non-management employees,
H3c.

H3d.

NS
H3e.

attitudes toward perceived control of business outcomes than
will part-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the EAO
Personal Control subscale
206
Hypothesis - Self-esteem in Business
Results
H4a.

attitudes toward perceived self-esteem in business than
will full-time and part-time home-based entrepreneurs,
as measured by the EAO Self-esteem in Business subscale.
NS
H4b.

will white-collar, non-management employees,
H4c.

will white-collar, non-management employees,
H4d.
Part-time home-based entrepreneurs will demonstrate

stronger attitudes toward perceived self-esteem in
business than will white-collar, non-management employees,
NS
H4e.

attitudes toward self-esteem in business than will part-time
home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the EAO
Self-esteem subscale.
NS
207
Hypothesis - Business Growth in Revenue and in Employment
Results
H5a.

attitudes toward preference for business growth in revenue
than will full-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the
H5b.

attitudes toward preference for business growth in revenue than
will part-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the
H6a.

attitudes toward preference for business growth in employment
than will full-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the
NS
H6b.

attitudes toward preference for business growth in employment
than will part-time home-based entrepreneurs, as measured by the
NS
S
NS
=
=
Supported
Not supported
NS
208
among part-time home-based entrepreneurs and the control group of white-collar
employees.
Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d posited that non-home-based entrepreneurs
would exhibit higher scores on innovation in business than would full-time and
part-time home-based entrepreneurs and white-collar workers respectively, and
that full-time and part-time home-based entrepreneurs would exhibit higher
scores on innovation in business than would white-collar workers. Hypothesis 2e
posited higher scores on innovation in business for full-time than part-time homebased entrepreneurs. Although the lowest scores were reported for white-collar
workers, no statistically significant differences were found between or among the
four groups. In addition, the homogenous subset analysis produced only one
homogenous subset containing all groups (alpha = .05). Thus, hypotheses 2a,
2b, 2c, 2d and 2e are not supported.
Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, and 3e postulate that non-home-based
entrepreneurs will produce stronger perceived personal control of business
outcome scores than will home-based entrepreneurs and white collar workers,
that full-time and part-time home-based entrepreneurs will exhibit higher scores
for perceived personal control of business outcomes than will white-collar workers
and that full-time home-based entrepreneurs will exhibit higher scores than parttime home-based entrepreneurs. Non-home-based entrepreneurs exhibited
significantly higher personal control scores than did white-collar workers (alpha =
.0001), full-time home-based entrepreneurs exhibited significantly higher scores
than did part-time home-based entrepreneurs (alpha = .022) and full-time home-
209
based entrepreneurs were higher than white-collar workers (alpha = .0001). No
significant differences were found between non-home-based, and full-time and
part-time home-based entrepreneurs, or between part-time and white-collar
workers for measures of perceived personal control. Thus, the results support
hypothesis 3b, 3c and 3e. The homogenous subset analysis using the S-N-K
procedure generated three homogenous subsets of respondents on personal
control: 1) white-collar workers (personal control mean = 6.55, alpha = .05), 2)
part-time home-based (personal control mean = 6.82, alpha = .05), and 3) nonhome-based and full-time home-based entrepreneurs (personal control means =
7.08, 7.26 respectively, alpha = .05).
Hypotheses 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d and 4e postulate that non-home-based
entrepreneurs will produce higher scores than will full-time home-based
entrepreneurs and white-collar workers, that full-time and part-time home-based
entrepreneurs will exhibit higher scores than will white-collar workers on
perceived self-esteem in business and that full-time home-based entrepreneurs
will post higher scores than will part-time home-based entrepreneurs. Post hoc
tests provide support for hypotheses 4b and 4c, where non-home-based
entrepreneurs and full-time entrepreneurs report significantly higher mean scores
for self-esteem than did workers (alpha = .0001). No significant differences were
found between non-home-based and full-time or part-time home-based
entrepreneurs on self-esteem in business. The homogenous subset analysis
confirms the post hoc results, where two subsets were derived: 1) white-collar
workers (self-esteem mean = 7.25, alpha = .05) and 2) entrepreneurs (self-
210
esteem means = 7.51, 7.60, 7.61 for part-time, full-time and non-home-based
respectively, alpha = .05).
Hypotheses 5a and 5b posit that non-home-based business owners will
produce higher preference for business growth in revenue scores than will full
time home-based business owners, and that a significant difference between full
time and part-time home-based business owners will be found. No significant
difference between non-home-based and full-time home-based entrepreneurs
was found, although a significant difference between full-time and part-time
home-based business owners exists for preference of business growth in
revenue (alpha = .05). The results provide support for hypothesis 5b, but not for
hypothesis 5a. Two homogenous subsets were produced: 1) white-collar
workers and part-time home-based entrepreneurs (revenue means = 6.53, 6.69,
alpha = .05) and 2) full-time home-based and non-home-based entrepreneurs
(revenue means = 7.04, 7.10 respectively, alpha = .05).
Hypotheses 6a and 6b postulate that non-home-based entrepreneurs will
score higher on preference for business growth in employment than will full-time
home-based business owners, and that full-time home-based entrepreneurs will
prefer business growth in employment more than part-time home-based
entrepreneurs.
No significant differences were found between the three groups
of entrepreneurs, thus hypotheses 6a and 6b are not supported. One

homogenous subset was produced containing all four groups (alpha = .05).
211
Probability of Commercial Business Start-up
In order to assess predictive utility of the instrument and model developed
for the current study, additional analyses were conducted to determine the extent
to which individual and organizational level variables influence the decision to
create a non-home-based or commercial business. In order to determine the
probability of commercial business start-up, p (commercial), operationalized as
non-home-based entrepreneurship, and subsequently, the influence of individual
and organization variables on the start-up location decision, a stepwise, logistic
regression technique was used.
LOGIT regression is an appropriate technique
used to predict its estimate of the probability that an event will or will not occur.
Thus, a binary (dichotomous) dependent variable is used which, in the present
analysis, is the probability of commercial business start-up. If the predicted
probability is greater than .50, then the prediction is that the event (non-homebased entrepreneurship) will occur, otherwise not.
The variables reported in the entrepreneurship literature as being
predictors of commercial business start-up are: age; gender; life-cycle-stage;
number of years of education; experience; type of business; revenue; number of
employees; and number of years of operation. These variables were entered
stepwise into the analysis, where data was analyzed using BMDP statistical
software.
The results of the stepwise, LOGIT regression are presented in Table 5.10
and indicate that all significant predictors were entered in four steps. The most
significant predictor variables of the operation of a commercial, or
212
Table 5.10 Determinants of the operation of a non-home-based business
Predictor
COEF
S.E.
95% confidence interval
1. Type of business (1)

(2)
-1.649
-1.194
-3.399
-2.673
-2.237
-.8917
.882
.673
.571
.972
.498
.510
-1.87
-1.77
-5.95
-2.75
-4.49
-1.75
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.999- 1.17
.033- 1.09
.080- 1.14
.010-.103
.040 - .284
.150-1.12
2. 1997 revenue
.3906
.0894
4.37
.000
1.24-1.76
3. Number of employees
.2058
.0480
4.28
.000
1.12-1.35
4. Num^r of years of education .0761
.0390
1.95
.0494
.999- 1.17
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
-1.486
Constant
Goodness of fit (2*0*LN(O/E)) = 377.560, d.f. = 350, p. = .149
213
non-home-based business are, in order of entry, are: 1) type of business being
operated, 2) previous years business revenue, 3) number of employees, and 4)
number of years of education of the individual. Gender, age, household, all types
of experience in similar and dissimilar industries, and number of years of
business operation were not found to be significant predictors. Management
experience in a similar industry was the only type of experience related to the
probability of becoming a commercial entrepreneur, although not significantly (p.
=.69). Not surprisingly, the operation of a retail business was the most significant
predictor of non-home-based business operation (p. = .00). Several variables
were correlated with each other, however, the correlation coefficients were low or
insignificant, suggesting that multicollinearity was not a problem.
Mediating effect of individual and organizational variables on the relationship

between attitudes and entrepreneurial behavior
One final analysis conducted with the data was the estimation of a
structural equation model using LISREL. Structural equation modeling estimates
a series of separate, but interdependent, multiple regression equations
simultaneously by specifying the structural model used by the statistical program.
The structural model expressed the relationships among independent and
dependent variables, even when a dependent variable becomes an independent
variable in other relationships. These proposed relationships are expressed as a
series of structural equations for each dependent variable. This feature sets
structural equation modeling apart from other techniques which accommodate
214
multiple dependent variables, namely multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) and canonical correlation, in that those techniques allow only a single
relationship between independent and dependent variables (Hair, et al., 1995).
In addition, structural equation modeling is particularly useful in exploratory
stages of research, where relevant theoretical models are at an early stage of
development. In exploratory research, latent variable methods, such as LISREL,
can be used to examine various measurement models as an aid in selecting
predictor variables, assessing construct validity, and investigating differences
among models that specify alternate hypotheses about the relationships among
the theoretical constructs of interest (Hughes, Price & Marrs, 1995).
Fiqure 5.1 illustrates the path diagram of the causal relationships
investigated in this analysis, primarily the relationships between entrepreneurial
attitudes and number of employees and the potential mediating effects of
individual and organizational variables on this relationship. This diagram is also
referred to as the structural model specification in structural equation modeling
techniques. Note that number of employees (a continuous variable), and not type
of entrepreneurial behavior (a categorical variable), is used as the dependent
variable y in this analysis so as not to violate the requirement of a metric
dependent variable of structural equation modeling techniques. The predictor
variables, also known as exogenous constructs, include affective, cognitive and
conative measures of attitudes toward achievement, innovation, self-esteem,
personal control, business growth in revenue and in employment (x, - x18) as well
as individual and organizational level variables of age; gender; life-cycle stage
215
Figure 5.1 Path diagram of causal relationships
GENDER
Q ACHIEVEMENT ) Y,
\
/
(
INNOVATION
PERSONAL
CONTROL
>
) y4
X21J1
\i
EXPERIENCE
'f
EDUCATION
mgmlexps
mgmlexpd
techexps
techexpd
entexps
entexpd
fam exp
fam adv
Xa
*
^
X9
( SELF-ESTEEM
) Y2 ,
/
V
singlep
m arried
adull
XM
X.
LIFE
CYCLE
AGE
CONSTELLATION OF
ENTREPRENEURIAL
ATTITUDES
Y, \
Y
T
s/ y
8/ NUMBER OF
' EMPLOYEES
Xjj.j#
Aw
XH
/
'
REVENUE
GROWTH
, Y
'
8
/ /
!
/
(
EMPLOYMENT
GROWTH
TYPE OF
BUSINESS
w holesale
m anufacture
construction
multi-level
business serv.
social serv.
3 b
1997
REVENUE
YEARS OF
OPERATION
216
including single parent, married with children, or adult-only categories; number of
years of education; type of experience including entrepreneurial, technical and
managerial experience in similar or dissimilar industries, family business
experience and presence of family advice in business decision-making; type of
business including wholesale, manufacturing, construction, multi-level marketing,
business services, and social services; 1997 revenue; and years of business
operation (x19- x40). The path diagram specifies eight dependent variables, also
known as endogenous variables, including attitude subscale scores on
achievement, innovation, self-esteem, personal control, employment growth and
revenue growth (y, - y6), entrepreneurial attitude constellation (y7) and number of
employees (y8).
This path diagram is translated into a series of structural equations for
each endogenous (y) variable. The eight equations created for LISREL analysis
are presented in Table 5.11. Note that a separate equation is created for each
endogenous variable, Y, similar to multiple regression, where:
(1)
Yn =
b ,X ,
b ^ 2
+ b3X3 + ... +
b ^
+ bn Y, +
b aY 2
+ bi3Y3 + ... + fi*Yn+
The eight structural equations specified in Table 5.11 were estimated in

LISREL. Figure 5.2 illustrates the complete standardized model with all
relationships portrayed in causal model format.
Refer to Table 5.12 for a list of
variable names. The Yj parameters are the structural coefficients linking the
ID
in
ID
ID
id
U)
CO
ID
co
u;
CD
Table 5.11 Structural equations for endogenous variables
-Q
+
C
CO
N
CN
CN
-Q
+
CO
C/J
S is
03 -Q
O CD
"O
"O
C CO
CN
-Q
+
LU >
-QCM
>r03
tr
-Q
05
o
>rprr
Q
+ + + + +
C
C
O
co
CN
N C
CD
N
X COX CMX COX o X V
CO ^ TT
-QCM-QCO-Q -Q -Q
+ +
+ +
+ +
-Q -Q -Q -Q
-Q -Q
+ +
CO
CO
CD -O
CD.ro
X
CD
HI >
CO
X CO
-Q
CO
X CO
-O
o>
X o>
-Q
CM
X CM
-Q
in
Xm
-Q
o
Xo
-O
X
-Q
TT
X ^r
-Q
r*
X p-Q
ii
ii
XCM
-cT
-f
X in
X CO
-cT
-cT
tr
X_
-o
+o
xT
x"
tr
-o"
-t-
XT
o
eo
X C*O
xCO
-o
II
II
>-
>~
>r
CO
N*
CO
0>
CO
O
CN C
X x X mX o
" co cr
Q -Q -Q -Q -Q
CM. V
CD 0
CM 3< CN jr
C
O o-tr
co
X CMX CO
2C
s s >i><
CO *r m-Q -Q -Q _Q -Q -Q
4- + + 4- 4* 4
m CO
CO
3
o> C
N PCN CO CO 0
< X 03X COX X X m
m
-.
CN CN CO P
CO
CO
3
o
O 03
>?
03 JO
O
CD
or
o CD
LU >
CN
CO
CO
CO
Figure 5.2 LISREL measurement model of causal relationships
c\j
219
Table 5.12 List of variables names used in LISREL analysis
Label
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
X11
X12
X13
X14
X15
X16
X17
X18
X19
X20
X21
X22
X23
X24
X25
X26
X27
X28
X29
X30
X31
X32
X33
X34
X35
X36
X37
X38
X39
X40
Variable name
Affective-achievement
Cognitive-achievement
Conative-achievement
Affective-innovation
Cognitive-innovation
Conative-innovation
Affective-personal-control
Cognitive-personal control
Conative-personal control
Affective-self-esteem
Cognitive-self-esteem
Conative-self-esteem
Affective-revenue growth
Cognitive-revenue growth
Conative-revenue growth
Affective-employment growth
Cognitive-employment growth
Conative-employment growth
Gender
Age
Single-parent
Married, with children
Adult-only family
Management experience, similar industry
Management experience, dissimilar industry
Technical experience, similar industry
Technical experience, dissimilar industry
Entrepreneurial experience, similar industry
Entrepreneurial experience, dissimilar industry
Family business experience
Use of family advice
Number of years of education of founder
Wholesale
Manufacturing
Construction
Multi-level marketing
Business services
Social services
1997 revenue
Number of years of business operation
220
indicators and their latent variables, yT- y6. The parameter Yi represents the
causal relationship between attitude toward achievement in business and attitude
toward entrepreneurship; y2 represents the causal relationship between attitude
toward innovation in business and attitude toward entrepreneurship; y3 represents
the causal relationship between perceived personal control of business outcomes
and attitude toward entrepreneurship; y4 represents the causal relationship
between perceived self-esteem in business and attitude toward entrepreneurship;
y5 represents the causal relationship between attitude toward revenue growth in
business and attitude toward entrepreneurship; y6 represents the causal
relationship between attitude toward employment growth in business and attitude
toward entrepreneurship; and y7 represents the causal relationship between
entrepreneurial attitude and number of employees. Chi-square goodness of fit
equals 124.54 (301 d.f., p = 1.0) indicating the model is a good fit (Hair, et al.,
1995).
The measurement model presented in Figure 5.2 illustrates the mediating
effects of individual and organizational level variables on the entrepreneurial
attitude - entrepreneurial behavior relationship, where entrepreneurial behavior is
measured by number of employees. Several variables appear to influence this
relationship while many others do not. Type of business, more specifically, the
operation of a business services, social services, or construction business, as
well as 1997 revenue appear to have a stronger mediating effect than type of
experience, gender, age, family-life-cycle stage, number of years of education
and number of years of business ownership. These findings are consistent with
221
that of the LOGIT analysis presented in the previous section, although LISREL
analysis is more powerful as the coefficients of structural equations for multiple
dependent variables are presented simultaneously. The structural equation
model illustrates quite clearly that individual level variables have much less of an
influence on firm size, as measured by number of employees, than do
organizational level variables. The model also illustrates the relative significance
of entrepreneurial attitudes and firm size, although attitudes do not appear to be
as significant as organizational level variables.
Chapter Summary
The results of the analysis of the data for this study were presented in this
chapter and included an analysis of the representativeness of the sample,
reliability and validity of the instrument and the tests of hypotheses. The main
analysis involved one-way analysis of variance to test the hypotheses; forward,
stepwise LOGIT regression to determine the extent to which individual and
organizational variables influence the decision to become a home-based or non
home-based entrepreneur; and LISREL to estimate a structural model to
represent the causal relationships proposed in the current study.
The testing of the hypotheses suggest that full-time home-based
entrepreneurs are comparable to non-home-based entrepreneurs in their
attitudes toward achievement in business, self-esteem, personal control and
preference for business growth in revenue; that white-collar workers are similar to
222
part-time home-based entrepreneurs; and that workers consistently produced
lower scores for each attitude subscale than did entrepreneurs.
The most significant predictors of non-home-based business operation
were found to be three organizational level variables and one individual level
variable: 1) type of business, 2) 1997 revenue, 3) number of employees and 4)
the human capital variable of number years of education of the founder. Age,
gender, life-cycle stage, experience, number of years of business operation and
the entrepreneurial attitude constellation (total score) were not significant.
The LISREL model illustrates the relative strength of organizational level
variables over individual variables in mediating the entrepreneurial attitude - firm
size relationship, where type of business and 1997 revenue were the most
significant mediators of the relationship. In addition, entrepreneurial attitudes,
although less significant than organizational level variables, are related to number
of employees.
223
CHAPTER VI: EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The final chapter is devoted to an evaluation and discussion of the findings

presented in the previous chapter. Elements of the discussion include an
explanation of the findings and the implications of the findings. In addition,
theoretical and methodological limitations of the research are presented. Finally,
directions for future research are suggested.
Discussion of Results
The purpose of this research is to apply current attitude theory in the
measurement of attitudes toward the specific content area of home-based and
non-home-based entrepreneurship. It was proposed that the tri-partite model of
attitude, comprised of feeling, thinking and acting components, would differentiate
attitudes of home-based and non-home-based entrepreneurs toward
entrepreneurship from those of white-collar employees. A review of literature
suggested that entrepreneurs differ from others on several psychological
constructs, six of which were tested in this study: 1) achievement in business, 2)
innovation in business, 3) perceived personal control of business outcomes, 4)
self-esteem in business, and preference toward 5) business growth in revenue
and 6) business growth in employment. Six attitude subscales developed to
measure these characteristics in connection with entrepreneurship were
administered to a systematic, random sample of home-based and non-home-
224
based entrepreneurs and to a control group population of white-collar, employed
workers in Calgary, Alberta.
The six subscales (four EAO, RG, and EG) differ from traditional
personality trait scales, most frequently used in investigations of entrepreneurs,
on two important dimensions: 1) application of the tri-partite model with scale
items measuring affective, cognitive and conative aspects of entrepreneurs, or
how a person thinks, feels, and is intending to act upon an attitude object, and 2)
level of attitude-object specificity, where the scales were developed with a focus
on work and entrepreneurship rather than on broad general tendencies or
predispositions, thus enhancing predictive utility of the instrument
This study consisted of two main analyses: 1) a comparison of mean
scores on six attitude subscales for known groups of full-time and part-time
home-based entrepreneurs, non-home-based entrepreneurs and white-collar
workers and 2) regression analysis to determine significant predictors of homebased or non-home-based business ownership. While several of the
expectations implicit in the hypotheses were supported, most were not. In
general, differences between the three groups of entrepreneurs and white-collar
workers were discovered, which is consistent with literature, although few of the
differences were statistically significant.
It is the results from the entrepreneur
sample, however, where the greatest inconsistencies and perhaps most

interesting results were discovered. The following section discusses the findings
surrounding the major variables of interest investigated in the study, followed by a
discussion of three unique findings which emerged from the current study: 1)
225
demographic uniqueness of part-time home-based entrepreneurs, 2)
homogenous subsets, and 3) absence of experience as a predictor variable.
Findings Related to Psychological Variables

Literature in the area of achievement motive and entrepreneurs suggests:
1) entrepreneurs would exhibit higher scores than employed workers (Hines,
1973; McClelland, 1961; Ahmed, 1985; Perry, etal., 1985; Chay, 1993), and 2)
higher and lower scores would be produced within a given sample of
entrepreneurs (Perry, et al., 1985; Miner, 1990). These elements of the literature
were reflected in hypotheses which posited higher scores for the three
entrepreneur samples than for workers and differences among the three types of
entrepreneurs where non-home-based entrepreneurs were expected to produce
the highest scores on achievement, followed by full-time and part-time homebased entrepreneurs, respectively. The mean scores support the direction of the
hypotheses with the exception of hypothesis 1a, where full-time home-based
entrepreneurs produced higher achievement scores than non-home-based
entrepreneurs (x = 7.816, 7.804 respectively), however, none of the differences
are statistically significant.
Full-time home-based entrepreneurs and non-home-based entrepreneurs,
however, formed a homogeneous subset, as did part-time and white-collar
workers, suggesting that attitudes of home-based entrepreneurs toward
entrepreneurship are equally as strong as those of entrepreneurs who opt to incur
higher financial obligations of commercial small business ownership. This finding
226
contradicts anecdotal perceptions of home-based business owners, who are
perceived by many not to be real entrepreneurs (Brabec, 1989). The findings
of this study contradict these perceptions of entrepreneurs and home-based
business owners, where full-time home-based entrepreneurs appear to be
equally as interested in achievement in business, innovation, and business
growth as their commercial counterparts. The findings also suggests that full
time home-based entrepreneurs are more like other entrepreneurs than like
employees in attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Full-time home-based
entrepreneurs may have initiated new venture creation in response to an
entrepreneurial push, namely job loss or job destruction, yet the findings
suggest that similar attitudes toward entrepreneurship to those entrepreneurs
who were pulled into entrepreneurship.
No significant differences in attitudes toward innovation were found among
entrepreneurs or between entrepreneurs and white-collar workers, although
entrepreneurs are generally reported to exhibit stronger attitudes toward
innovation than small business owners (Smith & Miner, 1985; Smith, Bracker &
Miner, 1987; Cartand, et al. 1984) and than managers and employees (Smith,
Bracker & Miner, 1987). One explanation for the similarity of scores among
entrepreneurs is the homogeneity of the sample, where similarities exist in levels
of education and experience, number of employees and amount of revenue, thus,
similar attitudes toward innovation may be produced. Of greater interest is the
similarity of scores between the entrepreneur samples and the white-collar
workers which were expected to be quite different. The organizational culture
227
and relatively entrepreneurial environment in which the white-collar employees
work may be one reason for the lack of difference. The firm from which the
control population was drawn is a national consulting organization in the
information technology industry with a mission to sell new and innovative IT
solutions, thus it is reasonable for these employees to exhibit stronger attitudes
toward innovation than expected.
As hypothesized, full-time and part-time home-based entrepreneurs and
non-home-based entrepreneurs exhibited higher scores for perceived personal
control in business and self-esteem in business than did white-collar employees.
These findings provide support for an association between self-esteem,
perceived personal control and small business ownership. Indeed, studies which
have investigated venture creation motives of home-based entrepreneurs
suggest increased freedom, flexibility and autonomy as primary reasons for
home-based business ownership (Roberts, etal., 1995; Wehrell, 1995). Over
time, these motives may manifest as increased perception of personal control of
business outcomes and of self-esteem in business.
The findings related to revenue and employment growth preferences
suggest that full-time home-based entrepreneurs are similar to non-home-based
entrepreneurs in terms of attitudes toward business growth. Significant
differences were found between full-time home-based entrepreneurs and parttime home-based entrepreneurs in attitudes toward revenue growth but not
toward employment growth. Stronger attitudes toward revenue growth than to
employment growth suggest that full-time home-based business owners intend to
228
remain micro-businesses, a term used to refer to the very small business which
employs fewer than five individuals.
The LOGIT and LISREL analyses contributed to an understanding of the
relative importance of individual, organizational and attitudinal variables in a
model of entrepreneurship. Organizational characteristics and entrepreneurial
attitudes appear to be more related to firm size than individual level human capital
or demographic variables. This finding will hopefully inform the development of
more comprehensive models of entrepreneurship.
In general, few of the hypotheses posited in the current study were
confirmed. There are several reasons which could explain the results. First, little
empirical data existed to assist the formulation of a causal model and
hypotheses. Thus, hunches and best guesses often formed the basis of the
decision-making. Second, the population of home-based and non-home-based
entrepreneurs is surprisingly homogenous in terms of individual, organizational
and attitudinal measurements suggesting similarities, not differences, will be
discovered. The present study was exploratory in nature. Had this been a
confirmatory study, the results would have been discouraging. Although few
distinguishing features were discovered, many interesting similarities were. In the
following section, further discussion of the findings within the entrepreneur
sample is provided.
229
Findings Within the Entrepreneur Sample
First, individual and organization demographic variables were included in
the study to control for extraneous sources of variance but also to characterize
the samples. These variables provided interesting insights into the
characteristics of the individuals who operate home-based and non-home-based
enterprises, particularly part-time, home-based entrepreneurs. Part-time homebased entrepreneurs were significantly older than other entrepreneurs or workers
(mean age = 51.12 years) and workers were significantly younger (mean age =
40.03 years) than were full-time and non-home-based entrepreneurs. In
addition, part-time home-based entrepreneurs reported the highest mean number
of years of education (mean ed years - 16.58 years), a modal educational
program of study of graduate university education, and the lowest level of 1997
revenue (mode = <$24,999). This finding suggests that part-time, home-based
entrepreneurs are retired, or early-retired professionals with high levels of
education, who have started a home-based business to generate a supplemental
income, or to keep active. These individual's are possibly pushed into
entrepreneurship, indicated by lower perceived personal control of business
outcomes scores for part-time than full-time home-based and non-home-based
entrepreneurs (mean scores = 6.82, 7.26, 7.08, respectively).
The homogenous subsets analysis provided by the post hoc multiple
comparison tests of significance of differences on the six attitude subscales for
each group generated the most interesting outcomes of the research. First, that
full-time home-based entrepreneurs are more like non-home-based
230
entrepreneurs, than like part-time home-based and white-collar workers. No
significant differences were found between mean scores for full-time home-based
entrepreneurs and non-home-based entrepreneurs for each of the six subscales.
This finding contradicts what is suggested about home-based entrepreneurs in
the popular and academic literatures, namely that actions of home-based
entrepreneurs are more attuned to the operation of life-style, supplemental
income businesses. Yet, full-time home-based and non-home-based business
owners in this study do not differ significantly in their attitudes toward business
growth in revenue or in employment.
The homogenous subsets analysis also suggests that part-time, homebased entrepreneurs and white-collar workers are similar in attitudes, as no
significant differences were found between mean scores for part-time homebased entrepreneurs and white-collar workers for the six subscales. It is
interesting to speculate on the reasons behind the similarities in attitude exhibited
by these groups. Perhaps stability and age account for similarities, where
younger, white-collar workers, married with children present, and older, part-time
home-based entrepreneurs, adult-only families, may be in stages in their lives
which engender a focus on stable income or income security. The lower scores
on achievement in business for part-time, home-based and white-collar workers
than for full-time, home-based and non-home-based entrepreneurs, suggest that
these scores may be a determinant of a focus on a more conservative goal of
family income stability than on revenue and employment business growth. The
part-time home-based entrepreneur appears to be a conceptual (ink between
231
non-home-based and full-time home-based entrepreneurs and white-collar
workers, exhibiting characteristics and attitudes more like workers than like
entrepreneurs.
Third, much attention in the literature has been given to the backgrounds
of entrepreneurs, where level of education and experience are two factors
previously associated with entrepreneurial success. Not surprisingly, number of
years of education was positively associated with the operation of a home-based
or non-home-based business; however, experience was not. This may be the
result of the conceptualization of experience as a multi-dimensional construct and
operationalization of experience as the presence or absence of managerial,
technical, and entrepreneurial experience in similar or dissimilar industries, as
opposed to a continuous variable, i.e., the number of years of experience.
Nonetheless, contradictory to literature, experience was not a significant predictor
of the operation of a commercial small business or home-based business in this
study. If confirmed by future research, these findings have important
implications outlined in the next section.
Contributions and Implications

Theoretical contributions and implications of the research
From a theoretical perspective, this research has contributed to a more
thorough understanding of the home-based entrepreneur and to the features of
home-based entrepreneurship. The results of the homogeneous subset analysis
which found differences among full-time and part-time entrepreneurs in attitudes
232
toward business growth, reinforce the assumption that human volition is essential
to a more holistic model of entrepreneurship (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991). The
results of this study also suggest that even very small business owners or
entrepreneurs (life-style entrepreneurs) and workers can be differentiated on
the basis of attitudes toward entrepreneurship. These results provide insights
into the nature of entrepreneurs and workers.
Additionally, this research contributes to an understanding of the relative
significance of organizational and attitudinal variables over individual variables in
a model of entrepreneurship. Past research has investigated individual level
characteristic variables to a great extent (Ratnatunga & Romano, 1997) and yet,
this study suggests that further investigation of entrepreneurial attitudes, type of
business and business growth in revenue may contribute more explanatory power
to a model of entrepreneurship and individual characteristics of the
owner/founder.
This research also contributes to the literature regarding taxonomies of
entrepreneurial types, where part-time entrepreneurs would logically form a
separate subgroup for analysis. This study also suggests that distinctions among
home-based entrepreneurs are more than semantic, where attitudes toward self
esteem in business, perceived personal control of business outcomes and
preference for business growth in revenue do differentiate full-time from part-time
home-based business owners.
The results of this research indicate the value of studying the individual
entrepreneur, in order to gain greater understanding of the entrepreneurial
233
process. Although this study has focused on the micro-business, or very small
business end of the entrepreneurial spectrum, it suggests that attitudes and
characteristics can differentiate types of entrepreneurs, and that attitudes and
characteristics will affect entrepreneurial behavior and presumably, the outcomes
of the business.
Potentially the most important implication from this study is for research
methodology in entrepreneurship. The present study emphasized the importance
of definitions, standard attitudinal scale development, systematic random
sampling techniques, and current approaches to increasing general population
response rates. Distinct operational definitions of entrepreneurs and fully
described methodologies will serve to enhance theoretical and methodological
rigor in future studies.
In sum, the present study may be a first step toward an emerging research
program focused on home-based entrepreneurs, and to continuing effort to fully
understand entrepreneurial processes. The predictors of entrepreneurship
identified here can be used to enhance both theory and practice through
additional research.
Implications for Practitioners and Policy Makers

The profile of home-based entrepreneurs which emerged from this study
suggests that older, more experienced and better educated workers may grow
into home-based work out of necessity or choice, but who intend to use the home
business as a part-time venture. The part-time home-based entrepreneur
234
represents a significant community and educational resource due to high levels of
education and experience, and could potentially be recruited by local chambers of
commerce, schools and other local associations to provide an exchange of
knowledge, ideas and service.
An examination of the popular and academic literatures relating to homebased business ownership would suggest that the owners of these businesses
are women, who are operating part-time craft oriented businesses from home in
order to generate a supplemental household income. There stereotypes of
home-based entrepreneurs are unfounded. Practitioners, including educators,
could play a more pro-active role in the development of home-based businesses.
The high levels of technical experience reported in this study suggest that
educational programming or consulting aimed at the day-to-day operation of a
business is needed in order to improve owners knowledge of small business
management
Practitioners involved in human resources or career planning will benefit
from an increased understanding of the attitudes of entrepreneurs and workers
and of the potential benefits of an attitude approach. Organizations wishing to
foster corporate entrepreneurship should be encouraged to apply concepts and
instruments designed within the domain of entrepreneurship to identify and foster
entrepreneurial employees.
This study will assist policy makers in decisions relating to regulations,
taxation and licensing issues, by providing a more thorough understanding of the
235
types of businesses being operated from the home and of the varying attitudes
toward business growth exhibited among home-based business owners.
Limitations o f the Research

Two types of potential limitations of this research are discussed in this
section. First, are limitations associated with the research problem and the
second, are limitations of the method, particularly those implicit in a survey design
and reliance of self-report data. Limitations may restrict the usefulness of the
research.
Theoretical Limitations
This study included entrepreneurs who had successfully started a small
business, not nascent, or prospective entrepreneurs. The fact that the
entrepreneurs in this study had completed the new venture process has four
implications: 1) aspiring entrepreneurs may differ from entrepreneurs who are
already established in business, 2) the entrepreneurial process may affect the
attitudes of business founders, 3) attitudes toward entrepreneurship may change
over time, and 4) individuals who exhibit similar characteristics and attitudes will
not all become entrepreneurs. Each of these is described in more detail below.
The fact that the entrepreneurs in this study had realized the
entrepreneurial event may have implications. Cromie & Johns (1983) examined
the attitudes of prospective entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs, and reported a
distinct profile for aspiring entrepreneurs. The authors report that after the
236
experience of business ownership, the entrepreneurial profile changes to reflect
qualities more like career managers than established entrepreneurs. This study
suggests that the attitudes of entrepreneurs measured in the present study may
be somewhat different from those who are intending to start businesses, which is
an important limitation considering the aim of predicting who will and who will not
become an entrepreneur.
The process of entrepreneurship itself may affect the attitudes of business
owners. With business operation, business owner attitudes toward
entrepreneurship may weaken or strengthen over time representing changes
which are not captured with a one-shot research design.
In addition, the act of
venture creation, or the time lapsed since start-up may change an individuals
attitude toward entrepreneurship. McClelland (1961) suggested that an
individuals need for achievement may lessen with success, or over time. The
significance of this potential limitation could be addressed with a pre-test, post
test experimental design or a longitudinal study design which would estimate the
affect of time and experience on behavior.
Finally, individuals who exhibit similar characteristics and attitudes will not
all become entrepreneurs. The present study did not examine situational or
environmental variables which could moderate the relationship between
entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors. However, this study provides a starting
point for further investigation relating to a more fully specified model of small
business creation.
237
Methodological Limitations
Methodological issues are addressed according to major categories of
research validity not addressed previously in this study: 1) construct validity, 2)
internal validity and 3) external validity of the findings.
First, is the issue regarding the degree to which the variables in this study
measure the constructs of interest. Response sets, common method variance
and hypothesis guessing represent the most significant threats to construct
validity in this study, although the scales used in the research were constructed
according to standard scale development procedures designed to maximize
content saturation and to avoid problems associated with response sets. Thus, it
is not believed that instrumentation poses a significant threat to validity in this
study. Independent and dependent variable data were, however, collected from
the same respondents, suggesting the potential for single source bias. In
addition, social desirability, questionnaire items similar in content, respondent
mood and length of the questionnaire may contribute to common method
variance. However, because of the differences in measurement of the
independent and dependent variables, and the focus on development of the
scales and instrument, common method variance is not believed to be
problematic; however, its existence cannot be ruled out entirely.
Second, are issues relating to the internal validity, namely that there are
alternative explanations for the findings in this study. As with any cross-sectional,
correlational design, the possibility exists that spurious relationships have been
identified and that the direction of the associations was misinterpreted. In order
238
to minimize threats to internal validity, a large random sample was selected,
however, it is still conceivable that those respondents who participated in the
study are different from those individuals who did not A large number of
uncontrolled variables are inherent in the entrepreneurship phenomenon itself, as
well as in the research setting, where the potential interaction of the variables is
unpredictable. The size of the sample is likely to have positively influenced the
internal validity of the study, however, the lack of control over the variables
remains a potential threat to internal validity.
Finally, is concern for over the external validity of the study, mainly
associated with the sample. The sample appears to be representative of the
home-based and micro-business population, and to be large and relatively
disperse with normal distributions, suggesting that the results can be generalized
beyond the study. However, little is known about the home-based business
owner population and few studies exist for validation purposes. In addition, the
limit of the scope of the study to a narrow geographic area may preclude
generalizability of the findings.
Directions fo r Future Research

The literature review presented in Chapter two illustrates the progression
of our understanding of the home-based entrepreneur in the past decade.
Nonetheless, the results of this study suggest many interesting similarities and
differences among and between home-based entrepreneurs, micro-entrepreneurs
and white-collar workers, which in turn, suggest many additional directions for
239
research in the future. First, methodological suggestions are presented, followed
by suggestions for future research topics.
Directions for Research Methodology in Entrepreneurship

This study proposed the use of attitude theory as a more dynamic model of
the entrepreneur and the association with entrepreneurial behavior, than the
traditional trait-based or characteristic approaches. Chapter two provided a
cursory review of assumptions underlying psychological research and highlighted
the importance of understanding the historical roots of theories and methods
borrowed from the broader social science context. This leads to a global
research program recommendation that researchers assume more responsibility
for understanding the nature of theories and methods proposed for use in
entrepreneurship research. The literature review highlighted the fact that most
entrepreneurship researchers refer to McClelland's (1961) early work as the
origin of the study of the psychology of the entrepreneur. In fact, in the decade
which preceded McClelland, psychological literature is rife with discussion relating
to the inability of trait-based research, particularly single traits, to predict single
acts of behavior, a category in which the act of venture creation is most likely to
fit. A more thorough understanding of underlying assumptions may have
expedited progress in the field.
Any research program in entrepreneurship which hopes to significantly
advance knowledge of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial processes must have
at its core the recognition that the entrepreneurial event is dynamic, holistic,
240
discontinuous and unique; that it is initiated by an act of human volition; and that
the individual interacts with the environment in a dynamic and reciprocally causal
way (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991). The present study demonstrated that attitudes can
differentiate entrepreneurs from workers and from other types of entrepreneurs.
Models of entrepreneurial behavior based on attitude theory are dynamic and
recognize the interaction between an individual and his or her environment.
Although demographic research has been criticized for not adding
substance to the theoretical base in entrepreneurship research (Gartner, 1989),
support is given in this study for continued use of demographic research to
capture changes in dimensions of the phenomenon, and to include organizational
level variables in a model of entrepreneurial behavior. More than any other
variables entering the new venture creation process, demographic and human
capital variables are most likely to change over time, rendering older studies
obsolete for current business start-ups purposes. For example, the age of the
entrepreneur, or life-cycle stage will reflect different social situations and contexts
of key business decisions. Longitudinal and panel studies will capture these
changes over time whereas cross-sectional studies will not.
More than any other approach to the study of entrepreneurial behavior,
psychological studies based on personality traits models can be criticized for
lacking an understanding of theories and methods being borrowed and applied in
the entrepreneurship literature, such as Begleys (1995) use of the Farmingham
Type-A behavior scale developed in the 1970's to predict coronary disease, as a
scale to distinguish founders from non-founding managers. Interactional
241
psychologys recent conceptualizations of person-environment interaction provide
an opportunity for entrepreneurship researchers to eschew trait-based
approaches and to develop more complete causal models of entrepreneurship.
Areas of Additional Research in Home-based Entrepreneurship

The results of this study suggest several topic areas for additional
research. First, is more rigorous investigation of the association between
entrepreneurial attitudes and business performance in revenue and in
employment. Do high scores on attitude subscales correspond to high
performance in terms of revenue, employment or intentions toward business
growth? Do attitudes toward business growth change over time? More research
is needed to determine the extent of this association.
Further research is needed to document the economic and social impact of
home-based businesses on their communities as well as comparisons of types of
businesses. Large sample studies which include both home-based firms as well
as those located on commercial premises would contribute to an understanding of
the similarities and differences between types of entrepreneurs and businesses.
A closer examination of the profiles of home-based entrepreneurs and
other entrepreneurs and workers would reveal whether certain occupations,
education and types of experience lend themselves more readily to home-based
work. The present study did not gather data on the types of occupations held by
the entrepreneurs preceding business start-up, data which would contribute to a
242
more complete process model of home-based and commercial small business
start-up.
Further investigation into the effects of personal, situational, organizational
and environmental variables on home-based entrepreneurial behavior would help
to establish a research program. Researchers would be remiss at this stage to
assume that the process of home-based venture creation is similar to that of
small business start-up. This study examined personal and organisational level
variables, and excluded situational and environmental variables which may be of
particular importance to home-based venture creation due to the circumstances
surrounding home-based venture creation, ie., organizational downsizing, or early
retirement.
Another area of potential investigation would be a study of the
organizational life-cycle of home-based and small enterprises. What are the
organizational life-cycles of home-based and micro-businesses and how do these
stages relate to those of larger businesses? This information would help
practitioners anticipate educational needs more readily, and would assist policy
makers to develop regulatory policies which matched the circumstances
surrounding business operation.
Further investigation of part-time home-based businesses in other regions
would determine the extent to which the findings here are idiosyncratic. Are all
part-time home-based businesses owners well educated, or is this a local
phenomenon produced by the economic structure of southern Alberta?
243
Further investigation regarding the psychological nature of small business
owners is warranted. This study found significant differences among
entrepreneurs on some attitudes, but not others. Further investigation may
identify other, more successful discriminating factors, such as attitude toward
risk-taking in business. Investigations of this type could produce fruitful research
which could be utilized for micro-economic development initiatives as well as
furthering an understanding of the entrepreneur.
Finally, a qualitative exploration of the experiences of home-based
business owners who combine work and family life is needed if we hope to
understand the home-based business phenomenon more completely. Such a
study would provide insight into the impacts of home-based work on family
participation in the business, early exposure of children to entrepreneurship, and
role conflict.
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented a discussion of findings related to the six
psychological constructs investigated in this study and of findings in three areas
related to the entrepreneur sample: 1) uniqueness of part-time home-based
entrepreneur individual and organization characteristics, 2) homogenous subsets
and 3) the relative lack of utility of the experience construct in predicting non
home-based entrepreneurship. Theoretical, methodological, and practitioner and
policy maker implications of the research were discussed. Potential threats to
construct, internal and external validity were highlighted as were design
244
considerations implemented in the current study to minimize these threats.
Finally, directions for future research relating to home-based entrepreneurship
and to methodological considerations in entrepreneurship research were
introduced.
Most observers predict that the home-based work phenomenon, a fairly
quiet revolution, will continue to grow in numbers and in strength in the future.
Macro-environmental shifts are creating a large pool of dislocated and disaffected
workers willing to take their experiences and education into ventures of their own
- many of them at home, where the financial risk of start-up is lessened. Clearly,
the popular press, media and policy makers have failed to recognize fully the
disparate nature of home-based entrepreneurship and its entrepreneurs. Little, if
any attention, has been paid by communities, civic leaders, policy makers and
educators to roles played in providing both incentives for and barriers against
home-based entrepreneurship.
Of particular concern, is the lack of attention paid to these individuals by
academics. Research in micro-entrepreneurship, and more specifically, homebased entrepreneurship, represents an expanding and increasingly legitimate
field of inquiry within the broader domain of entrepreneurship. It is hoped that this
study will ignite the interest of researchers, educators, policy makers,
practitioners and people to further understand this important and vital member of
the small business community.
245
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmed, S.U. 1985. nAch, risk-taking propensity, locus of control and

entrepreneurship, Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 781-782.
Ahrentzen Boland, S. 1990. Managing conflict by managing boundaries: How
professional homeworkers cope with multiple roles at home, Environment
& Behavior, 22(6), 723-752.
Ajzen, 1.1982. On behaving in accordance with ones attitudes, in M. P. Zanna,
E. T. Higgins, & C. P. Herman, (eds.) Consistency in Social Behavior. The
Ontario Symposium, Hillsdale, NJ: Ertbaum, 2, 3-15.
Ajzen, I. 1989. Attitude structure and behavior, in A. Pratkanis, S. Breckler & A.
Greenwald, (eds.), Attitude, Structure and Function, Hillsdale, NJ:
Eribaum, 241-274.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. 1977. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis
and review of empirical research, Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I. & Madden, T. J. 1986. Prediction of goal-directed behavior Attitudes,
intentions and perceived behavioral control, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22, 453-474.
Aldrich, H. 1989. Networking among women entrepreneurs. In Hagan, O.,
Rivchun, C. & Sexton, D. Women-owned businesses, New York: Praeger,
103-132.
Aldrich, H., Rosen, H. & Woodward, W. 1987. The impact of social networks on
business foundings and profit: A longitudinal study, in Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, N. Churchill, J. Homaday, B. Kirchoff, O.
Krasner& K. Vesper, (eds.) Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 154-168.
Allen, S. 1983. Production and reproduction: The lives of women homeworkers,
Sociological Review, 31, 649-661.
Allen, S. & Wolkowitz, C. 1987. Homeworking: Myths and Realities,
London:Macmillan Education.
246
Allport, G. W . 1935. Attitudes, in C. Murchison (ed.) A handbook of social
psychology, Clark University Press.
Allport, G. W. 1937. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation, New York, Henry
Holt.
Allport, G. W. 1954. The historical background of modem social psychology, in J.
Lindzey (ed.) Handbook o f Social Psychology, Cambridge, MA: AddisonWesley, 1, 3-56.
Allport, G. W. 1971. Attitudes, in K. Thomas, (ed.) Attitudes and behavior, Clark
University Press. 17-19.
Ambry, M. 1988. At home in the office, American Demographics, 10(12) 30-31.
Anonymous, 1994. Canadians working at home 1993 survey results, Canadian
Manager, 19(3), p. 18.
Anonymous, 1995. The entrepreneurs: Working at home basement boom, The
Globe and Mail, Monday, April 10, 1995, B6.
Argyle, M. & Little, B. 1979. Do personality traits apply to social behavior?, in
Endler, N. & Magnusson, D. (Eds.) Interactional psychology and
personality, Washington, DC: Hemisphere, 30-57.
Atkinson, R., Atkinson, R., Smith, E., Bern, D., Nolen-Hoeksema, S. 1996.
Hilgard's Introduction to Psychology, New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
Bagozzi, R. P. 1988. The rebirth of attitude research in marketing, Journal of
Market Research Society, 30(2), 163-195.
Bagozzi, R. P. & Bumkrant, R. E. 1979. Attitude organization and the attitudebehavior relationship, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
913-929.
Bailyn, L. 1989. Freeing work from the constraints of location and time. New
Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 3(2), Autumn.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive
Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bates, T. 1990a. Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business
longevity, The Review o f Economics and Statistics, 4, 551-559.
247
Bates, T. 1990b. New databases in human resources: The characteristics of
business owners database, The Journal of Human Resources, 25, 752756.
Bates, T. 1995. Self-employment entry across industry groups, Journal of
Business Venturing, 10, 143-156.
Baum, R. 1995. The relation of traits, competencies, motivation, strategy, and
structure to venture growth, in Bygrave, W., Bird, B., Birley, S., Churchill,
N., Hay, M., Keeley, R. & Wetzel, W . (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, Babson Park, MA: Babson College, 547-561.
Beach, B. 1988. Fitting families and research strategy: The case of home-working
families. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 17(3), 309-325.
Beach, B. 1989. Integrating work and family life, Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Beach, B. 1993. Family support in home-based family businesses, Family
Business Review, 6(1), 371-379.
Begley, T. 1995. Using founder status, age of firm, and company growth rate as
the basis for distinguishing entrepreneurs from managers of smaller
businesses, Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 249-263.
Begley, T. M. & Boyd, D. P. 1985. Company and chief executive officer
characteristics related to financial performance in smaller businesses, in
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, J. Homaday, E. Shils, J.
Timmons & K. Vesper, (eds.) Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 146-165.
Begley, T. & Boyd, D. 1987. Psychological characteristics associated with
performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses, Journal of
Bell, D. 1974. The coming of post-industrial society, London: Heinemann, 1974.
Bell, D. 1980. Communications technology: For better or worse? Harvard
Business Review, May - June, 29-38.
Birch, D. 1979. The job generation process, M IT Program on Neighborhood and
Regional Change, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Birch, D. 1987. Job creation in America: How are smallest companies put the
most people to work, New York: Free Press.
248
Bird, B. 1993. Demographic approaches to entrepreneurship: The role of
experience and background, in Katz, J, & Brockhaus, R. (Eds.), Advances
in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth, Greenwich, CN:, JAI
Press, 11-38.
Biriey, S. 1987. New ventures and employment growth, Journal of Business
Venturing, 2, 155-165.
Biriey, S. & Westhead, P. 1994. A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and
their impact on firm growth and size, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 731.
Bogardus, E. S. 1920. Measuring social distances, Journal of Applied Sociology,
9, 299-308.
Boris, E. 1987. Homework in the past, its meanings for the future, In Christensen,
K. (Ed.) The new era of home-based work: Directions and policies,
London:Westview, 15-29.
Boris, E. 1988. Homework in the past, its meanings for the future. In Christensen,
K. (ed.) The New Era of Home-based Work, London: Westview Press.
Borland, C. 1974. Locus of control, need for achievement and entrepreneurship,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Boter, H. & Holmquist, C. 1996. Industry characteristics and internationalization
processes in small firms, Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 471-487.
Bowman-Upton, N. 1993. Family-owned, home-based businesses: An interview
with Joanne H. Pratt, Family Business Review, 6(4), 427- 435.
Box, T., Watts, L., & Hisrich, R. 1994. Manufacturing entrepreneurs: An empirical
study of the correlates of employment growth in the Tulsa MSA and rural
east Texas, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 261-270.
Brabec, B. 1989. Homemade money: The definitive guide to success in a homebased business, Napierville, IL: Betterway.
Brandstatter, H. 1988. Sixteen personality adjective scales as a research
instrument in place of the 16PF, Zeitschrift fur experimented und
angewandte Psychologie, 35(3), 370-391.
Brandstatter, H. 1997. Becoming an entrepreneur? A question of personality
structure? Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 157-177.
249
Braus, P. 1993. Homework for grown-ups, American Demographics, 38-42.
Brockhaus, R.H. 1980a. Psychological and environmental factors which
distinguish the successful from the unsuccessful entrepreneur. A
longitudinal study, Academy o f Management Best Paper Proceedings,
368-372.
Brockhaus, R.H. 1980b. Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs, Academy of
Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520.
Brockhaus, R. H. 1982. The Psychology of the Entrepreneur, in Kent, C., Sexton,
D. and Karl Vesper (eds.) Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 39-56.
Brockhaus, R. H. 1987. Entrepreneurial Folklore, Journal of Small Business
Management, 25(3), 1-6.
Brockhaus, R. H. & Horwitz, P.S. 1986. The psychology of the entrepreneur, in D.
Sexton & R Smiior (eds.) The art and science of entrepreneurship,
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Brush, C. 1992. Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new
perspective and future directions, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice,
4(1), 5-30.
Bull, I. & Thomas, H. 1993. Editors' note: A perspective on theory building in
entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 181-182.
Busenitz, L. & Lau, C. 1996. A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture
creation, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 20(4), 25-40.
Busenitz, L. & Barney, J. 1997. Differences between entrepreneurs and
managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic
decision-making, Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 9-30.
Butt, A. & Khan, W. 1996. Effects of transferability of learning from pre-start-up
experiences, in Reynolds, P., Biriey, S., Butler, J., Bygrave, W.,
Davidsson, P., Gartner, W. & McDougall, P. (Eds.) Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Park, MA: Babson College, 108-116.
Buttner, E.H. & Gryskiewicz, N. 1993. Entrepreneurs problem-solving styles: An
empirical study using the Kirton adaption-innovation theory, Journal of
Small Business Management, 22-31.
250
Bygrave, W. 1993. Theory building in the entrepreneurship paradigm, Journal of
Bygrave, W. and Hofer, C. 1991. Theorizing about entrepreneurship,
Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 14 (1), 7 - 26.
Campbell, D. T. 1963. Social attitudes and other acquired behavioral dispositions,
in S. Koch (ed.) Psychology: A study of science, New York: McGraw Hill,
94-172.
Campbell, R.N. 1984. The new science: Self-esteem psychology, Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Cantillon, R. [1755] 1964. Essai Surla Nature du Commerce General, New
YorkiAugustus M. Kelley.
Cariand, J.W., Carfand, J.A., Hoy, F. & Boulton, W .R. 1988. Distinctions between
entrepreneurial and small business ventures, International Journal of
Cariand, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. & Cariand, J. 1984. Differentiating
entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy
of Management Review, 9(2), 354-359.
Cariand, J.W ., Hoy, F., & Cariand, J. 1988. Who is an entrepreneur? is a
question worth asking, American Journal o f Small Business, 12(4), 33-39.
Carlson, R. 1971. Where is the person in personality research? Psychological
Bulletin, 75, 203-219.
Carsrud, A., Gaglio, C. & Kemochan, R. 1993. Demographics in
entrepreneurship: Guidelines for the use of demographic data, in Katz, J,
& Brockhaus, R. (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence,
and growth, Greenwich, CN:, JAI Press, 49-82.
Carsrud, A. L. & Johnson, R. W. 1989. Entrepreneurship: A social psychological
perspective, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 1(1), 21-31.
Carsrud, A. L., Olm, K. & Eddy, G. 1985. Entrepreneurship: Research in quest of
a paradigm. In D. Sexton & R. Smilor (eds.) The Art and Science of
Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 367-378.
Carter, N., Gartner, W ., & Reynolds, P. 1996. Exploring start-up event
sequences, Journal o f Business Venturing, 11, 151-166.
251
Carter, N., Williams, M. & Reynolds, P. 1997. Discontinuance among new firms in
retail: The influence of initial resources, strategy, and gender, Journal of
Case, J. 1996. The hype about home business, Inc., 18(7), 58-59.
Chaganti, R. & Schneer, J. 1994. A study of the owners mode of entry on
venture performance and management patterns, Journal of Business
Chandler, G. 1996. Business similarity as a moderator of the relationship
between pre-ownership experience and venture performance,
Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 20(3), 51-65.
Chandler, G. & Hanks, S. 1994a. Founder competence, the environment and
venture performance, Entrepreneurship, Theory, and Practice, 18(3), 7789.
Chandler, G. & Hanks, S. 1994b. Market attractiveness, resource-based
capabilities, venture strategies and venture performance, Journal of
Chay, Y. W. 1993. Social support, individual differences, and well-being: A study
of small business entrepreneurs and employees, Journal of Organizational
and Occupational Psychology, 66, 285-302.
Chou, Y. 1975. Statistical analysis with business and economic applications, New
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
Christensen, K. 1985. Women and home-based work, Social Policy, 15(3), 54-57.
Christensen, K. 1987. Women and contingent work, Social Policy, 1(4), 15-18.
Christensen, K. (Ed.) 1988. The new era of home-based work, Boulder, CO:
Westview
Christensen, M. 1994. Attitudes of Business Starters, unpublished thesis,
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation analysis for
the Behavioural Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cole, A. H. 1942. Entrepreneurship as an area of research, The Tasks of
Economic History, 118-126.
252
Constantineau, B. 1996. Self-employed? Youre not alone. Calgary Herald, July
15, p. C3.
Cooper, A. 1993. Challenges In predicting new firm performance, Journal of
Cooper, A. & Dunkelberg, W. 1987. Entrepreneurial research: Old questions, new
answers, and methodological issues, American Journal o f Small Business,
winter, 11-23.
Cooper, A.. Gimeno-Gascon, J., Woo, C. 1994. Initial human and financial
capital as predictors of new venture performance, Journal of Business
Corman, J., Perles, B., & Vancini, P. 1988. Motivational factors influencing hightechnology entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management,
26(1), 36-42.
Costello, K. 1989. Women and home-based employment, Nations Business, 117119.
Crawford, A. 1994. The home advantage, Calgary Herald, August 2,1994, D5.
Crawford, A. 1995. More at home doing business, Calgary Herald, Friday,
September 15, 1995, p1.
Creswell, J.W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cromie, S. 1987. Motivations of aspiring male and female entrepreneurs, Journal
of Occupational Behavior, 8, 251-261.
Cromie, S. & Johns, S. 1983. Irish entrepreneurs: Some personal characteristics.
Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 4, 317-324.
Cronbach, L. J. 1946. Response sets and test validity, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 10, 3-11.
Cunningham, J.B. & Lischeron, J. 1991. Defining entrepreneurship, Journal of
Small Business Management, 29(1), 45-61.
Davids, L. E. 1963. Characteristics of small business founders in Texas and
Georgia, Athens, GA: Bureau of Business Research, University of
Georgia, June.
253
Davidsson, P. 1989. Entrepreneurship - and after? A study of growth willingness
in small firms, Journal o f Business Venturing, 4, 211-226.
Davidsson, P. 1991. Continued entrepreneurship: Ability, need, and opportunity
as determinants of small firm growth, Journal of Business Venturing, 6,
405-429.
Davidsson, P. & Wiklund, J.1997. Values, beliefs and regional variations in new
firm formation rates, Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 179-199.
Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method.,New
York: Wiley
Dillman, D.A., Sinclair, M., Clark, R., 1993. Effects of questionnaire length,
respondent-friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for
occupant-addressed census mail surveys, Public Opinion Quarterly, 57,
289-304
Dolinsky, A., Caputo, R., Pasumarty, K. & Quazi, H. 1993. The effects of
education on business ownership: A longitudinal study of women,
Doob, L. W. 1947. The behavior of attitudes, Psychological Review, 54, 135-156.
Drucker, P. 1970. Entrepreneurship in business enterprise, Journal of Business
Policy, 1, 10-11.
Drucker, P. 1985. Innovation and entrepreneurship principles and practices. New
York: Harper and Row.
Dunkelberg, W. C. & Cooper, A. C. 1982. Patterns of small business growth, in
Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 409-413.
Dunkelberg, W.C., Cooper, A.C., Woo, Y., & Dennis, W. 1987. New firm growth
and performance, in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, N. Churchill,
J. Homaday, B. Kirchoff, O. Krasner & K. Vesper, (eds.) Wellesley, MA:
Babson College, 307-321.
Dykeman, F. 1989. Home-based business: An incubator for small business
development, Department of Geography, Mount Allison University,
Sackviile, New Brunswick, Canada.
Eagle, M.N. 1984. Recent Developments in Psychoanalysis: A critical evaluation,
New York, McGraw-Hill.
254
Edwards, A. L. 1957. Techniques of attitude scale construction, New York, NY:
Appleton.
Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and
comparative logic, Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620-627.
Emory, C.W. & Cooper, D.R. 1991. Business Research Methods, Boston, MA:
Irwin.
Endler, N., & Magnusson, D. 1979. Interactional psychology and personality,
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Epstein, S. 1977. Traits are alive and well, in D. Magnusson, N.S. Edler (eds.),
Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology,
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Epstein, S. 1984. A procedural note on the measurement of broad dispositions,
Journal of Personality, 52, 318-325.
Fazio, R. H. 1986. How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T.
Higgins, (eds.) The Handbook o f motivation and cognition: Foundations of
social behavior, New York, Guillford Press, 204-243.
Festinger, L. 1964. Behavioral support for opinion change. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 28, 404-417.
Fineman, S. 1977. The achievement motive construct and its measurement:
Where are we now? British Journal of Psychology, 68, 1-22.
Fischer, E., Reuber, R., & Dyke, L. 1993. A theoretical overview and extension of
research on sex, gender and entrepreneurship, Journal of Business
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. 1972. Attitudes toward objects as predictors of single and
multiple behavior criteria, Psychological Review, 81, 59-74.
Foster, M. & Orser, 1993. Home-based work: Marginal activity or evolving work
norm, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 13(4), 81-89.
Frazer, G. 1988. Local regulation and support of home-based businesses,
Proceedings, International Council o f Small Business, 109-114.
Frey, R.S. 1984. Ned for achievement, entrepreneurship, and economic growth:
A critique of the McClelland thesis. Social Science Journal, 21, 125-134.
255
Furry, M. & Lino, M. 1992. An overview of home-based work: Results from a
regional research project, Family Economic Review, 5(3), 2-8.
Gartner, W. 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of
new venture creation, Academy o f Management Review, 10, 696-706.
Gartner, W. 1988. "Who is an entrepreneur?" is the wrong question, American
Journal of Small Business, 11-32.
Gartner, W. 1990. What are we talking about when we talk about
entrepreneurship?, Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15-28.
Gartner, W. 1993. Words lead to deeds: Towards an organization emergence
vocabulary, Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 231-239.
Gartner, W., Bird, B. & Starr, J. 1992. Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial
from organizational behavior, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 3(1),
13-31.
Gartner, W., Mitchell, T. R. & Vesper, K. 1989. A taxonomy of new business
ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 169-186.
Gartner, W., Shaver, K., Allen, K., Bhat, S., & Gatewood, E. 1997. What affects
growth expectations? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley,
MA: Babson College, 63-64.
Gasse, Y. 1977. Entrepreneurial characteristics and practices: A study of the
dynamics of small business organizations and their effectiveness in
different environments, Sherbrooke: Quebec: Rene Prince.
Gasse, Y. 1982. Elaborations on the psychology of the entrepreneur. In C. Kent,
D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (eds.) Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 57-71.
Gatewood, E., Shaver, K., & Gartner, W. 1995. A longitudinal study of cognitive
factors influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation,
Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 371-391.
Gendron, G. 1996. The state of small business - 1996, Inc. 18(7), 9-10.
Ginsberg, A. & Buchholtz, A. 1989. Are entrepreneurs a breed apart? A look at
the evidence, Journal o f General Management, 15(2), 32-40.
256
Good, W. & Levy, M. 1992. Home-based business: A phenomenon of growing
economic importance, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship,
10(1),
Gray, D. & Gray, D. 1990. Home, Inc., Toronto, ON: McGraw Hill.
Greenberger, D. & Sexton, D. 1987a. A comparative analysis of the effects of the
desire for personal control on new venture initiations, in Churchill, N.
Homaday, J., Kirchoff, B., Krasner, O., & Vesper, K. (Eds.), Frontiers o f
Greenberger, D. B. & Sexton, D. L. 1987b. Leadership and entrepreneurship:
New directions for future initiation and success, in G. B. Roberts, H.
Lasher, & E. Maliche (eds.) New Ventures: Creation, development,
support: The proceedings o f the second annual conference o f the United
States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Marietta,
Georgia: Kennesaw College, 52-57.
Greenberger, D. B. & Sexton, D. L. 1988. An interactive model of new venture
initiation, Journal o f Small Business Management, 23(3), 1-7.
Greening, D., Barringer, B. & Granger, M. 1996. A qualitative study of managerial
challenges facing small business geographic expansion, Journal of
Greenwald, A. 1989. Why are attitudes important? in A. Pratkanis, S. Breckler &
A. Greenwald, (eds.), Attitude, Structure and Function, Hillsdale, NJ:
Eribaum, 1-10.
Gritzmacher, J. 1993. Satisfaction with home-based employment Journal of
Family and Economic Issues, 14(2), 145-161.
Groves, R. 1989. Survey errors and survey costs, New York, Wiley.
Gumpert, D. 1984. Work in the home: Trends and implications, Entrepreneur,
12(3) 54-56.
Gumpert, D. & Boyd, D. 1984. The loneliness of the small-business owner,
Harvard Business Review, 12, 18-24.
Gurstein, P. 1991. Working at home and living at home: Emerging scenarios.
Special issue: The meaning and use of home, Journal of Architectural and
Planning Research, 8(2), 164-180.
257
Gurstein, P. 1995. Planning for telework and home-based employment: A
Canadian survey on integrating work into residential environments, Centre
for Human Settlements, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British
Columbia, ISBN 0-662-23636-X.
Guttman, L.A. A basis for scaling qualitative data, American Sociological Review,
24, 318-328.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. 1995. Multivariate Data
Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Halal, W. 1996. The rise of the knowledge entrepreneur, Futurist, 30(6), 13-16.
Hannan, M.T. & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations,
American Journal o f Sociology, 82(5), 929-964.
Hartshome, H. & May, M.A. 1929. Studies in the Nature o f Character, New York,
NY: MacMillan.
Hayward, J. 1991. The meanings of home, Human Ecology Forum, 13(2), 3-6.
Hebert, R. and Link, A. 1988. The Entrepreneur, New York, NY: Praeger.
Heck, R. 1987. A profile of home-based workers, Human Ecology Forum, 16(4),
15-18.
Heck, R. 1991. Employment location choices: Factors associated with the
likelihood of homebased employment, Lifestyles: Family and Economic
Issues, 12(3), 217-233.
Heck, R. 1992. The effects of children on the major dimensions of home-based
employment, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 13(3), 315-346.
Heck, R., Owen, A., & Rowe, B. 1995. Home-based employment and family life,
London: Auburn House.
Heck, R., Stafford, N., Rowe, B. & Owen, A. 1992. The utilization of child care by
households engaged in home-based employment, Journal of Family and
Economic Issues, 13(2), 213-237.
Heck, R. & Walker, R. 1993. Family-owned home-based businesses: Their
employees and unpaid helpers, Family Business Review, 6(4), 397-415.
258
Heck, R., Winter, M., & Stafford, K. 1992. Managing work and family in homebased employment, Journal o f Family and Economic Issues, 13(2), 187212 .
Herbert, R. & Link, A. 1988. The entrepreneur, New York: Praeger.
Herron, L. & Robinson, Jr., R,. 1993a. A structural model of the effects of
entrepreneurial characteristics on venture performance, Journal of
Herron, L. & Robinson, Jr. R. 1993b. The entrepreneur and venture performance,
Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 75-79.
Hills, G., Lumpkin, G.T., Singh, R. 1997. Opportunity recognition: Perceptions
and behaviors of entrepreneurs, Frontiers o f Entrepreneurship Research,
P. Reynolds, W. Bygrave, N. Carter, P. Davidsson, W. Gartner, C.
Mason, & P. MacDougall (eds.), Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 168-182.
Hines, G. H. 1973. Achievement motivation, occupations, and labour turnover of
New Zealand, Journal of Applied Psychology, 58(3), 313-317.
Hisrich, R.D. 1986. The woman entrepreneur Characteristics, skills, problems,
and prescriptions for success. In D. L. Sexton & R.W. Smilor (eds.) The
art and science o f entrepreneurship, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 61-81.
Hofer, C. & Bygrave, W. 1992. Researching entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship,
Theory and Practice, 16(3), 91 -100
Hoge, B. 1995. Entrepreneurial attitude: A future-oriented approach to the
prediction of entrepreneurship?, in W. Bygrave, Bird, B., Birfey, S.,
Churchill, N., Hay, M., Keeley, R. & Wetzel, W. (Eds.), Frontiers of
Homaday, J. 1992. Thinking about entrepreneurship: A fuzzy set approach,
Journal fo Small Business Management, 30(4), 12-23.
Homaday, J. & Aboud, J. 1971. Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs,
Personnel Psychology, 24, 141-153.
Homaday, J. &. Bunker, C. 1970. The nature of the entrepreneur, Personnel
259
Homsby, J. S., Naffeiger, D. W., Kuratko, D. F., & Montagno, R. V .t 1993. An
interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship process,
Horvath, F. 1986. Work at home: New findings from the current population
survey, Monthly Labour Review, 31-35.
Howard, J. A. 1977. Consumer Behavior Application of Theory, New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Huber, J. 1993. Home, Inc. Entrepreneur, March, p. 78.
Huefner, J. & Hunt, H. K. 1994. Broadening the concept of entrepreneurship:
Comparing business and consumer entrepreneurs, Entrepreneurship,
Theory and Practice, 18(3), 61-75.
Hughes, M., Price, R.L., & Marrs, D. 1995. Linking theory construction and theory
testing: Models with multiple indicators of latent variables. In Hair, J.F.,
Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. Multivariate Data Analysis,
Englewood Cliffe, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 694-707.
Hull, D., Bosley, J. & Udell, G. 1980. Reviewing the heffialump: Identifying
potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics, Journal of Small
Business Management, 18(1), 11-18.
Humpries, M. & McClung, J, 1981. Women entrepreneurs in Oklahoma, Review
of Regional Economics and Business, 13-20.
Jackson, J. & Rodkey, G. 1994. The attitudinal climate for entrepreneurial
activity, Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 358-380.
Jacobowitz, A. & Vidler, D. C. 1982. Characteristics of entrepreneurs:
Implications for vocational guidance, The Vocational Guidance Quarterly,
30 , 252-257.
Jennings, D. &Zeithaml, C. 1983. Locus of control: A review and directions for
entrepreneurial research, Academy of Management Best Paper
Proceedings, 417-421.
Johnson, B. 1990. Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The
case of achievement motivation and the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship,
Theory and Practice, 14(3), 39-54.
260
Kaufmann, P. J., Welsh, D., & Bushmarin, N. 1995. Locus of control and
entrepreneurship in Russia, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, fall,
43-56.
Kelly, G. A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs, New York: Norton.
Kent, C.A., Sexton, D. L., and Vesper, K. H. (Eds.) 1982. Encyclopedia of
entrepreneurship, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kets de Vries, M. 1977. The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the
crossroads, Journal of Management Studies, 14, 34-57.
Kets de Vries, M, 1996. The anatomy of the entrepreneur Clinical observations,
Human Relations, 49(7), 853-883.
Kets de Vries, M. & Miller, D. 1986. Personality, culture, and organization,
Academy of Management Review, 11 (2), 266-279.
Kilby, P. 1971. Entrepreneurs and economic development, New York, NY:Free
Press.
King, T.R. 1990. Working at home has yet to come out, The American Way of
Buying, New York, NY: Dow Jones, 48.
Kirton, M. 1976. Adaption-innovation: A description and measure, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61, 622-629.
Kirton, M. 1987. Kirton Adaption-innovation Inventory Manual, Hatfield, UK:
Occupational Research Centre.
Klinger, E. 1966. Fantasy need achievement as a motivational construct,
Psychological Bulletin, 66, 291-308.
Kothandapani, V. 1971. Validation of feeling, belief and intention to act as three
components of attitude an their contribution to the prediction of
contraceptive behavior, Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 19,
321-333.
Kraut, R. 1988. Homework: What is it, who does it? In Christensen, K. (Ed.) The
new era o f home-based work: Directions and policies, London:Westview,
30-48.
Kraut, R. and Grambsch, P. 1988. Home-based white collarwork: Lessons from
the 1980 Census, Social Forces, 66, 410-426.
261
Lambert, S. 1990. Processes linking work and family: A critical review and
research agenda. Human Relations, 43(3), 239-257.
Langan-Fox, J. & Roth, S. 1995. Achievement motivation and female
entrepreneurs, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
68, 209-218.
LaPiere, R. T. 1934. Attitudes versus actions, Social Forces, 13, 230-237.
Lazerson, M. 1995. A new phoenix?: Modem putting-out in the Modena knitwear
industry, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 34-59.
Lee, B. 1991. The risky business of working from home, Canadian Business, 64,
78-79.
Lefcourt, H. M. 1981. Research with the locus o f control construct, New York,
Academic Press.
Levenson, H. 1973. Multi-dimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients,
Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 41(3), 397-404.
Lewis, P., Barringer, B., Jones, F., & Harrison, J. 1997. Growth in entrepreneurial
firms: The impact of business practices, founder characteristics, and future
orientation, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, P. Reynolds, W.
Bygrave, N. Carter, P. Davidsson, W. Gartner, C. Mason, & P.
MacDougall (eds.), Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 83-84.
Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes, Archives of Psychology,
140, 44-53.
Little, R. & Rubin, D.B. 1987. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, New York,
NY: Wiley.
Loker, S & Scanned, E. 1992a. Characteristics and practices of home-based
workers, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 13(2), 173-186.
Loker, S. & Scanned, E. 1992b. The unique nature of textile and craft homebased workers: A comparison, Journal of Family and Economic Issues,
13(3), 263-277.
Low, M. & MacMillan, 1.1988. Entrepreneurship: Past research and future
challenges, Journal of Management, 14(2), 139-161.
262
Lynn, R. 1969. An achievement motive questionnaire, British Journal of
Psychology, 60(4), 529-534.
Mallett, T. 1994. At home with business: Results of CFIB Survey on home-based
business issues, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Markus, H. & Wurf, E. 1987. The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological
perspective, in M.R. Rosenszeig & L.W. Porter (eds.) Annual Review of
Martin, J. 1981. Telematic society - A challenge for tomorrow. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Maslow, A.H. 1954. Motivation and personality, New York: Harper Row.
Masuo, D., Walker, R. & Furry, M. 1992. Home-based workers: Worker and work
characteristics, Journal o f Family and Economic Issues, 13(3), 245-262.
McClelland, D. 1961. The achieving society, Princeton: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D. 1965. Need achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal
study, Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 389-392.
McClelland, D., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, L. 1953. The achievement
motive, New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts.
McClelland, D. & Winter, D. G. 1969. Motivating Economic Achievement, New
York, NY: Free Press.
McDaniel, C. & Gates, R. 1995. Contemporary Marketing Research, Minneapolis:
West.
McGuire, W. J. 1985. Attitudes and attitude change, in G. Linzey & E. Aronson
(eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology, New York: Random House, 3, 233346.
McGuire, W. J. 1989. The structure of individual attitudes and attitude systems, in
in A. Pratkanis, S. Breckler & A. Greenwald, (eds.), Attitude, Structure and
Function, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 37-69.
McMullan, W. Ed, & Long, W. 1990. Developing new ventures: The
entrepreneurial option, Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
263
Mergenhagen, P. 1995. Working from home, American Demographics, October,
11 .
Miner, J. B. 1980. Theories o f organizational behavior, Hinsdale, IL Dryden

Press.
Miner, J. B. 1990. Entrepreneurs, high growth entrepreneurs and managers:
Contrasting and overlapping motivational patterns, Journal of Business
Miner, J. B. 1996. Evidence for the existence of a set of personality types,
defined by psychological tests, that predict entrepreneurship, in P.
Reynolds, Biriey, S., Butler, J., Bygrave, W., Davidsson, P., Gartner, W. &
McDougall, P. (Eds.) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson
Park, MA: Babson College, 62-76.
Mintzberg, H. 1988. Generic strategies: Toward a comprehensive framework,
Advances in Strategic Management, 5, 1-67.
Miraftab, F. 1994. (Re)production at home: Reconceptualizing home and family,
Journal of Family issues, 15(3), 467-489.
Mischel, W., 1968. Personality and Assessment, New York, Wiley.
Mitchell, T. & James, L. 1989. Conclusions and future directions, Academy of
Management Review, 14(3), 401-407.
Moore, C. 1986. Understanding entrepreneurial behavior A definition and model,
Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 66-70.
Mumford, M. D. & Stokes, G. 1996. Developmental determinants of individual
action: Theory and practice in applying background measures, in M.
Dunnette and L. Hough (eds) Handbook of industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 61-138.
Murray, H.A. 1938. Explorations in Personality, New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Nilles, J.M., etal., 1977. The Telecommunication Transportation Tradeoff, New
York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Nunnelly, J.C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw Hill
264
Oberhauser, A. 1995. Gender and household economic strategies in rural
Appalachia, Gender, Place and Culture, 2(1) 51-70.
OConner, J. 1987. New forms of households and work. Home and business:
reconciling the conflicts, Social Research Centre, N.I.H.E., Limerick,
Ireland.
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), 1996. The
implementation of an entrepreneurship development strategy in Canada,
Paris, OECD Publication Services.
Olson, M. 1983. Overview of work-at-home trends in the United States, New
York, NY: University Press.
Olson, M. 1985. An investigation o f the impacts of remote work environments and
supporting Technology, New York, NY: University Press.
Olson, M. 1989a. Organizational barriers to professional telework, In Boris, E. &
Daniels, C. (Eds.) Homework: Historical and contemporary perspectives
on paid labour at home, Chicago, IL- University of Illinois Press.
Olson, M. 1989b. Technological Support for Work Group Collaboration, New
York: Eribaum.
Orser, B. J. 1991a. Methodological and theoretical issues of research on homebased businesses, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 8(2),
28-39.
Orser, B. J. 1991b. A National Workshop on Research and Public Policy Issues
of Home-based Enterprise, Toronto, ON: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute,
School of Business Management.
Orser, B. and Foster, M. 1992. Home Enterprise: Canadians and Home-based
Work, Published by the National Home-based Business Project
Committee, Abbotsford, B.C. Contact Barb Mowat, Chair, (604) 520-5720.
Orser, B. Foster, M. Dykas, D & Roberts, L. 1993. Home Enterprise: A detailed
reference list, prepared for the National Home-based Business Project
Committee, Abbotsford, B.C. Contact Leslie Roberts (403) 246-7031.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. &Tannenbaum, P. H. 1957. The measurement of
meaning, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
265
Ostgaard, T.f & Biriey, S. 1994. Personal networks and firm competitive strategy A strategic or coincidental match?, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 281305.
Owen, A., Carsky, M. & Dolan, E. 1992. Home-based employment Historical and
current considerations, Journal o f Family and Economic Issues, 13(2),
Summer, 121-137.
Owen, A., Rowe, B. & Gritzmacher, J. 1992. Building family functioning scales
into the study of at-home income generation, Journal of Family and
Perry, C. 1990. After further sightings of the heffalump, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 5(2), 22-31.
Perry, C., Macarthur, R., Meredith, G., & Cunnington, B. 1985. Need for
achievement and locus of control of Australian small business ownermanagers and super-managers, International Small Business Journal,
4(4), 55-64.
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. 1981. Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
contemporary approaches, Dubuque, IA: William Brown.
Plummer, J. 1989. Changing values, Futurist, January-February.
Porat, M. 1977. The information economy: Definition and measurement,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Pratt, J. 1993. Myths and realities of working at home: Characteristics of
homebased business owners and telecomuters, Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office.
Pratt, J. and Davis, J. 1985. Measurement and evaluation of the populations of
family-owned and home-based businesses, Washington, D.C.: US Small
Business Administration.
Pratt, J. & DeSanctis, G. 1984. A telecommuting primer. Datamation 10(29),
October.
Priestnitz, W. 1989. Running a business out of your home, Women and
Environments, 7, 18-29.
266
Priestnitz, W. 1991. Women and home-based businesses in Canada, published
by the Home Businesswomen's Network, 195 Markville Road, Unionville,
Ontario, L3R 4V8.
Priestnitz, W. 1993. Interim Report on Home-based Businesses in Canada - an
investigation, Unionville, ON: Home Businesswomen's Network.
Prieto, J. & Martin, J. 1990. New forms of work organization. Special issue:
Organizational psychology and the new technologies, Irish Journal of
Psychology, 11(2), 170-185.
Rajecki, D.W. 1982. Attitudes: Themes and Advances, Sunderland, MS: Sinauer
Associates.
Rajecki, D. W. 1990. Attitudes, Sunderland, MS: Sinauer Associates.
Ramsower, R. 1985. Telecommuting: The Organizational and Behavioral Effects
of Working at Home, Ann Arbor, Ml: UMI Research Press.
Ratnatunga, J. & Romano, C. 1997. A citation classics analysis of articles in
contemporary small enterprise research, Journal o f Business Venturing,
12, 197-212.
Reed, K. 1992. Outsourcing, flexibility, and the expansion of women-owned
businesses in the United States economy, Sociology Graduate
Department, City University of New York, NY, accession number
92S26300.
Roberts, L., Jones, V., Long, W. & Robinson, P. 1995. The extent of home-based
business activity in Calgary, Alberta, Proceedings of the 12th Annual
Canadian Conference of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Riverview,
N.B.: CCSBE.
Roberts, L. & Robinson, P. 1996. A grounded theoretical approach to
understanding home-based venture creation, unpublished manuscript,
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
Roberts, L. & Chrisman, J.J. 1997. Under one roof: Toward a reconciliation of
home-based work typologies, Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 13(4), 18-33.
Robinson, P. 1987. Prediction of entrepreneurship based on an attitude
consistency model, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of
Psychology, Brigham Young University.
267
Robinson, P. & Sexton, E. 1994. The effect of education and experience on selfemployment success, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 141-156.
Robinson, P. & Shaver, K. 1995. Metatheory and entrepreneurship research, in
Katz, J. & Brockhaus, R. (Eds.) Advances in entrepreneurship, firm
emergence and growth, Volume 2, Greenwich, CN:JAI Press, 97-122.
Robinson, P. B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefher, J.C., & Hunt, H. K. 1991. An attitude
approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship, Theory
and Practice, Summer, 13-31.
Rokeach, M. 1968. Beliefs, attitudes and values, San Fransisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Rosenberg, M. J. & Hovland, C. 1.1960. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral
components of attitudes, in C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (eds.)
Attitude, organization and change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1-14.
Rosenfeld, R., Winger-Bearskin, M., Marcic, D., & Braun, C. 1993. Delineating
entrepreneurs styles: Application of adaption-innovation subscales,
Psychological Reports, 72, 287-298.
Rotter, J.B. 1954. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Rotter, J.B. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, all of
#609.
Rowe, B. & Bentley, M. 1992. The impact of the family on home-based work,
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 13(3), 279-297.
Rowe, B., Haynes, G. & Bentley, M. 1993. Economic outcomes in family-owned
home-based businesses, Family Business Review, 6(4), 383-396.
Rowe, B., Stafford, K. & Owen, A. 1992. Whos working at home: The types of
families engaged in home-based work, Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 13(2), 159-172.
Schumpeter, J. 1934. The theory of economic development, Boston, MA: Harvard
University Press.
268
Schwartz, E. B. 1976. Entrepreneurship: A new female frontier. Journal o f
Contemporary Business, 5, 47-76.
Scott, E. 1995. Home-based industries: An alternative strategy for household
security in rural Zimbabwe, Journal of Developing Areas, 29(2), 183-212.
Sexton, D. L. 1980. Characteristics and role demands of successful
entrepreneurs, Proceedings of the Academy of Management, Detroit, 314327.
Sexton, D. 1987. Advancing small business research: Utilizing research from
other areas, American Journal of Small Business, Winter, 25-30.
Sexton, D. & Bowman, N. 1983. Comparative entrepreneurship characteristics of
students: Preliminary results, in J. Homaday, J. Timmons, & K. Vesper
(eds.) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA: Babson
College, 213-232.
Sexton, D. & Bowman, N. 1984. Personality inventory for potential entrepreneurs:
Evaluation of a modified JPI/PRF-E test instrument, in Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 513-528.
Sexton, D. & Bowman, N. 1985. Validation of a personality index: Comparative
psychological characteristics analysis of female entrepreneurs, managers,
entrepreneurship students and business students, in Ronstadt, R.,
Homaday, J., Peterson, R., & Vesper, K., (eds.), Frontiers of
Sexton, D., Bowman-Upton, N., Wacholtz, L. & McDougall, P. 1997. Learning
needs of growth-oriented entrepreneurs, Journal o f Business Venturing,
12, 1-8 .
Sexton, D. L. & Robinson, P. B. 1989. The economic and demographic
determinants of self-employment, in Frontiers o f Entrepreneurship
Research, R. Brockhaus, N. Churchill, J. Katz, B. Kirchoff, K. Vesper, &
W. Wetzel, Jr., (eds.), Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 28-42.
Shapero, A. 1975. Entrepreneurship and economic development,
Entrepreneurship and Economic Development: A Worldwide Perspective,
Proceedings of Project ISEED, Milwaukee, Wl.
Shaver, K. 1987. Principles of social psychology, Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
269
Shaver, K. & Scott, L. 1991. Person, process, choice: The psychology of new
venture creation, Entrepreneurship, Theory, and Practice, 16(2), 23-46.
Shaver, K., Gartner, W., Gatewood, E., & Vos, L. 1996. Psychological factors in
success at getting into business, in Reynolds, P., Birley, S., Butler, J.,
Bygrave, W., Davidsson, P., Gartner, W . & McDougall, P. (Eds.) Frontiers
of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Park, MA: Babson College, 77-87.
Silver, H. 1993. Homework and domestic work, Sociological Forum, 8(2), 181204.
Silver, H. & Goldsheider, F. 1994. Flexible work and housework: Work and family
constraints on womens domestic labour, Social Forces, 74(2) 1103-1119.
Slife, B. & Williams, R. 1995. Whafs behind the research?: Discovering hidden
assumptions in the behavioral sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, G. 1994. Towards an ethnography of idiosyncratic forms of livelihood,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 18(1), 71-87.
Smith, N. R., Bracker, J. S. & Miner, J. B. 1987. Correlates of firm and
entrepreneur success in technologicaly innovative companies. In N.C.
Churchill, B.A. Kirchoff, O.J Krasner, & K.H. Vesper (eds) Frontiers of
Smith, N. R. & Miner, J. B. 1984. Motivational considerations in the success of
technologically innovative entrepreneurs, in J. Homaday, F. Tartpley, Jr.,
J. Timmons, & K. Vesper (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 488-495.
Smith, N. R. & Miner, J.B. 1985. Motivational considerations in the success of
technologically innovative entrepreneurs: Extended sample findings. In
J.A. Homaday, E.B. Shils, J.A. Timmons, & K. H. Vesper (eds) Frontiers of
Solymossy, E. 1997. Push/pull entrepreneurship: Does it matter in venture
performance? , Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, P. Reynolds, W.
Bygrave, N. Carter, P. Davidsson, W. Gartner, C. Mason, & P.
Srinivasan, R., Woo, C., & Cooper, A. 1994. Performance determinants for male
and female entrepreneurs, in Bygrave, W., Birley, S., Churchill, N.,
Gatewood, E., Hoy, F., Keeley, R., & Wetzel, W. (Eds.), Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Rsearch, Babson Park, MA: Babson College, 43-56.
270
Stafford, K., Winter, M., Duncan, K. & Genaio, M. 1992. Studying at-home
income generation: Issues and methods, Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 13(2), 139-158.
Statistics Canada. 1991. Canada Yearbook, Ottawa: Government of Canada.
Steams, T., Carter, N.; Reynolds, P.; & Williams, M. 1995. New firm survival:
Industry, strategy, and location, Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 23-42.
Steier, L. & Greenwood, R. 1992. Priming the pump: Promoting the small
business sector in Alberta, 1987-1991, Faculty of Business, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Stevenson, H. H. & Jarillo, C. J. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship:
Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal 11 (Special
Issue) 17-28.
Stoner, C., Hartman, R. & Arora, R. 1990. Work-home conflict in female owners
of small businesses: An exploratory study, Journal of Small Business
Storey, D. J. 1982. Entrepreneurship and the new firm, London: Croom Helm.
Strassman, W. P. 1986. Types of neighborhood and home-based enterprises:
Evidence from Lima, Peru, Urban Studies, 23(6), 485-500.
Strassman, W. P. 1987. Home-based enterprises in cities of developing
countries, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 36, 121-144.
Strickland, B. R. 1989. Internal-external control expectancies: From contingency
to creativity, American Psychologist, 44, 1-12.
Stuart, R. & Abetti, P. A. 1988. Field study of technical ventures. Part 3: The
impact of entrepreneurial and management experience on early
performance, in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, B. Kirchoff, W.
Long, W .E. McMullen, K. Vesper & Wetzel, Jr., (eds.), Wellesley, MA:
Babson College, 177-193.
Stuart, R. & Abetti, P. 1990. Impact of entrepreneurial and management
experience on early performance, Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 151162.
Sullivan, J.L. & Feldman, S. 1979. Multiple indicators: An introduction, Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
271
Sykes, H. & Block, Z. 1989. Corporate venturing obstacles: Sources and
solutions, Journal o f Business Venturing, 4, 159-167.
Thurstone, L. L. 1928. Attitudes can be measured, American Journal of
Sociology, 33, 529-554.
Thurstone, L.L. 1931. The measurement of social attitudes, Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 26, 249-269.
Timmons, J. A. 1978. Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurs,
American Journal o f Small Business, 3, 5-17.
Timmons, J. A. 1990. New Venture Creation, Homewood, III: Richard D. Irwin.
Tipple, A. G. 1993. Shelter as workplace: A review of home-based enterprise in
developing countries, International Labour, 132(4), 521-539.
Triandis, H. 1971. Attitude and attitude change, New York, John Wiley.
Turok, I. 1991. Which small firms grow? In L. Davies & A. Gibb (eds.) Recent
Research in Entrepreneurship, Aldershot, UK, Avebury, 29-44.
VanderWerf, P. A. 1989. Achieving empirical progress in an undefined field,
Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 14(2) 45 - 58.
Vanhalakka. R. 1991. Working at home: A dream or a nightmare. On the daily
routine of home-based work in Finland, Sosiologia, 28(3), 207-209.
Van Maanen, J. 1995. Style as theory, Organization Science, 6(1), 133-143.
Vesper, K. 1990. New Venture Strategies, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Vesper, K. 1993. New Venture Mechanics, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vesper, K. & McMullan, W .E. 1988. Entrepreneurship: Today courses, tomorrow
degrees? Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 13(1), 7-13.
Voyandoff, P. 1987. Work and Family Life, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Waddell, F. T. 1983. Factors affecting choice, satisfaction and success in the female
self-employed. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 294-304.
Wallach, M.A., & Wallach, L. 1983. Psychology's Sanction for Selfishness, San
Francisco: Freeman.
272
Walsh, J. & Anderson, P. 1995. Owner-manager adaption-innovation preference
and employment performance: A comparison of founders and non-founders
in the Irish small firm sector, Journal of Small Business Management, July,
1- 8 .
Walsh, S., Kirchoff, B., & Boylan, R. 1996. Founder backgrounds and
entrepreneurial success: Implications for core competence strategy
application to new ventures, in P. Reynolds, Birley, S., Butler, J., Bygrave,
W., Davidsson, P., Gartner, W. & McDougall, P. (Eds.) Frontiers of
Watkins, J. 1982. The female entrepreneur-American experience and its
implications for the UK. In J. Stanworth, A. Westrip, D. Watkins., & J. Lewis,
(eds.) Perspective on a decade of small business research, Hampshire, UFC
Gower.
Wehrell, R. 1995. The State of Home-based Business in Atlantic Canada, Sackville,
N.B.: Rural and Small Town Programme, Mount Allison University.
Welsh, J.A. & White, J.F. 1983. The Entrepreneur's Master Planning Guide,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Westhead, P. 1995. Survival and employment growth contrasts between types of
owner-managed high-technology firms, Entrepreneurship, Theory and
Practice, 19(4), 5-27.
Westhead, P. & Birley, S. 1995. Employment growth in new independent ownermanaged firms in Great Britain, International Small Business Journal, 13(3),
11-31.
Wicker, A. W. 1969. Attitudes versus actions: The relation of verbal and overt
behavioral responses to attitude objects, Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41-78.
Wicker, A. W. 1971. An examination of other variables explanation of attitudebehavior inconsistency, Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 18-30.
Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Deimar, F., & Aronsson, M. 1997. Expected
consequences of growth and their effect on growth willingness in different
samples of small firms, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, P.
Reynolds, W. Bygrave, N. Carter, P. Davidsson, W. Gartner, C. Mason, & P.
273
Winter, M. & Fitzgerald, M. 1993. Continuing the family-owned home-based
business: Evidence from a panel study, Family Business Review, 6(4), 417-426.
Winter, M., Puspitawati, H., Heck, R. & Stafford, K. 1993. Time-management
strategies used by households with home-based work, Journal of Family and
Woo, C. Y., Cooper, A.C., Dunkelberg, W. C., Daellenbach, U, & Dennis, W . J.
1989. Determinants of growth for small and large entrepreneurial start-ups,
in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, R. Brockhaus, N. Churchill, J.
Katz, B. Kirchoff, K. Vesper, & W . Wetzel, Jr., (eds.), Wellesley, MA: Babson
College, 134-147.
Wortman, M. 1987. Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the
empirical research in the field, Journal of Management, 13(2), 259-279.
Wylie, R. 1974. The self-concept: A review of methodological considerations and
measuring instruments, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Zapalska, V. 1997. A profile of women entrepreneurs and enterprises in Poland,
Journal of Small Business Management, October, 76-81.
274
APPENDIX 1
Cover letter, letter of support, and instrument
275
March 1, 1998
[title] [firstname] [lastname]
[company name]
[address]
[city] [province [postal code]
Dear [title] [lastname]
I am a student conducting a survey of home-based business owners and non-homebased business owners in Calgary. My main goal is to increase our understanding
of the psychological similarities and/or differences among these two groups of
individuals so that more effective programs and services can be developed for
entrepreneurs. You were one of a small sample of entrepreneurs selected at
random from the 1997 Key Contacts Business Directory to receive the survey. Your
participation in this study is voluntary.
Please be assured your responses will be anonymous and kept confidential. You
w ill not be required to provide information which would identify you or your
business. Only general data will be reported. Your responses will be coded and
stored in a computer file which will be destroyed one year from the completion of the
research project. The return envelopes have been numbered so that I may
determine the extent to which returned surveys represent the entire group being
sampled. You may receive a summary copy of the results by writing copy of results
requested along with your name and address on the back of the prepaid-postage
return envelope. Please do not put this information on the survey itself. Your
decision to complete and return this questionnaire will be interpreted as an indication
of your consent to participate.
The survey takes about 20 minutes to complete. To ensure the accuracy of the
results, please complete all questions. After you have completed the survey, place
it in the enclosed, pre-addressed, prepaid-postage return envelope and mail it at
your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact
me at 220-6117, or my doctoral supervisor, Dr. Peter Robinson at 220-6115. You
may also contact Karen McDermid, Vice-President (Research) Office at 220-3381
if you have questions regarding your participation in this study. My sincere thanks
for assisting us to better understand the nature of entrepreneurs in Calgary.
Sincerely,
Leslie P. Roberts
Ph.D. Candidate
(Management - Venture Development)
2 5 0 - 639 5th Ave. S.W.
P.O. Box 2100 Stn. M (#6)
Business
Centre
Inform ation
d lnform ation
C entre
aux E ntreprises
Calgary. Alberta Canada . T2P 2M5
Tel: (403) 221-7800
Fax: (403) 221-7817
27&
e-mail: bus.infoic.gc.ca
March 1,1998
To whom it may concern:

Calgary is a hotbed o f entrepreneurial activity. In fact, the number of businesses started in
Calgary per capita represents the highest level o f entrepreneurial activity in the country. And yet,
we are only just beginning to understand the nature o f the people behind these small businesses.
The University o f Calgary is undertaking a ground-breaking study to leam more about
entrepreneurs in this city, specifically those operating businesses from their homes. As you may
be aware, Calgary boasts the highest level o f home-based businesses in Canada. Leslie Roberts,
who pioneered home-based business research in this province in 1993, is conducting this study
for her PhD in Management at the University o f Calgary.
I would encourage you to take the time to complete Leslies survey, the first of its kind in
Canada. Your participation will help all o f us supporting small business in Calgary to better
understand your business needs.
Thank you for your participation.
Sincerely,
G
Manager
/dlbofta
277
SURVEY
In order for us to assess the similarities or differences between home-based
business owners, non-home-based business owners and white-collar, non-manager
workers, you are being asked to respond to a series of statements designed to
measure your attitudes toward various aspects of entrepreneurship and/or work.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION: Please indicate how much you agree with
each of the following statements by circling one number between 1" and 10 where
circling 1" indicates that you strongly disagree with the statement and circling 10"
indicates that you strongly agree with the statement Circling 5" indicates slight
disagreement and circling 6" indicates slight agreement. W ork as quickly as you
can, dont stop to think too deeply about any one question, but circle your first
thought Please answer all of the questions on both sides o f each page.
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
I get my biggest thrills when my work is among

the best there is.
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
I seldom follow the instructions unless the task I

am working on is too complex.
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
I never put ofF important matters until a more

convenient time.
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
I have always worked hard in order to be among

the best in my field.
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
I feel like a total failure when my business plans

dont turn out the way I think they should.
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
I feel very energetic working with innovative

colleagues in a dynamic business climate.
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
I believe that concrete results are necessary in

order to judge business success.
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
I create the business opportunities I take

advantage of.
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
I feel good when my organization makes a

successful sale.
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
10
I know that my family is depending on my

business income for their security.
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
278
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
11
I spend a great deal of time planning howto

increase my business revenue.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
12
I spend a considerable amount of time making

any business organization I belong to function
better.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
13
I know that social and economic conditions will

not effect my success in business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
14
I believe it is important to analyze your own

weaknesses in business dealings.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
15
I usually perform very well on my part of any

business project I am involved with.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
16
I get excited when I am able to approach

business tasks in unusual ways.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
17
I feel very self-conscious when making business

proposals.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
18
I believe that in the business world the work of

competent people will always be recognized.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
19
I get a sense of pride when my work results in

more revenue for my organization.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
20
I think there are greater rewards in business than

earning lots of money.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
21
( feel great when someone says that Im really

going to make it in business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
22
I believe successful people handle themselves

well at business gatherings.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
23
I enjoy being able to use old business concepts in

new ways.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
24
I seem to spend a lot of time looking for someone

who can tell me how to solve all my business
problems.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
25
I feel terribly restricted being tied down to tightly

organized business activities.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
26
I create business opportunities that will make

money.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
27
I get excited when I think about being the boss.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
279
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
28
I often sacrifice personal comfort in order to take

advantage of business opportunities.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
29
I think it is important for businesses to create jobs

for the community.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
30
I know my hard work in business will pay off

someday.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
31
I feel self-conscious when I am with very

successful business people.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
32
I believe that to succeed in business it is

important to get along with the people you work
with.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
33
I always try to meet people who would make good

employees in my business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
34
I get excited about the prospect of running a

successful business with lots of employees.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
35
I know I have what it takes to be a good leader.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
36
I perform every business task as thoroughly as

possible.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
37
To be successful in business, I believe that it is

important to use your time wisely.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
38
I believe that the authority I have in business is

due mainly to my expertise in certain areas.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
39
I believe that to be successful a businessperson

must spend a great deal of time planning the
future of his/her business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
40
I feel that I should earn lots of money now so I

can retire while Im still young.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
41
I think people have to create their own business

opportunities.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
42
I spend time planning how I can hire more people

in my business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
43
I make a conscientious effort to get the most out

of my business resources.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
44
I feel uncomfortable when Im unsure of what my

business associates think of me.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
280
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
I often put on a show to impress the people I work

with.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
46
I spend time planning how to grow my business

so that I can hire more people.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
47
I often go out of my way to find work for other

people.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
48
I believe that one key to success in business is to

not procrastinate.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
49
1get a sense of pride when 1do a good job on my

business projects.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
50
1believe that organizations which don't

experience radical changes now and then tend to
get stuck in a rut
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
51
1feel inferior to most people 1work with.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
52
1think that to succeed in business these days you

must eliminate inefficiencies.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
53
1feel proud when 1look at the results 1have

achieved in my business activities.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
54
1rarely make an effort to provide business

opportunities for others.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
55
1feel resentful when 1get bossed around at work.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
56
1know 1have what it takes to be a good manager.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
57
Even though 1spend some time trying to

influence business events around me every day, 1
have had very little success.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
58
1feel best about my work when 1know 1have

followed accepted procedures.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
59
Most of my time is spent working on several

business ideas at the same time.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
60
1believe it is more important to think about future

possibilities than past accomplishments.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
61
1believe that in order to succeed, one must

conform to accepted business practices.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
62
1believe that any organization can become more

effective b employing competent people.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
45
281
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
63
I usually delegate routine tasks after only a short

period of time.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
64
I spend lots of time planning the growth of my

business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
65
I dont believe Im in business to help help others

who are less fortunate than me.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
I will spend a considerable amount of time

analyzing my future business needs before I
allocate any resources.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
67
I feel very good because I am ultimately

responsible for my own business success.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
68
I believe that to be successful in business you

must spend some time every day developing new
opportunities.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
69
I get excited when I create my own business

opportunities.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
70
I make a point of doing something significant and

meaningful at work every day.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
71
I believe that in order to be successful, a

business must hire competent people..
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
72
I know I can share control of my business with

others.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
73
I believe that there is more to life than success in

business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
74
I only go after business opportunities that I feel

could make me more money.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10
75
I usually take control in unstructured situations.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
76
I never persist very long on a difficult job before

giving up.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
77
I spend a lot of time planning my business

activities.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
78
I believe that to arrive at a good solution to a

business problem, it is important to question the
assumptions made in defining the problem.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I often feel badly about the quality of work I do.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
66
79
282
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
I believe it is important to make a good first

impression.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
81
I believe it is important to continually look for new

ways to do things in business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
82
I believe that when pursuing business goals or

objectives, the final result is far more important
than following the accepted procedures.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
83
I feel depressed when I dont accomplish any

meaningful work.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
84
I often approach business tasks in unique ways.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
85
I know Im not in business for the money.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
86
I believe that a successful businessperson

should earn a lot of money.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
87
I believe that my friends and family will admire me

for my success in business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
88
I think that earning lots of money in business is

the most important thing.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
89
I believe the most important thing in selecting

business associates is their competency.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
90
I take an active part in community affairs so that i

can influence events that effect my business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
I enjoy finding good solutions for problems that

nobody has looked at yet
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
92
I think business has an obligation to be

responsible to its employees.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
93
I believe that businesspeople should be

compensated for the risks they take.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
94
I feel good when I have worked hard to improve

my business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
95
I believe that to be successful a company must

use business practices that may seem unusual at
first glance.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
96
My knack for dealing with people has enabled me

to create many of my business opportunities.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
97
I get a sense of accomplishment from the pursuit

of my business opportunities.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
80
91
9 10
283
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
98
I believe that currently accepted regulations were

established for a good reason.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
99
I always feel good when I make the organizations

I belong to function better.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
100
I get real excited when I think of new ideas to

stimulate my business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
101
I believe it is important to approach business

opportunities in unique ways.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
102
I always try to make friends with people who may

be useful in my business.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
103
I usually seek out colleagues who are excited

about exploring new ways of doing things.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
104
I enjoy being the catalyst for change in business

affairs.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
105
I always follow accepted business practices in the

dealings I have with others.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
106
I rarely question the value of established

procedures.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
107
I get a thrill out of doing new, unusual things in

my business activities.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
108
I never waste time worrying about my next

business opportunity.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
109
I feel sad when companies reduce staff.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
110
I think a successful business is one that can

hire other people.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
284
For the purposes of properly classifying the responses to our survey, please take
a few moments to tell us about you and your business/work situation.
PLEASE TELL US ABOUT YOU:
Please indicate ( / ) your gender.
Male
Female
Please indicate the year of your birth:
1 9 ___
Please indicate ( / ) your household

type from the categories presented at
right
Not married, no children living with you

Single-parent family (not married, children living
with you)
Married or equivalent, children living with you.
Adult-only family (married or equivalent, no
children living with you)
Please circle: 1) your total number of years of formal education, 2) type of program and 3)
area of study completed:
1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23+
2)
High school / Trade / College / Undergraduate / Masters / PhD
3) Technical/Trade / Business/Medical / Sciences / Social Sciences
Fine Arts Other
PLEASE TELL US ABOUT YOUR SMALL BUSINESS:

T o b e c o m p le t e d b y e n t r e p r e n e u r s / s m a l l b u s i n e s s o w n e r s o n l y .
P l e a s e in d i c a t e ( S )
t h e t y p e o f b u s in e s s
y o u a r e p r e s e n tly
o p e r a tin g :
F u ll-tim e h o m e -b a s e d b u s in e s s ( 4 o r m o r e d a y s p e r w e e k )
P a r t-tim e h o m e -b a s e d b u s in e s s ( < 4 d a y s p e r w e e k )
C o m m e r c i a l b u s in e s s , ie . A b u s i n e s s o p e r a t e d in o r f r o m a
c o m m e r c i a l r a t h e r t h a n r e s i d e n t i a l lo c a t io n .
I a m n o t a s m a ll b u s in e s s o w n e r o r o p e r a to r
P l e a s e c o n t i n u e o n t h e f o l lo w in g p a g e
285
Please indicate ( )
the type of business
you are presently
operating:
Please indicate ( / )
your organizational
experience by
checking all that apply
to you:
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Manufacturing & Processing
Construction or Construction-related Trade
Multi-level marketing or contract sales
Finance, insurance or real-estate services
Business services, ie., marketing, accounting, computing
services
Health services, ie., medical, dental, veterinary, nursing services
Social services, ie., psychologist, social worker, lawyer
Personal services, ie., child care, hair stylist
Educational services
Amusement, recreation or entertainment services
Craft or Artisan
Other, please specify:
Management experience in a similar industry to that of my current

business.
Management experience in a dissimilar industry to that of my
current business.
Technical experience in a similar industry to that of my current
business.
Technical experience in a dissimilar industry to that of my current
business.
Entrepreneurial experience in a similar industry to that of my
current business, ie. you have previously started a business in a
similar industry.
Entrepreneurial experience in a dissimilar industry to that of my
current business, ie. you have previously started a business in a
dissimilar industry
1have no related management, technical or entrepreneurial
experience to the business i currently operate.
1have been exposed to entrepreneurship through a family
business.
1receive advice from my family in the operation of my business.
Please continue on the following page.
286
P l e a s e i n d ic a t e ( ) y o u r b u s i n e s s r e v e n u e (before expenses and taxes) f o r t h e t h r e e
p e r i o d s b e lo w :
a t your business year end, 1996:

<$24,999 $25,000 - 49,999 O$50,000 - 74,999
0$75,000 - 99,999 Q> $100,000
a t your business year end, 1997:

<$24,999 $25,000 - 49,999 $50,000 - 74,999
0$75,000 - 99,999 [> $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0
anticipated at your business year end, 1998:

<$24,999 $25,000 - 49,999 $50,000 - 74,999
0$75,000 - 99,999 > $100,000
Excluding part-time and/or seasonal workers, the number of full-time employees including
yourself in your business for each time period:
on Decem ber 31,1996 was: _____ (Enter the number of full-time employees including you,
1996)
on December 31,1997 was:
1997)
(Enter the number of full-time employees including you,
anticipated on December 31,1998 is:

including you, 1998)
(Enter the number of full-time employees
The number of years of business operation from first sale is:
Any comments?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE !

PLEASE RETURN THIS COMPLETED SURVEY IN THE ENCLOSED
PRE-ADDRESSED, POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE.
287
APPENDIX 2
Diagnostic histograms, scatterplot matrix, normal Q-Q probability plots,
and covariance matrix
288
Graph
Histogram - All subjects
S td . D e v = .8 6
M e a n = 7 .7 2
i N = 5 4 4 .0 0
Achievem ent
Graph
S td . D e v = .8 3
M e a n = 6 .9 9
N = 5 4 4 .0 0
^s-'o ,^s- 'iSb ^s-'cb
o- o ^ s -< s - o
Innovation
290
Graph
Histogram - AH subjects
S td . D e v = .9 6
M e a n = 7 .0 0
N = 5 4 4 .0 0
Personal control
291
Graph
S td . D e v = .7 8
M e a n = 7 .5 2
N = 5 4 4 .0 0
Self-esteem
292
Graph
S td . D e v = .9 7
M e a n = 6 .9 1
N = 5 4 4 .0 0
'<h
&o
-* 0
&o
Revenue Growth
293
Graph
50 n---------------------------------------- --------------
S td . D e v = 1 .1 7
M e a n = 6 .1 8
N = 5 4 4 .0 0
Employment Growth
294
Graph

6 0 t------------------------------------------------- -
S td . D e v = 3 .9 7
M e a n = 4 2 .3
N = 5 4 4 .0 0
Attitude constellation
295
Graph
120
100
S td . D e v = 1 0 .7 0
M e a n = 4 6 .5
N = 5 3 6 .0 0
2 0 .0
3 0 .0
2 5 .0
4 0 .0
3 5 .0
5 0 .0
4 5 .0
6 0 .0
5 5 .0
7 0 .0
6 5 .0
8 0 .0
7 5 .0
Ss age
296
Graph

3 0 0 - r ---------------------------------- - ---------------------
200
100 S td . D e v = 3 .2 8
M e a n = 1 5 .8
N = 5 3 3 .0 0
5 .0
7 .5
1 0 .0
1 2 .5
1 5 .0
1 7 .5
2 0 .0
2 2 .5
2 5 .0
Number of years of education
297
Graph

4 0 0 t-----------------------------------------------------------
S td . D e v = 7 .0 3
M e a n = 3 .5
N = 4 1 9 .0 0
Number of employees-1996
298
Graph
400
300
200
100
S td . D e v = 7 2 8
M e a n = 3 .7
N = 4 1 8 .0 0
0 .0
1 0 .0 2 0 .0 3 0 .0 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 6 0 .0 7 0 .0 8 0 .0 9 0 .0
Number of empIoyees-1997
299
Graph
4 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------
S td . D e v = 7 .9 0
M e a n = 4 .1
N = 4 1 5 .0 0
^
0 .0
>
1 0 .0 2 0 .0 3 0 .0 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 6 0 .0 7 0 .0 8 0 .0 9 0 .0
Anticipated employees-1998
300
Graph
j S td . D e v = 8 .3 2
j M e a n = 1 1 .3
IN = 4 1 1 .0 0
Number of years since first sale
301
Graph
S td . D e v = .7 7
M e a n = 2 .1 5
N = 4 1 1 .0 0
0 .0 0
.5 0
.2 5
1 .0 0
.7 5
1 .5 0
1 .2 5
2 .0 0
1 .7 5
2 .5 0
2 2 .5
3 .0 0
2 .7 5
3 .5 0
3 .2 5
4 .0 0
3 .7 5
LOGofYEARSOP
Graph
Scatterplot Matrix
9
\g m
w
m
W 0
NunrPop0
qI a
303
Tests o f Norm ality
Kolmoqorov-Smimov3
Sig.
df
Statistic
544
.052
.039
544
.200*
.022
.200*
544
.031
544
.200*
.031
544
.200*
.031
Achievement
Innovation
Personal control
Setf-esteem
Revenue Growth
Employment
544
.017
Growth
Attitude
544
.026
constellation
536
Ss age
.066
Number of
533
years of
.098
education
Number of
419
.353
employees-1996
Number of
418
.354
employees-1997
Anticipated
415
.350
empioyees-1998
Number of
411
years since first
.141
sale
LOG of
411
.079
YEARSOP
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance,
.200*
.200*
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
304
Ss age
Normal Q-Q Plot of Ss age

2
0
CO
E
o
T3
O -2O
<D
Q.
X
-3
10
20
30
50
40
60
70
80
Observed Value
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Ss age
.6
.4
or
-2'
E
o
z:
E o.o
Q OO
>D
<
Q -2.
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Observed Value
90
305
Num ber o f years o f education
Normal Q-Q Plot
Expected Normal
/a
-2-
-10
10
20
30
Observed Value
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot

0 .0 J---------------------------------------------
" ' . _ ^ = . . _ - ^----------------------
-.5 -
pev from Normal
1. 0 -
- 1 .5 -
2. 0 -
- 2 .5 - 3 .0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________
-1 0
0
10
._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !
20
30
Observed Value
306
Number of empfoyees-1996
Expected Normal
Normal Q-Q Plot of Number of employees
-2-
-20
20
40
60
80
100
Observed Value
Dev fropn Normal
4-
-20
20
40
60
80
100
Observed Value
307
Number of empIoyees-1997
Normal Q-Q Plot of Number of employees
100 -r
80-
6 0 -i
!\
I
Expected Normal
4 0 -j
20
j|
i
o-i
-20
-20
20
40
60
80
100
Observed Value

1 0 -r-
8-!
6-!
Dev from Normal
4 -f
2-:
-2 i
-20
20
40
60
80
Observed Value
100
Anticipated em pioyees-1998
Normal Q-Q Plot of Anticipated employees

100
80-
60-
40-
(0
e
o
2
T3
ou
<
a.
x
LU
20-
0
-2 0
-20
20
40
60
80
100
Observed Value

10 -]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
864-
to
2
o
2-1
-2 0
20
40
60
80
Observed Value
R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
309
Number of years since first sale

Norma! Q-Q Plot
4 -i------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Normal
3-
-2-!
s'x
a
-
-3.1________
-10
0
10
20
30
40
io
60
Observed Value

3 -,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-:
Dev fjpm Normal
1-i
-1-2 4
- 3 J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-1 0
0
10
20
30
40
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j
50
60
Observed Value
310
LOG of YEARSOP
Normal Q-Q Plot o f LOG of YEARSOP
/
Expected Normal
s~'
-1-2 -i
-3
-
Observed Value
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plo*

2.-,---------------------------------------------------------------1 -i
0-0-f-
Dev from Normal
-A-
"H
-.3 - i
II
t
-.5
i
-1
Observed Value
311
Achievement
Expected Normal
Normal Q -Q Plot of Achievement
-2-
10
Observed Value

0.0
Dev from Moripal
-.4 -
-.6-.8-
Observed Value
11
312
Innovation
Normal Q-Q Plot of Innovation
0CD
E
o
Z
10
Observed Value
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Innovation

.3-1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a
2-
>ax
-.4
4
Observed Value
10
313
Personal control
Expected Normal
Normal Q-Q Plot of Personal control
1-
2-
10
Observed Value

.
2-
-1H
-=fS=:
3=U
cP
o
0.0
cF
a?
-.1
DSV from normal
J=Sfrtn
-,dr-p
"CATcU
-.2i
I
-H
-.4 i
10
Observed Value
314
Self-esteem
Normal Q-Q Plot of Self-esteem
Expected Normal
2-!
10
Observed Value
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Self-esteem

1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii
Dev from Normal
2-
ii
- 3 -I
j
1
I
- 4 J_ _ _ _ _ _ _
2
3
Observed Value
10
315
Revenue Growth
Normal Q-Q Plot of Revenue Growth
Expected Normal
0-
2-
10
Observed Value

I,---------------------------------------------------i
Dev from Normal
- .3
~x
3
- .5 _i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3
4
(_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5
6
a-
=
o
!
4
f_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j
8
9
10
Observed Value
316
Employment Growth
Normal Q-Q Plot of Employment Growth
CO
E
o
Z
TJ
o
<u
Q .
X
LU
2-
-3
10
Observed Value
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Employment

:
I
24
Observed Value
7o
317
Attitude constellation
Expected Normal
Normal Q-Q Plot of Attitude constellation
2-
20
30
40
50
60
50
60
Observed Value
Dev typm Nqrnigl
20
30
40
Observed Value
318
Covariance matrix of component and subscale independent variables
VARIABLES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1. Achievement-affective
.62
2. Achlevement-Cognlttve
.56
.95
3. Achlevement-Conative
.47
.67
1.2
4. Innovation-Affective
.59
.44
.47
1.1
5. Innovation-Cognitive
.38
,43
.48
.51
.83
6. Innovntfon-Conatlve
.24
.11
.13
.54
.37
1.9
7. Personal Control-Affoctlve
.54
.46
.42
.54
.48
33
18
6. Personal Control-Cognitive
.37
.81
.44
.25
.26
02
.25
2.4
B. Personal Control-Corutive
.45
.50
.58
.47
.38
.16
.38
.45
1.0
10. Sef-esteem-Aflective
-.12
-.21
-.18
.00
-0 0
.36
.00
-.28
.00
1.8
11. Self-esteem-Cognltlve
.56
.59
.44
.36
.26
02
.40
.54
.42
-.13
1.1
12. Self-esteem-Conatlve
.23
.00
.00
.11
.00
.17
.07
.00
.07
.57
.14
12
13. Revenue Growth-Affective
.81
.70
.61
.47
.35
.06
.55
.72
.54
-.45
.59
-.10
1.7
14. Revenue Growth-Cognitive
.36
,42
.45
.31
.32
.17
.35
.37
.37
-.23
.33
07
.54
77
15. Revenue Growth-Conattve
.33
.48
.58
.26
.38
.09
.37
.37
.54
-.20
.38
-.18
.72
.55
1.8
18. Employment Growth- Affective
36
.49
.59
.45
.33
02
.37
.30
60
63
.48
61
.80
52
64
3.2
17. Employment-Growth-Cognltive
.37
.48
.43
.43
.29
.09
.19
.47
.45
-.12
.42
03
.51
35
.29
85
.95
18. Employment Growth-Conattve
.34
.60
.71
.61
.42
27
.18
.42
.61
-.41
.36
-.45
.73
53
.50
1.4
.82
2.4
18. Achievement Subscale
.65
.73
.81
50
42
18
47
.47
.51
-.18
53
.13
64
41
.48
.48
,42
51
.73
20. Innovation Subscale
.41
.32
.35
.72
.57
.67
.44
.17
.34
.11
.22
.10
.30
27
.24
.27
27
.42
.36
.65
21. Personal Control Subscale
.45
.52
.48
.42
.38
.16
.72
.1.0
.62
.09
.45
.05
.60
36
.43
.42
.37
.40
.48
.32
.81
22. Sel-esteem Subscale
22
.18
.11
.17
.00
.18
,15
.08
.18
.75
.39
.87
01
00
00
-.25
.11
-.16
.15
.14
.13
.60
23. Revenue Growth Subscale
.43
53
.55
35
35
11
42
.49
.48
-.30
.43
11
10
62
.87
69
.38
.59
.50
27
.46
.00
24. Employment Growth Subscale
.36
.48
.58
.50
.35
.13
.25
.39
.55
-.39
.42
-.34
.71
.47
.48
1.8
.87
1.5
.47
.32
.40
-.10
Correlations above .IS are significant at .05 level of significance.
23
24
.87
1.4

Innov Manag - ProQuest - Diss16 PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Innov Manag - ProQuest - Diss16 PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

INFORMATION TO USERS

Thus, some thesis and

Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment

Bell & Howell Information and Learning

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Home-based Entrepreneurs, Non-home-based Entrepreneurs and

Leslie Patricia Roberts, B.Comm., M.B.A.

395 Wellington Street

Our file Notre reference

The author has granted a non

Lauteur a accorde une licence non

The author retains ownership o f the

Lauteur conserve la propriete du

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Entrepreneurs, Non-home-based Entrepreneurs and White-collar, Non-management

Dr. Peter Robinson, Supervisor

Dr. Wynne Chin, committee Member

Home-based entrepreneurship, the operation of a business venture in or

subscales); the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) Scale (Robinson, et

Theoretical Basis for the Research

Personality Models of Human Behavior .

Models of Entrepreneurial Behavior

Attitudes as Determinants of Entrepreneurial Behavior

Outline of the Dissertation .

Preference for Business Growth in Revenue and

Comparative Studies of Psychological Characteristics

Summary of Psychological Characteristics

Individual and Organizational Characteristics

Education and Experience .

Summary of Individual and Organizational Characteristics

Tripartite Model of Attitude .

Attitude - Behavior Relationship

Summary of Attitude Theory

The Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) Scale .

Origins of Home-based Entrepreneurship Literature

Characteristic Studies of Home-workers and

Sociological Considerations of Work and Family Life

Architectural and Environmental Responses to

CONCEPTUAL F R A M E W O R K ............................................................. 132

Perceived Personal Control of Business Outcomes

Perceived Self-esteem in Business

Preference for Business Growth in Revenue and in

RESEARCH M E T H O D ......................................................................... 143

Scale Item Development

Final Survey Development.

Populations and Sampling .

Control Group Subjects

Subscale Scoring Procedure

Individual and Organizational Measures

Tests for Normality, Homoscedasticity, Linearity,

Representativeness of the Samples

Early versus Late Response Bias .

Differences Between Full-time and Part-time Home-based

Probability of Commercial Business Start-up

Mediating Effect of Individual and Organizational Variables

EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Findings Related to Psychological Constructs

Findings Within the Entrepreneur Sample

Contributions and Implications

Theoretical Contributions and Implications

Implications for Practitioners and Policy Makers