Comparing the Entrepreneurial Attitudes of University and Community

College Students

Shanan G. Gibson
East Carolina University

Michael L. Harris
East Carolina University

Todd D. Mick
Lindenwood University

Toni M. Burkhalter
Parkland College

Students (N = 395) at several U.S. community colleges (N = 220) and universities (N = 175) completed
the Entrepreneurial Attitudes Orientation (EAO) survey. Results indicated that university students
possessed attitudes which were stronger than their community college peers on all four of the
entrepreneurial attitudes. Similarly, university students reported that they felt significantly more prepared
to start their own businesses, wanted to start their own businesses, and felt they were significantly more
likely to start their own businesses than those students from the community colleges. Consideration is
given to potential explanations for these differences and implications for entrepreneurship education.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Because attitudes and intentions are precursors of entrepreneurial action, an understanding of the
attitudes, and those factors which may impact them, including educational background, is a critical step in
promoting greater entrepreneurial initiative among the nascent entrepreneurs in the U.S.
The current study extends our ongoing research paradigm of examining the entrepreneurial attitudes of
university students across the U.S. by considering students from two-year college programs and
comparing them with students enrolled in business programs at traditional four-year universities. An
online survey measuring the entrepreneurial attitudes associated with the Entrepreneurial Attitudes
Orientation Scale (EAO) - achievement, innovation, personal control and self esteem, attitudes toward
future entrepreneurial employment, and demographic data was used to collect data from university and
community college students. Findings indicated that given a group of young adults with similar prior
exposure to entrepreneurial enterprises, those studying in four-year institutions are more positively
predisposed toward having their own small business in the future. In addition, these students were found

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 11(2) 2011 11

to possess significantly stronger attitudes related to entrepreneurship than did their peers from community
colleges.
It has been suggested that entrepreneurship is a blend of temperament, talent, and technique
(Thompson, 2004), and research shows that young adults are often interested in business ownership, and
those with post-secondary academic experience are more likely to become involved in entrepreneurial
activities (Minniti, Bygrave and Autio, 2005). Therefore it is critical that all types of colleges and
universities offer relevant entrepreneurship education programs. As research continues to provide a better
understanding of students’ attitudes and intentions, this knowledge can be used to develop more effective
entrepreneurship education programs within both universities and community colleges. It is imperative
that nascent entrepreneurs be ready for changing markets, products, and technology in today’s business
world; education is critical for fostering the flexibility and skills this requires.

INTRODUCTION

Research has shown that entrepreneurship education can impact students’ awareness and perceptions
(Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Kuratko, 2005), as well as provide them with more complete skill sets
(Gatewood, Shaver, Powers & Gartner, 2002; Mitra and Matlay, 2004). Many college-aged young adults
are interested in venture creation (Minniti, Bygrave & Autio, 2005), making it especially important to
study and refine their entrepreneurial profile since they are likely to be the future entrepreneurial leaders
(Hisrich, 2000; Steyaert, 2004). A better understanding of students’ attitudes and intentions can be used to
develop more effective entrepreneurship education programs. Inadequate business knowledge has been
cited as a major deterrent for business ownership (Wang & Wong, 2004) and more relevant education
programs can perhaps help fill any identified knowledge gaps or skill deficiencies.
Many of the necessary skills for business creation can be developed in entrepreneurship education and
training courses (Mitra & Matlay, 2004), and education and skill differentials help explain why certain
individuals choose to pursue entrepreneurial activities and are more successful than others (Farmer, 1997;
Carter, Gartner, Shaver & Gatewood, 2003). Florin, Karri and Rossiter (2007) suggest that an important
role of business schools is to foster and develop entrepreneurial drive in all students. Reflecting the belief
that entrepreneurial skills can be learned and refined, the number of entrepreneurship programs at both
two-year and four-year U.S. colleges and universities has been steadily on the rise (Kuratko, 2005).

Entrepreneurship Education
Effective educational programs require the use of multiple learning tools and strategies, often through
collaborative efforts. Courses with experiential activities and high faculty involvement allow students to
reach their entrepreneurial potential via skill attainment and increased expectations for success. The use
of case studies, consulting projects, and/or mentoring opportunities have been particularly successful at
impacting students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship and their willingness to consider it as a viable career
path (Brindley & Ritchie, 2000; Carter, Gartner, Shaver & Gatewood, 2003; Mitra & Matlay, 2004).
Much of the past research on entrepreneurship education has centered on courses and programs from
four-year colleges and universities. Pittaway and Cope (2007) suggest that more research is needed in
different academic contexts to identify effective methods for teaching entrepreneurship. There is a high
variety of post-secondary educational institutions in the U.S., and each of these institutions attracts
students for different reasons. A better understanding of all types of college students is needed to develop
successful entrepreneurship programs, whether it is for vocational students at local community colleges or
graduate students at research universities.
Community colleges have long been praised for their ability to adapt and meet the needs of the
surrounding community by offering economic development programs in the areas of small business
assistance, workforce training and assessment, and economic planning (Zeiss, 1994; Dougherty & Bakia,
1999). A current need, as suggested by Rosenfeld (2007), is the development of new approaches to
teaching entrepreneurship. Research has indicated that community colleges have a “natural aptitude” for
entrepreneurship and are well positioned to take advantage of new opportunities (Roueche & Jones, 2005,

12 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 11(2) 2011

p. 27). One of the great challenges is identifying appropriate strategies for dealing with increased demand.
This challenge, however, leads to one of the great strengths of community colleges; their ability to adapt
and create specialized programs that meet community needs.
This plays into the strengths of the community college and its ability to work collaboratively with
various partners, including business and industry, to develop tailored programs aimed at diverse student
populations (Roueche & Jones, 2007). The essence of entrepreneurship education is to develop future
entrepreneurs capable of launching and maintaining successful businesses, regardless of their academic
background. Similarly, Pittaway and Cope (2007) believe that these programs should be designed to
enhance students’ skills and encourage future enterprise development. The flexible structure and service
mission of community colleges make them well suited to design responsive programs that capitalize on
the specific needs of their local communities.

Entrepreneurial Attitudes
An attitude is “a complex mental state involving beliefs, feelings, values, and dispositions to act in
certain ways” (attitude, n.d.). Attitudes tend to change across time and situations through an interactive
process with the environment, and can offer a prediction about a person’s future actions (Carlson, 1985).
The work of Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner, and Hunt (1991) was one of the first to use an attitudinal scale
to predict entrepreneurial activity. They designed the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) scale to
measure entrepreneurial attitudes based on the constructs of achievement, innovation, personal control
and self esteem. Achievement in business refers to concrete results associated with the start of a business;
personal control of business outcomes concerns one’s perception of control or influence over his or her
business; innovation in business relates to acting on business activities in novel ways; and perceived self-
esteem in business relates to self-confidence with regard to one’s business affairs.
The theory of planned behavior argues that intention is an antecedent to behavior (Azjen, 1991), and
prior studies have shown that intentions play a crucial role in understanding the entrepreneurial process
(Shapero & Sokol 1982; Krueger, 1993; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). Shapero and Sokol (1982) argue that
attitudes are linked with entrepreneurial intentions, especially in perceived venture feasibility and
desirability. Additional research found that positive entrepreneurial exposure can impact intentions
(Krueger, 1993), though this may vary according to individual characteristics and situations (Krueger &
Brazeal, 1994).

Exposure to Entrepreneurship
Research has established a link between entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions and past business
experience and exposure. This may include working for a small business, or more direct experience such
as starting a new business or working within a family business. Research has shown that both work
experience with a small business (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003) and a family business (Reitan, 1997) can
have a positive impact on an individual’s perceptions regarding new venture feasibility and desirability.
In addition, Gatewood and Shaver (1991) found that self-confidence and motivation can be affected by
experience and past business results. All attitudes, including entrepreneurial attitudes, can change
(Robinson et al., 1991), and prior work experience or other forms of contact may play a significant role in
shaping these attitudes.

Current Study
The purpose of the current study is to compare the entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions of university
and community college students. Because one’s attitudes are likely to lead to one’s intentions, and these,
in turn, to behaviors, the current study aims to examine a potential factor associated with entrepreneurial
attitudes – the type of post-secondary education undertaken by the young adults who are ostensibly future
entrepreneurs. A better understanding of factors that may impact entrepreneurship is necessary to ensure
our nation’s entrepreneurial spirit continues to flourish.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 11(2) 2011 13

METHOD

Participants
Participants were students enrolled at both community colleges (2 year institutions) and traditional
universities (4 year institutions) in the U.S. A total of 395 useable surveys were returned (220 community
college students and 175 university students). Men accounted for 36% of the community college sample
and 48% of the university sample. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 61 years old, with the average
age of community college students (25.7 years) and university students (24.9 years), not being
significantly different from one another.

Procedure
Beginning with the fall 2007 academic year, faculty teaching undergraduate courses received an e-mail
letter from the research team requesting their voluntary participation. The stated purpose of the study was
to compare differences in entrepreneurial attitudes among students. Faculty was asked to request that their
students complete an anonymous online survey during the first few weeks of the semester. Survey
completion was entirely voluntary and no identifying information was recorded. A reminder email was
sent out after the first week had passed to encourage participation. Data collection continued until the end
of the spring 2008 academic term.

Measures
We measured entrepreneurial attitudes with the Entrepreneurial Attitudes Orientation survey
instrument (Robinson et al., 1991). The EAO is theoretically well grounded and provides a composite
score based on four attitude subscales: 1) Achievement in business (Cronbach’s alpha = .84), 2) Personal
control of business outcomes (Cronbach’s alpha = .70), 3) Innovation in business (Cronbach’s alpha =
.90), and 4) Self-esteem in business (Cronbach’s alpha = .73). The four subscales have been shown to
produce 77% accuracy in predicting entrepreneurship (Robinson et al., 1991).
In addition to completing the EAO, participants provided demographic information including gender,
age, previous exposure to entrepreneurial organizations, and information related to their future
entrepreneurial intentions. Specifically, students indicated on a five point scale how much they desired
owning a small business, how likely they were to own a small business, and how prepared they felt to
own a small business.

Analyses
Because entrepreneurial attitudes have been shown to be impacted by prior exposure to
entrepreneurism, initial chi-square analyses were used to determine if differences existed between
community college and university students in this regard so that they might be controlled for.
The primary interest of the current study was to examine what, if any, distinctions exist between the
entrepreneurial attitudes of community college and university students. As such, an analysis of variance
was conducted to test for differences in the scale scores on each of the four entrepreneurial attitudes of
interest as well as the questions related to future entrepreneurial intention.

RESULTS

With regard to prior exposure to entrepreneurial activities, no significant differences were found with
UHJDUGWRKDYLQJZRUNHGIRUDVPDOOEXVLQHVVLQWKHSDVW Ȥ2(1) = 2.22, p > .5), nor with regard to having
H[SRVXUHYLDWKHSUHVHQFHRIDIDPLO\EXVLQHVV Ȥ2(1) = 1.02, p > .5).
As no significant differences with regard to prior entrepreneurial exposure were found, analysis of
variance was undertaken to examine potential differences in entrepreneurial attitudes. As is designated in
Table 1, for every entrepreneurial attitude, students from university settings possessed significantly
stronger attitudes. Similarly, with regard to future intentions, the university students had more positive
predispositions toward future business ownership.

14 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 11(2) 2011

 The means and standard deviations for all entrepreneurial attitudes of interest are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL ENTREPRENEURIAL ATTITUDES

Entrepreneurial Attitude School Type Mean Std. Deviation

Achievement Scale Score * Community College 6.33 1.47
University 7.40 1.49
Innovation Scale Score * Community College 3.94 2.29
University 6.54 2.18
Personal Control Scale Score * Community College 5.18 2.64
University 6.51 1.81
Self Esteem Scale Score * Community College 5.72 1.14
University 6.36 1.27
Would like to own a small business * Community College 3.56 1.41
University 4.15 1.03
Likelihood of owning a small business * Community College 3.01 1.45
University 3.50 1.18
Feel prepared to own a small business * Community College 2.34 1.23
University 2.89 1.07
* Significantly different at the p < .05 level

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

In order to survive and flourish, it is imperative that entrepreneurs be ready for changing markets,
products, and technology in today’s business world. One factor that can be expected to play a role in this
is the degree to which young people are well prepared via their previous educational and experiential
history.
The current study indicates that given a group of young adults with similar prior exposure to
entrepreneurial enterprises, those pursuing an education in four-year institutions are more positively
predisposed toward having their own small business in the future. In addition, these students were found
to possess significantly stronger attitudes related to entrepreneurship. Since the reason for this
discrepancy in attitudinal strength is not obvious, a bit of supposition is offered.
Typically students who choose to pursue an education at a two-year community college do so for one
of two reasons. The first is that this is an economical way to earn credits that will later transfer to a four-
year institution. As such, the students in this sample who are associated with the community college
sample have completed less post-secondary education than those who made up the university sample
(who were overwhelmingly in their junior and senior years of education). Perhaps with additional
education the attitudes of the community college students will become stronger.
The second reason that students frequently choose a two-year degree over a four-year education is that
the two-year program is seen as paving the way to a secure vocation, typically in a high-demand field, in
a relatively short amount of time. Individuals seeking such a career may inherently have weaker
entrepreneurial attitudes as evidenced by their desire for a career in a stable, existing organization.
Although this has been a viable career path for many people, the fact that the greatest amount of growth in
the U.S. economy is associated with small business development, suggests that these individuals might be
well served by opportunities that expose them to the viability of self-employment.
Based on our results, one might mistakenly presume that university students are more skilled or
confident than their community college counterparts. Universities generally have a more strenuous
admittance process, whereas many community colleges adopt an open enrollment policy. In addition, past

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 11(2) 2011 15

studies have demonstrated the value of university programs and the positive impact these experiences
have on students’ entrepreneurial attitudes (Hatten & Ruhland, 1995; Harris, Gibson & Taylor, 2007) and
skill development (Gatewood, Shaver, Powers & Gartner, 2002). However, community colleges are
known for their willingness to serve diverse student populations and are positioned to directly impact the
greatest number of individuals with entrepreneurial aspirations.
Wardford and Flynn (2000) propose that community colleges are best qualified to offer a
comprehensive response to the economic needs of local communities. This approach requires the creation
of programs aimed at all segments of the workforce, including transitional workers and entrepreneurs.
Transitional workers who may be interested in self-employment opportunities, as well as nascent
entrepreneurs, often turn to community college programs for specialized assistance, and expect
personalized service at little or no cost. Some examples of programs or services offered include degree
programs, customized education courses, and business training programs.
Regardless of why students choose a community college education, the students’ attitudes toward
entrepreneurship highlight a major arena of opportunity for community colleges - these institutions can
focus on helping students develop stronger entrepreneurial attitudes. Florin, Karri, and Rossiter (2007)
argue that a primary focus of entrepreneurship teaching should be the development of positive attitudes so
that students might view starting a small business as a viable career option. Community colleges seem to
be well aware of this need and are making greater efforts to educate and support would-be entrepreneurs
(Gibbs, 2006).
Rosenfeld (2008) believes that community colleges are in the “midst of a revolution” in identifying
new approaches and programs for entrepreneurship (p. 14). Some institutions now offer associate degrees
in entrepreneurship and related fields, while others are integrating entrepreneurial skills into various
occupational courses. Not only does this make students more employable, but it helps prepare those who
may be exploring self-employment opportunities as a second career. Research also encourages
community colleges to offer more innovative contract training services and consider the creation of
“entrepreneurial ‘think tanks’” to benefit the local community (Roueche & Jones, 2005, p. 28).
Perhaps our findings can encourage universities and community colleges to work in a cooperative
manner in developing entrepreneurship programs. Universities are better suited to more comprehensive
academic programs whereas community colleges are able to develop more tailor made programs for
specific industries or professions. Community colleges can create entrepreneurship courses that help those
in the process of launching a business, and they can do so either as certificate programs or as part of their
continuing education offerings. Large universities typically lack this ability to accommodate the
geographic regions they serve and are therefore unable to design programs aimed at the immediate needs
of a local community. As suggested by Rosenfeld (2007), community colleges are able to help
“entrepreneurs build strong businesses. If the student receives a degree or certificate along the way, that’s
all the better.” (p. 21). Universities are generally not afforded that same level of flexibility.
Research shows that young adults are often interested in business ownership, and those with post-
secondary academic experience are more likely to become involved in entrepreneurial activities (Minniti,
Bygrave and Autio, 2005). Therefore it is critical that all types of colleges and universities offer relevant
entrepreneurship education programs since many of the same young adults will attend these institutions.
Thompson (2004) suggests that both talent and temperament are vital for entrepreneurs, and talent can be
improved through participation in educational programs. A more thorough understanding of students’
attitudes and intentions can be used to better judge whether or not someone has the temperament to be an
entrepreneur. Once this has been determined, appropriate entrepreneurship programs can be offered to
help students enhance their entrepreneurial skills.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Additional research should continue to examine the entrepreneurial attitudes of students in different
academic contexts. In addition, studies should examine the effectiveness of the various entrepreneurship
programs found in different educational settings. The prospect of developing a profile that will identify

16 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 11(2) 2011

future entrepreneurs – a model that incorporates the numerous components identified by previous
research including personality, entrepreneurial exposure, education, attitudes, and other factors, is
certainly exciting to many in entrepreneurship education. Continued efforts to examine would-be
entrepreneurs is just one piece of the enigma that is the successful entrepreneur.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Decision Processes, 50,
179-211.

Bohner, G. and Wanke, M. (2001), Attitudes and attitude change, Psychology Press, Florence, KY.

Brindley, C. (2005). Barriers to women achieving their entrepreneurial potential: Women and risk.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 11 (2), 144-161.

Carlson, S. D. (1985). Consistency of attitude components: A new approach for an old problem.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (09B), 3261.

Carter, N.W., Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G. and Gatewood, E.J. (2003). The career reasons of nascent
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (1), 13-39.

Carter, N. M., Williams, M. and Reynolds, P. D. (1997). Discontinuance among new firms in retail: The
influence of initial resources, strategy, and gender. Journal of Business Venturing, 12 (2), 125-145.

Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G.and Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13 (4), 295-316.

Collins, C.J., Hanges, P., & Locke, E.A. (2004). The relationship of need for achievement to
entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17 (1), 95-117.

Douglas, E. J. and Shepherd, D. A. (2002). Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial

intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 26 (3), 81-90.

entrepreneur. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Retrieved November 15, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entrepreneur

Erickson, T. (2002). Entrepreneurial capital: The emerging venture’s most important asset and
competitive advantage. Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (3), 275-290.

Florin, J., Karri, R. and Rossiter, N. (2007). Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education: An
attitudinal approach. Journal of Management Education, 31 (1), 17-42.

Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon for new venture creation.
Academy of Management Review, 10 (4), 696-706.

Gatewood, E. J. and Shaver, K. G. (1991). Expectancies for success and attributes for failure: Toward a
theory of entrepreneurial persistence. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Miami, FL.

Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., Powers, J. B. and Gartner, W. B. (2002). Entrepreneurial expectancy, task
effort, and performance. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 27 (2), 187-206.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 11(2) 2011 17

Gibson, S. and Harris, M. (2008). An Examination of the Entrepreneurial Attitudes of U.S. versus
Chinese Students. Southern Journal of Entrepreneurship, 1 (1) pp. XX.

Hatten, T. S. and Ruhland, S. K. (1995). Student attitude towards entrepreneurship as affected by

participation in an SBI program. Journal of Education for Business, 70 (4), 224-228.

Hansemark, O.C. (2003). Need for achievement, locus of control and the prediction of business start-ups:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24 (3), 301-319.

Krueger, N. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture
feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 18 (1), 5-21.

Krueger, N. and Brazeal, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 18 (3), 91-94.

Kuratko, D. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Developments, trends, and challenges.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29 (5), 577-597.

Matlay, H. (2005). Researching entrepreneurship and education: What is entrepreneurship and does it
matter? Education+Training, 47 (8/9), 665-677.

McMullen, J.S., & Shepherd, D.A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory
of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31 (1), 132-152.

Mitra, J. and Matlay, H. (2004). Entrepreneurial and vocational education and training: Lessons from
eastern and central Europe. Industry and Higher Education, 18 (1), 53-69.

Peterman, N. E. and Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perception of

entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 28 (2), 129-144.

Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship

Theory & Practice, 29 (4), 399-424.

Reitan, B. (1996). Entrpreneurial intentions: A combined models approach, Paper presented at the 9th
Nordic Small Business Research Conference, Lillehammer, Norway, May 29-31.

Robinson, P. B. (1987). Prediction of entrepreneurship based on attitude consistency model. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 48, 2807B.

Robinson, P. B., Stimpson, D. V., Huefner, J. C. and Hunt, H. K. (1991). An attitude approach to the
prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 15 (4), 13-31.

Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982). Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton and
K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (pp. 72-90), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wortman, M. S. (1987). Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical

research in the field. Journal of Management, 13 (2), 259-279.

18 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 11(2) 2011