From Entrepreneurial Intention to Action: The Role of Mind-set

Although some countries have high entrepreneurial intention, their corresponding

entrepreneurial activity is low. Such intention-action gap is questionable.

Rubicon model states that individual navigate through several action phases including pre-

decision, pre-action, and action. Understanding processes underlies each action phase would

uncover intention-action gap.

At the pre-decision phase, people deliberate about alternatives and choose one with highest

expected value. Consequently, they formulate goal intention and create deliberative mind-set.

Later, they confront with difficulties such as competing desires where they need self-regulatory

strategies. Thus, people formulate implementation intention and create implemental mind-set.

Such strategy has proved intention-action gap enhancement (Gollwitzer, 1993).

A conceptual model was constructed, a questionnaire was set, and a sample of 1500 employees

from 30 companies was targeted. This will extend the dominant intention models and

contribute to entrepreneurship research by adding a robust and validated model that address

intention-action gap.

Introduction

Entrepreneurship plays vital role in economies at local and global levels which motivate

stakeholders to consider it as recipe for economy recession, uncertainty, and complexity

(Down, 2010). This role is apparent through several advantages such as facing the global

challenges of downturns (Sowmya et al., 2010), igniting innovation, enhancing employment

(Loon Koe et al., 2015; Alfonso & Cuevas, 2012; Laguna, 2013; Harun, 2013; Setiawan et al.,

2014), accelerating societal development (Bullough et al., 2014), and leading economic

development in rural areas (Vaillant & Lafuente, 2007) .

Some argued that it is “the catalyst for economic transformation at a local, regional, and

national level” (Ritchie & Brindley, 2005, p.104), “the lifeblood of our economy” (Robertson

et al., 2003, p.308), “one of the major engines of economic growth” (Rasmussen & Sorheim,

2006, p. 185), “economic panacea” (Packham et al., 2010, p. 568), and helpful for “fighting

unemployment” (Thurik, 1998, p.2). According to (Obschonka et al., 2011), entrepreneurship

is a way to deal with the ongoing global changes, challenges, jobs risks, and opportunities.

Entrepreneurship can provide chance for millions of people all over the world including men,

women, minorities, and immigrants to experience life success and hence be a part of economy

progress (Down, 2010).

Although entrepreneurship is crucial for economy and society development, there are different

entrepreneurial activity levels among countries (GEM 2009, 2010). Total Early Stage

Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) is one of the entrepreneurship indicators, which reflects the

status of entrepreneurship among countries. It is defined, according to Global Entrepreneurship

Monitor (GEM, 2013) as “percentage of 18-64 population who are either a nascent

entrepreneur or owner-manager of a new business”. The GEM reports confirmed that there are

variations in TEA level among countries with different economic and social conditions (GEM,

2009). Countries vary in two main dimensions, namely, activity and perceptions. In 2009, for

example, the TEA among factor driven countries vary between 4.7% and 33.6% comparing to

the average of 17.1%. In addition, the countries vary among entrepreneurial intention from 6

to 58 comparing to the average of 28 (GEM, 2009, P. 21):

There are several arguments about the reasons behind the low levels of entrepreneurial activity.

As stated by (Stenholm et al., 2013, p.177), “the rate of entrepreneurial activity varies widely

across countries, yet we struggle to explain precisely why". The traditional notion about the

differences between countries in entrepreneurial activity is due to economic conditions and

framework conditions (Wennekers, 2006; Levie, 2008). However, the persistence of these

variations among countries is questionable. According to Foreman-Peck et al. (2013), the

difference between nations among entrepreneurial activities might not be explained easily

through economic indicators. It is rather more applicable to explain this variation through

differences in opportunities, motivations, aspirations, institutions, and cultures.

Another concern about entrepreneurial activity among countries is the inconsistence between

entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurial activity. Thus, although some countries have

higer than average of entrepreneurial intentions, their corresponding entreprenurial activity is

lower than average. For example, Saudi Arabia has entrepreneurial intentions of 34 which is

greater than the average of 28. However, the total early entrepreneurial activity is only 4.7

which is below the average of 17.7.

The aim of this paper is to study the discripancy in the relationship between intentions and

actions from cognition perspective.

Literature Review

Although entrepreneurship plays a vital role in global economy, some countries have intention-

action gap (GEM, 2009; 2010). This might raise the question of the entrepreneurial activity

promoters and inhibitors.

According to the institutional theory, there are three institutions pillars, which might promote

or inhibit social behaviour in an economy, namely, regulative, cognitive, and normative (Scott,

1995). The regulative pillar includes rules, regulations, policies, and laws. The cognitive pillar

includes “cognitive frameworks through which individuals interpret information” (Stenholm

et al., 2013, p. 181). The normative pillar includes social norms, values, and beliefs about

behaviour. This indicates that both cognition and environment can influence behaviour either

in positive or negative way.

According to the social cognitive theory, there is “reciprocal causation among cognition,

behaviour, and environment. The theory explains human behaviour in terms of triadic

reciprocal causation among behaviour (B), cognitive and other personal factors (C), and

environmental events (E)” (Bandura, 1986; 2001). In consistence with the theory of institution,

these relationships indicate that both cognition and environment influence behaviours.

As far as cognition is concerned, some scholars argued that intention is the best cognition factor

for predicting behaviours comparing to attitudes, beliefs, personality, or demographics

(Krueger et al., 2000; Bagozzi et al. 1992; Ajzen, 19991; Shapero and Sokol, 1982). According

to (Krueger et al., 2000), using mere external factors to predict entrepreneurship behaviour has

resulted low explanatory power. As stated, “entrepreneurship models have typically been based

on less robust, less predictive approaches using personality traits, demographics, or attitudinal

approaches (Krueger et al., 2000, p. 416). Entrepreneurial intention refers to “self-

acknowledged conviction by a person that they intend to set up a new business venture and

consciously plan to do so at some point in the future” (Thompson, 2009, p. 676).

This has led to the argument that strong intention for fortune start up should result in an attempt

(Bagozzi, 1992). Even some argued that intention might explain the reasons behind several

start-ups in lifetime (Krueger et al., 2000). Consequently, “understanding intentions thus

proves particularly valuable where the focal phenomenon is rare, obscure, or involves

unpredictable time lags—a focal phenomenon such as entrepreneurship (MacMillan and Katz

1992, cited in Krueger et al., 2000, p. 413). Hence, researchers have applied intention models

to predict entrepreneurship behaviour (Krueger et al., 2000; Krueger et al. 1993; Kim et al.,

1993; Alfonso et al., 2012).

There are two dominant intention models, which have proved to be robust and powerful,

namely, Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) model (Ajzen, 1987) and Shapero Entrepreneurial

Event (SEE) model (Shapero and Sokol, 1982). The Planned Behaviour model (TPB) states

that behaviour of a person is determined by his/her intention, which is conditioned at the same

time by attitude toward the behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control

(Ajzen, 1987, 1991).

The Shapero Entrepreneurial Event (SEE) Model is based on the theory stating, “Intent of

starting a business depends on two main determinants, namely, perceived desirability and

perceived feasibility. The former is “the personal attractiveness of starting a business, including

both intrapersonal and extra personal impacts”. The latter is about “the degree to which one

feels personally capable of starting a business” (Shapero and Sokol, 1982; Krueger et al., 2000,

p.419; Alfonso et al., 2012). The model further argued that these two constructs should

accompanied with propensity to act which indicates “personal disposition to act on one’s

decision” (Krueger et al., 2000, p.419).

However, there are several limitations for these intentions models. First, action is a goal

directed behaviour rather than a single end (Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990; Brannback et al.,

2007). Second, there are different levels of intention rather than a single level (Bagozzi, 1992;

Quan, 2012; Krueger et al., 2000). Third, both intention models are overlooking volition

aspects where SEE model theorized the propensity to act component as a stable personality

characteristic (Krueger et al., 2000). Finally, there is an intention-action gap (Gollwitzer, 1993;

Norman & Sheeran, 2003; Gelderen et al., 2015; Quan, 2012). These limitations are

summarized as follows:

The shortfall of intentions to predict actions stimulates the need for exploring the entire

psychological process from intention formulation to action initiation. Based on the argument

that action is a process rather than a single act, Rubicon Model has introduced the concept of

action phases. According to the Rubicon the Model, there are four action phases, namely, pre-

decision, pre-action, action, and post-action. These phases are represented as follows (SpieB

and Wittmann, 1999, p. 893):

Action Phases

As people tend to deliberate about alternatives' pros and cons in the pre-decision phase, they

are mainly in the motivation state. This is consistent with the expectancy-value motivation

theory where individual tend to choose the alternative with the expectation of higher value. In

other words, people are more likely to select the choice that they expect to provide highest

outcomes along with value, specifically, likelihood and desirability.

As individual decides about alternative, he/she formulates goal intention. As stated by

(Koutonen et al., 2015, p. 670), “forming an intention has been described as being primarily

motivational (i.e. what people want to achieve)". Thus, the pre-decision phase is characterized

by the task of formulating goal intention, which is crucial for formulating binding goals,

reducing the distractions of competing desires, and establishing firm commitment (Gollwitzer,

1999). However, as goal intention is insufficient for action enactment (Gollwitzer, 1993), there

is a need to navigate from pre-decision phase to pre-action phase where deliberative mind-set

comes into picture.

Based on the Rubicon Model, (Gollwitzer at al., 1990) argued that each action phase is

accompanied by a distinct mind-set. Deliberation about potential actions create cognitive

orientation (deliberative mind-set/motivational state of mind) that facilitates the task of pre-

decisional phase, namely, setting goal intention (Armor & Taylor, 2003; Gollwitzer, 2011,

2003). The deliberative mind-set refers to “the cognitive and motivational states associated

with pre-decisional frame of mind” (Armor & Taylor, 2003, p.86). This deliberative mind-set

is characterized as “open mindedness” due to the need of tremendous information processing

to handle the required deep analysis (Fujita et al., 2007; Gollwitzer, 2003). Hence, as individual

decides about an alternative and formulates goal intention, he/she creates deliberative mind-

set. Although creating deliberative mind-set do not initiate action, it facilitate navigation from

pre-decision phase to the pre-action phase.

At pre-action phase, people have already chosen a goal and formed goal intention even

sometimes with strong commitment (high desirability and feasibility). However, they tend to

confront with difficulties such as competing desires, which requires self-regulation. According

to (Gollwitzer, 2006, p.86), “accumulated researches indicate that there is a substantial gap

between people’s goal intentions and their goal achievement. This is because forming a goal

intention does not prepare people sufficiently for dealing with self-regulatory problems in

initiating, maintaining, disengaging from, or overextending oneself in goal striving”. Thus, this

phase is about “activation of volitional control processes, determining the implementation of

the objective” (Ilouga et al., 2014, p.720). Surprisingly, many of people sustain goal intention

for long time and cannot proceed to action initiation. Instead, they tend to be reluctant about

translating their intention into action.

Self-regulation refers to "any effort a person makes to alter his or her own responses, overriding

impulses and substituting them with another response that leads toward a selected goal"

(Kuusinen &Schwarzer, 2004). In response to the intention-action gap, Gollwitzer (1993)

suggested a self-regulatory strategy, namely, implementation intention. As stated,

“implementation intentions should be a very effective self-regulatory strategy when it comes

to alleviating problems of getting started on one's goals”(Gollwitzer, 1999, p.495). Hence,

furnishing goal intention with implementation intention increases the ability of action initiation

and goal attainment (Gollwitzer, 1990, 1993, 1997).

As stated by (Koutonen et al., 2015, p. 670), “forming an intention has been described as being

primarily motivational (i.e. what people want to achieve), whereas the regulation of the

translation of goals into action is mostly volitional (i.e. how people exert their will to obtain

what they desire”. Thus, deliberative mind-sets with only desirability and feasibility of wishes

without furnishing that with implemental plan may results changing priorities and failure to

initiate actions (Gollwitzer, 1990, 1991, 2011).

The implementation intention refers to planning of when, where, and how the goal intentions

to be achieved. Although the theory of planned behaviour argued that goal intention is directly

related to behaviour (Ajzen, 1987), it further argued that this relationship is mediated the

implementation intention (Gollwitzer, 1993). Thus, implementation intention is the immediate

determinant of the behaviour (Gollwitzer, 1993; Brandsta¨et al., 2003; Rise, Thompson, &

Verplanken, 2003). According to (Gollwitzer, 2011, p.142), implementation intention can be

distinguished from goal intention as the former holds that (“I intend to initiate the goal-directed

behavior x when situation y is encountered!”) while the latter holds that (“I intend to achieve

x!”).

Implementation intentions have several advantages over mere forming goal intentions. First,

implementation intention contributes to the effective initiation of goal intention. Second,

implementation intention creates a strong link between a situation and response rather than

linking a person with desires. Third, implementation intention promotes goal intention by

inducing a plan about initiating and executing the goal (Gollwitzer, 2011). However, there is a

need to navigate from pre-action phase to action phase where implemental mind-set comes into

picture.

Based on the Rubicon Model, Gollwitzer (1990) argued that each action phase is accompanied

by a distinct mind-set; forming implementation plan creates cognitive orientation (implemental

mind-set/ volitional state of mind). The implementation mind-set refers to “the cognitive and

motivational states associated with post-decisional frame of mind” (Armor & Taylor, 2003,

p.86). In other words, implemental mind-set is “mental state of execution for the goal intention”

(Ilouga et al., 2014, p.720).

This implemental mind-set facilitates the navigation from pre-action phase to action phase, in

other words, initiating action. It is characterized as “closed-minded” processing of information

as the focus is planning of a chosen goal rather than other desires or wishes (Fujita et al., 2007).

Consequently, the plan of when, where, and how actions are to be initiated, maintained, and

attained might shields the chosen goal from distractions by other desires or negative thoughts

(Gollwitzer et al., 2011; Gollwitzer, 2003,1999).

In summary, the deliberative mind-set and implemental mind-set promote the successful

navigation through action phases and ultimately bridge the intention action gap. Consequently,

it is argued, "when making decisions versus acting on them is at issue, it seems helpful to

activate the respective cognitive procedures that facilitate goal setting and goal implementing".

In other words, in order to proceed from mere intention to action, it is crucial that people

develop deliberative mind-set and implemental mind-set. In real life, when people confront

with the problem of making a decision among alternatives, they can induce deliberative mind-

set to facilitate goal setting. Later, when they face the problem of initiating the chosen goal,

they can induce implemental mind-set. Hence, it is argued that the notion of mind-set is an

"effective action control strategy in real life".

Conceptualizing entrepreneurial mind-set

Conceptualizing entrepreneurial mind-set will respond to the gap in literature stating that

“located chronologically between studies of intention formation and nascent entrepreneurship,

both of which have received extensive attention from the entrepreneurship research

community, study of the conversion of entrepreneurial intention into actions has only just

begun” (Kautonen et al., 2015). In their paper about “the future of research on entrepreneurial

intentions”, (Fayolle and Linan, 2014, p.665) argued, “knowledge of the mechanisms and the

temporalities that affect how entrepreneurial intentions lead to behaviours is still poor”. Thus,

they have suggested the implementation intention theory as one of the future directions. In

addition, they have proposed that further researches could investigate how “regulative,

normative, and cognitive institutions influence both directly and indirectly the perceptions that

individuals may have about desirability and feasibility of entrepreneurship”. As stated, “if

stimulus-response models cannot model intentional behaviours fully, then we need testable,

theory-driven process models of entrepreneurial cognitions that focus on intentions and their

perceptual bases” (Krueger et al., 2000, p. 414). In addition, according to Bamberg (2002,

p.585), “perhaps in practice strong motivational incentives stimulate people to plan more

precisely how to attain the desired goal. Thus more studies are needed which analyze the

relation between goal and implementation intentions in a more controlled setting".

The suggested entrepreneurial mind-set model is given in figure 1.

Figure 1 Conceptual model for entrepreneurial mind-set

In order to define the suggested constructs for deliberative and implemntal mind-sets, three

main steps were conducted. These steps include interviewing experienced entreprenurs,

consulting entrepreneurship field experts, and coonducting intensive literature review. As a

result, the suggeste deliberative mind-set constructs include desirability, feasibility, and

entreprenurial self-efficacy. In addition, the suggested implemental mind-set constructs include

action orientation, self-regulation, ability to plan, optimism, and cope with failure.

In order to fulfill the study aim of explaining intention-action gap, the target population was

non-entreprenurs. Hence, a questionnaire was set and sent to 1500 private sector employees

working in 30 companies in Saudi Arabia in different regions. The results will shed the light

on main inhibitors of translating entrepreneurial intention into action including deliberative

mind-set, goal intention, implemental mind-set, and implementation intention. This will

provide more details about cognition factors and psychological processes undelying

formulating intentions which will support intervention initiatives and policies.

The Research Model

As stated by (Ute et al., 2010, p.505), “traditional models of goal pursuit posit that goals

fashioned from feasibility and desirability considerations satisfactorily account for the intensity

of goal striving”. This is consistent with using desirability and feasibility as main determinants

for entrepreneurial intention in ESE model (Shapero and Sokol, 1982; Gollwitzer, 1999).

Deliberative

Mind-set

Implemental

Mind-set

Implementation

Intention Goal Intention

Consequently, people decide about their preferences and formulate goal intention based on

desirability and feasibility.

According to Alfonso and Cuevas (2013, p. 723), desirability is defined as “the degree of

attractiveness for a person to create a business” and feasibility reflects the individual

“perception regarding his own capacity to become an entrepreneur”. According to (Bullough

et al., 2013, p. 479), entrepreneurial self-efficacy refers (ESE) to “the degree to which an

individual believes that he or she is capable of performing the roles and tasks of the

entrepreneur”. Several studies have confirmed that ESE is a major determinant of

entrepreneurial intention (Bullough et al., 2013; Zahoe et al., 2005; Wilson, Kickul, & Marlion,

2007). Consequently, constructs of desirability and feasibility, and entrepreneurial self-

efficacy (ESE) are major constructs for deliberative mind-sets. Thus, the suggested deliberative

mind-set model is given in figure 2.

H1:Desirability directly influence Goal Intention

H2: Feasibility directly influence Goal Intention

H3: Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy directly influence Goal Intention

Figure 2 Deliberative Mind-set

H1

H2

H3

In order to create implemental mind-set, it is crucial to formulate implementation intention.

The implementation intention is formulated by planning what, when, and where the chosen

goal will be initiated. Thus, the construct of ability to plan is the first suggested construct for

implementation mind-set.

Reference to the field experts’ feedback, the highest rated construct is coping with

failure. Having different motivations such as pull and push might raise the argument of strong

association between entrepreneurs and their business. According to Shepherd (2003), it seems

that there is an emotional relationship between entrepreneurs and their fortune. Consequently,

it is expected that business failure could generate negative emotional response such as grief,

stress, loneliness, self-blame, anxiety, and depress. Hence, there is a need for coping with

failure. Coping is “the thoughts and behaviors used to manage the internal and external

demands of situations that are appraised as stressful” (Folkman and Moskowitz, 2004:747,

cited in Patzelt et al., 2011). It is about how people normally deal with situations where there

is a threat about achieving their goals.

This might encourage the chance to argue that the ability to cope with difficult situations could

be related to entrepreneurship intention. As stated by (Patzelt et al., 2011, p.236), “self-

selection into self-employment may motivate only those who are most capable of dealing with

negative emotions to pursue and persist with self-employment over time". This might lead to

suggesting that coping with failure as vital indicator of implemental mind-set.

Goal Intention

Desirability

Feasibility

ESE

Another factor is dispositional optimism, which refers to “a general personal expectation that

good things rather than bad things will happen” (Scheier & Carver, 1987, cited in Urbig &

Menson, 2012, p.854). Optimism can be noted in facilitating coping and persisting with

difficult times rather than disengagement. This is consistent with the model of behavioral self-

regulation, which states “people are seen as remaining engaged in efforts to overcome adversity

to reach goals as long as their expectancies of eventual success are sufficiently favorable

(Scheier et al., 1994, p.1064).

One implication of the categorization theory is how entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs look

at business situations. “Research has demonstrated that entrepreneurs are notably more

optimistic in their assessments of business situations (e.g., Cooper, Woo, and Dunkelberg

1988)”. However, “non-entrepreneurs may be less likely to characterize the situation in

optimistic terms” (Palich and Bagby, 1995, p.428). One of the explanations for that can be,

according to categorization theory, the mental prototype or schema of entrepreneurs tends to

prefer and accept potential businesses comparing to prototype or schema of non-entrepreneurs,

which tends to threaten and doubt. Thus, optimism can form constructs of implemental mind-

set.

According to the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen and Madden, 1986), it is argued

that people tend to act on behaviour where they believe that they have certain level of control.

The notion of control over the behaviour is relevant to the theory of action control (Kuhl and

Beckmann, 1985). In order to uncover the reasons behind intention-action gap, the theory of

action control argued that there is an additional reason to motivational issue (goal

intention), namely, action control. Action control refers to self-regulatory mechanisms

guiding the initiation and maintenance of an intention. The theory of action control has

successfully predicted action in various fields (Illouga et al., 2014).

According to the theory of action control, “individuals who are action oriented are more

likely to translate their intentions into action as a consequence of their greater self-regulatory

capacities” (Norman & Sheeran, 2003, p. 547). Action control is a self-regulatory ability, which

“captures individual differences in the ability to regulate emotions, cognitions, and behaviours

in order to accomplish intentional actions” (Kuhl, 1992, 1994a). This self-regulatory ability is

ranging from action orientation to state orientation. People with strong action orientation are

mainly capable of reducing negative effects of negative events and managing setbacks and

failures. Consequently, this orientation helps to implement decisions and control stress.

However, state orientation encourages reluctant, retaining negative thoughts, and hindering

moving forward after setbacks. As stated by (Backes, 2010), action oriented individual need

implementation intention for enhancing their performance in complex decision-making

situation. However, state oriented individual need implementation intention for action initiation

of goal directed behaviour. Thus, action orientation can be one of the implemental mind-set

constructs.

In order to bridge the intention-action gap, the theory of action control (Kuhl and Beckmann,

1985) and the implemental mind-set theory (Gollwitzer, 1990) are consistent among the need

for self-regulation. According to the theory of action control, there is a need for self-regulatory

mechanisms to guide the initiation and maintenance of an intention (Kuhl and Beckmann,

1985). In addition, according to (Gollwitzer, 2006, p.86), “accumulated researches indicate that

there is a substantial gap between people’s goal intentions and their goal achievement. This is

because forming a goal intention does not prepare people sufficiently for dealing with self-

regulatory problems in initiating, maintaining, disengaging from, or overextending oneself in

goal striving”.

Self-regulation is volitional skills, which “assess the capacity of the individual to use his

psychological functions including motivation, determination, and strength in the pursuit of the

goal” (Ilouga et al., 2014, p.720). It refers to “any effort a person makes to alter his or her own

responses, overriding impulses and substituting them with another response that leads toward

a selected goal” (Kuusinen &Schwarzer, 2004). Thus, the self-regulation is decomposed in

self-determination, self-motivation, and resistance to uncertainty about the future (Kuhl, 2000).

Consequently, it is crucial to foster self-regulation to enhance intention-action gap. According

to (Leary et al., 2006), one of the means to foster self-regulation is by “inducing a concrete

action mind-set”. Thus, self-regulation can be one of the implemental mind-set constructs.

The suggested implemental mind-set model is given in figure 3.

Figure 3 Implemental Mind-set

The suggested entrepreneurial mind-set model is given in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Entrepreneurial Mind-set Model

H1 H6 H10

H4

H2

H8 H12

H3

H7 H11

H5

H9

Methodology

This study is a “snapshot” of the current situation of entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia. At the

early stage of this research, the matter was to gain some understanding of the entrepreneurship

inhibitors in Saudi Arabia. In other words, answering the question of why the rate of

entrepreneurial activity is low in Saudi Arabia despite government promotions. In order to

narrow the broad focus, an exploratory study initially conducted to clarify the understanding

of the problem and find out what is happening in the field of entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia.

Self-

Regulation

Ability to Plan

Cope with

Failure

Optimism

Action

Orientation

Desirability

Feasibility

ESE

Goal Intention

Ability to Plan

Cope with

Failure

Optimism

Action

Orientation

Self-Regulation

The initial exploratory study has narrowed down the concern of low entrepreneurial activity in

Saudi Arabia into two main issues, namely, cultural values and mind-sets. Furthermore, the

initial exploratory study has raised the question about the casual relationships between cultural

values, entrepreneurial mind-sets, and entrepreneurial intention in Saudi Arabia. Looking at

the matter from cognition perspective, another exploratory study was conducted to identify the

mind-sets constructs by consulting experts in the field of entrepreneurship from different

countries such as UK, USA, and Spain via email. Ultimately, a questionnaire about casual

relationships mind-sets and entrepreneurial intention was constructed.

The survey population is the private sector national employees in Saudi Arabia for several

reasons. First, the aim of the research is to understand entrepreneurship inhibitors in Saudi

Arabia; hence, self-employed people are excluded. Second, it is illegal for public sector

employees in Saudi Arabia to start their own business; hence, the study excluded public sector

employees. Third, only Saudi nationals are permitted to own private business, hence, non-Saudi

nationals are excluded. Consequently, the survey population is the Saudi nationals working in

the private sector in Saudi Arabia.

As it is difficult, costly, and time consuming to approach a huge number of 862,312

establishments in 13 administrative areas, the study consider the large size of establishments

(20+ employees) operating in three administrative areas, namely, Riyadh, Makkah, and Eastern

Province. Out of the total Saudi private sector employees in Saudi Arabia, these areas represent

36.72%, 23.14%, and 24.23% respectively. However, as the number of 17,125 establishments

in these areas is still high, the study will consider only the well-established companies, namely,

listed in the Saudi Stock Market (TADAWUL). The number of these companies is 169 and

number of employees' ranges from less than 100 to 22,000 working in different industries and

regions. Consequently, the sample frame of the study includes Saudi private sector employees

working in Riyadh, Makkah, and Eastern Province in the listed companies. Hence, the study

will implement random sampling technique among 169 listed companies in Saudi Arabia. The

sampling steps are given in figure 5.

Population more than 15 years old (22m)

Labour Force (11.9m)

Saudi Nationals Labour Force (5.6m)

Saudi Nationals in Private Sector (1.4m)

Riyadh, Makkah, Eastern Province (1.2m)

Private Companies (806,000)

Large Companies (22,000)

Companies in Main Areas (17,000)

Listed

(169)

The minimum sample size for population of 1.2m and 5% margin of error at 95 confidence

level is 384 (Saunders et al., 2009, p.219). The response rate in the study is estimated by the

relevant studies in entrepreneurship field. Some studies have used a sample size ranges from

1000 participants with 40% response rate (Moghavvemi & Salleh, 2014), 947 participants with

13.3% response rate (Pruett et al., 2009), 1301 participants (Gelderen et al., 2008) with full

response rate due to using class time for students, and 1600 participants with 24.9% response

rate after two reminders (Loon Koe et al., 2014). In average, the response rate in these studies

ranges from 13.3% to 40% with average of almost 26%. Hence, in case of 26% expected

response rate and 384 minimum sample size,

Actual sample size= (384X100)/26 = 1477(almost 1500).

This actual sample size of 1500 is within the range of the mentioned field studies ranging from

1000 participants to 1600. Thus, 30 companies have been chosen randomly from 169 listed

companies. Initial emails have been sent to these companies introducing the study aim and

requesting participation. The first agreed responses were six and then this number increased to

11 after follow up calls. Upon receiving the approval of participation, the author sent another

email including questionnaire link and requesting to forward it to 50 employees randomly.

Consequently, the total number of participants is 412 out of which 206 was fully completed

questionnaires.

Variables Operationalization

Reference to the research model, there are several variables, which constitute the research

model, namely, deliberative mind-set, goal intention, implemental mind-set, and

implementation intention. The study used validated and tested items from previous studies for

each construct. For example, the deliberative mind-set constructs include desirability,

feasibility, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The feasibility has six items such as "It will be

feasible to start my own business" used by (Peterman, Ne; Kennedy, J. 2003, Krueger, NF;

Reilly, MD; Carsrud, AL. 2000). The desirability has five items such as "I would rather earn a

higher salary employed by someone else than own my own business" used by (Kolvereid, et

al., 2006; Gundry et al., 2001). The entrepreneurial self-efficacy has 10 items such as "I have

the ability to manage a small business" used by Cox et al. (2002).

Analysis

Measurement model

In order to assess the measurement model, it is crucial to test the first order reflective variables

by several means. First, the loadings of all the indicators to ensure individual reliability.

Second, using composite and Cronbach's alpha coefficients to examine the constructs'

reliability (table 1). Third, applying Average Variance Extracted (AVE) to test the convergent

validity (table1). Finally, using squared roots of AVE to examine the discriminant validity

(table 2).

Table 1 - Composite reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha, AVE and VIFs coefficients

Variables Composite

reliability

Cronbach’s

alpha

AVE Full VIF

Action 0.890 0.851 0.574 1.338

Regulation 0.895 0.865 0.515 2.172

Optimism 0.833 0.748 0.503 2.056

Planning 0.848 0.731 0.651 1.491

Desirability 0.891 0.756 0.804 1.248

Feasibility 0.791 0.472 0.654 1.502

Self-

Efficacy

0.894 0.850 0.630 1.604

Intention 0.943 0.926 0.736 1.674

Coping 0.903 0.856 0.701 1.510

Table 2 - Squared roots of AVE of first order constructs

As far as indicators’ loadings are concerned, all values are greater than 0.70 implying that

individual reliability is good. In addition, with only one exception of feasibility, the composite

reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha values are greater than 0.70. This indicate that the reliability

for the first order measurement model is good (Mackenzie et al., 2011).

Similarly, all the values for Average Variance Extracted (AVE) are greater than threshold of

0.50 indicating convergent validity of all constructs (Henseler et al., 2009; MacKenzie et al.,

2011; Schmiedel et al., 2014). As far as discriminant validity is concerned, table 2 indicates

that the squared root of AVE for each construct is fairly higher than the rest of values involving

the same construct. This indicate that measurement model has good discriminant validity

(Ketkar et al., 2012; Peng & Lai, 2012). In order to ensure minority effect of common method

bias, the full VIFs coefficients values are all less than 5 (Kock & Lynn, 2012). This indicate

that common method bias is not a concern for this model.

The structural model

Based on the satisfactory results of reliability, validity, and multicollinearity tests for all

variables in the model, the study can proceed from the measurement model to the structural

model. Thus, explaining and interpreting the outcomes of the structural model. Accordingly,

both p values and path coefficients (β) of the correlations suggested by the study hypotheses

are given in table 3.

Table 3 - Path coefficients and p values

Table 3 suggests that desirability, feasibility and entrepreneurial self-efficacy had a positive

and significant effect on entrepreneurial intention (β=0.22, 0.23, 0.35, p<0.01). As a result, H1,

H2 and H3 were supported and confirmed.

As for the effect of entrepreneurial intention, the following was found. Entrepreneurial

intention had a positive and significant influence on planning and optimism (β=0.37, 0.35,

p<0.01), whereas no effect was recorded on action orientation, coping with failure, and self-

regulation. Hence, H6 and H7 were supported and H4, H5 and H8 were all rejected.

Hypothesis Hypothesised Path Sign Path

Coefficient

p value Status

H1 Desirability Ent. Intention + 0.22 <0.01 Supported

H2 Feasibility Ent. Intention + 0.23 <0.01 Supported

H3 Self-Efficacy Ent.

Intention

+ 0.35 <0.01 Supported

H4 Ent. Intention Regulation - 0.02 0.40 Rejected

H5 Ent. Intention Action - 0.11 0.06 Rejected

H6 Ent. Intention Planning + 0.37 <0.01 Supported

H7 Ent. Intention Optimism + 0.35 <0.01 Supported

H8 Ent. Intention Coping - 0.08 0.13 Rejected

H9 Action Self-Regulation + 0.09 0.09 Rejected

H10 Planning Self-Regulation + 0.23 <0.01 Supported

H11 Optimism Self-Regulation + 0.52 <0.01 Supported

H12 Coping Self-Regulation + 0.13 0.03 Supported

Furthermore, while action orientation had a non-significant impact on self-regulation,

planning, optimism and coping had a positive and significant influence on self-regulation

(β=0.23, 0.52, 0.13, p<0.01, p<0.01 and p=0.03). Therefore, H10, H11 and H12 were all

supported whereas H9 is rejected. Finally, with R² of 0.34 and 0.51, it can be established that

34% of entrepreneurial intention is explained by desirability, feasibility and entrepreneurial

self-efficacy, and 51% of self-regulation could be explained by planning, optimism and coping.

Discussion

The study has looked at inhibitors of entrepreneurial activity from cognitive perspective. In

other words, the reasons behind discrepancy among translating intention into action. As one of

the main reasons is insufficient self-regulation (Gollwitzer, 1993), predicting self-regulation is

crucial. Using a sample of non-entrepreneurs working in different companies and regions in

Saudi Arabia, the study examined the psychological processes underlie translating intention

into action. The SEM analysis indicated that there are various determinants for action phases,

which might inhibit action initiation.

As far as deliberative mind-set is concerned, the SEM analysis confirmed the influence of

desirability, feasibility, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention. Thus,

desirability, feasibility and entrepreneurial self-efficacy had a positive and significant effect on

entrepreneurial intention. This indicates that people are likely to formulate entrepreneurial goal

intention, hence, decide to take entrepreneurship path when they look at entrepreneurship as

attractive choice (desirability), possible to achieve (feasibility), and within their capabilities

(self-efficacy). This is further consistent with both dominants intention models, namely, the

theory of planned behavior model and the entrepreneurial event model. As formulating mere

goal intention creates deliberative mind-set (Gollwitzer, 1989, 1993), these three determinants

can predict deliberative mind-set.

Reference to the study aim, people often suffer from intention-action gap. As literature argued

that formulating mere goal intention is insufficient for action initiation and goal enactment,

there is a need to strengthen goal intention with self-regulation. The study confirmed this

discrepancy as entrepreneurial intention had no direct effect on self-regulation. Thus,

formulating goal intention and deciding on goals is not self-regulatory strategy. However,

being action-oriented individual such as proactive rather than reluctant might be effective self-

regulatory strategy. This may explain the significance relationship between action orientation

and self-regulation. Similarly, coping with failure rather than disengagement might be effective

self-regulatory strategy. This may explain the significance relationship between cope with

failure and self-regulation. These relationships are consistent with action control theory by

Kuhl (1985) stating, “Individuals who are action oriented should be more likely to translate their

intentions into action” (Norman & Sheeran, 2003, p. 547).

As literature argued, the main reason for intention-action gap is that formulating goal intention

does not prepare people to deal with self-regulation problems (Gollwitzer, 1993), it is suggested

that formulating implementation plan is an effective self-regulatory strategy. The

implementation plan include what, where, and when an individual initiate action. Thus, the

study confirmed ability to plan as a skill, which might explain self-regulation. In addition, it

confirm that people who formulate strong goal intention are more likely to develop action plan.

The study is consistent with the argument that entrepreneurs are optimistic individuals. Thus,

there is significant correlation between formulating strong goal intention with optimism. In

addition, it confirmed that optimism is a self-regulatory strategy for dealing with action

initiation difficulties.

Conclusion and Implications

Although many countries have high entrepreneurial intention, their entrepreneurial activity is

low. While many studies in the entrepreneurship field have implemented the intention models

overly, the entrepreneurial intention-action gap is still neglected. Such inconsistence might

raise the question of bridging the intention-action gap to support policy interventions and

governments initiatives. This paper look at the entrepreneurial intention-action gap from

cognition perspective, namely, mind-set.

Some studies argued that the main reason behind intention-action gap is that people tend to

formulate mere intention but they fail to deal with action initiation difficulties due to

insufficient self-regulatory strategies. Thus, they suggested several self-regulatory strategies

such as goal setting, implementation plan (Gollwitzer, 1993), and action orientation (Kuhl,

1985). However, as stated “to optimize self-regulation is a lifelong challenge" (Wieber et al.,

2010, p. 177), this study shed the light on the psychological processes underlies self-regulatory

strategies that facilitate translating intention into action.

Following the Rubicon Model of action phases, this study investigate pre-decision phase and

pre-action phase to uncover the root cause of entrepreneurial intention-action gap. At the pre-

decision phase, formulating mere goal intention is necessary for choosing binding goals but

insufficient for action initiation. However, formulat6ing goal creates deliberative mind-set,

which facilitate navigation to pre-action phase. At this phase, people tend to confront action

initiation difficulties due to competing desires, social pressure, and state orientation. Thus,

there is a need for self-regulatory strategies. Some of the suggested self-regulatory strategies

include implementation plan and action orientation. The implementation plan formulates

implementation intention, which is immediate predictor of action initiation. Understanding

these psychological processes underpinned formulating goal intention and implementation plan

can enhance self-regulation and ultimately enhance action enactment.

As the literature highlighted that in order to bridge intention-action gap, there is a need to

enhance the problem of insufficient self-regulation. The study revealed important determinants

of progressing from goal intention to self-regulation. The first step is that people need to have

strong goal intention. That is desirability, feasibility, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This

will create deliberative mind-set and conclude pre-decision phase. The second step is to furnish

goal intention with self-regulatory strategies such as implementation plan, optimism, coping

with failure, and action orientation. As these strategies predict self-regulation, they can enhance

intention-action gap.

The study findings have several implications in entrepreneurship field. First, policy makers

might identify the entrepreneurship inhibitors in more details such as deliberative/implemental

mind-sets, goal/implemental intention levels, and motivation/volition state. Second,

entrepreneurship training might target various audience based on their requirement in terms of

mind-sets, motivations, and willpower. Third, determining effective self-regulation strategies

can enhance goal pursuit and goal striving.

Bibliography

ACHTZIGER, A., GOLLWITZER, P. & SHEERAN, P. 2008. Implementation

intentions and shielding goal striving from unwanted thoughts and feelings.

Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 34, 381-393.

AJAY, K. J. & HANS JEPPE, J. 2013. Knowledge management practices in a public

sector organisation: the role of leaders' cognitive styles. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 17, 347-362.

AJZEN, I. 1991. THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR. Organ. Behav. Hum.

Decis. Process., 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (1987), “Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behaviour in

social psychology”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp.

1-63.

ALTINAY, L., MADANOGLU, M., DANIELE, R. & LASHLEY, C. 2012. The

influence of family tradition and psychological traits on entrepreneurial

intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag., 31, 489-499.

ANABELA, D., ARMINDA DO, P., JOÃO, F., MÁRIO, R. & RICARDO GOUVEIA,

R. 2013. Psychological characteristics and entrepreneurial intentions among

secondary students. Education + Training, 55, 763-780.

BAGOZZI, R. 1992. THE SELF-REGULATION OF ATTITUDES, INTENTIONS,

AND BEHAVIOR. Soc. Psychol. Q., 55, 178-204.

BAGOZZI, R. & WARSHAW, P. 1990. TRYING TO CONSUME. J. Consum. Res.,

17, 127-140.

BAGOZZI, R. P., BAUMGARTNER, H. & YI, Y. 1992. State versus Action

Orientation and the Theory of Reasoned Action: An Application to Coupon

Usage. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 505-518.

BANDURA, A. 2001. SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY: An Agentic Perspective.

Annual Review of Psychology, 1.

BAYER, U., GOLLWITZER, P. & ACHTZIGER, A. 2010. Staying on track: Planned

goal striving is protected from disruptive internal states. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.,

46, 505-514.

BRANNBACK, M. K., N.; CARSUD, A.; KICKUL, J.; ELFVING, J 2007. "Trying to

be an Entrepreneur?" A "Goal-Specific" Challenge to the Intentions Model.

COPE, J. 2011. Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative

phenomenological analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 604-623.

DANIEL YAR, H., KARL, W. & HENRIK, B. 2008. Creativity in entrepreneurship

education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15, 304-320.

DUCH, R. M. & RUSK, J. G. 1993. Postmaterialism and the economic condition.

American Journal of Political Science, 37, 747.

DUCKWORTH, A. L. & QUINN, P. D. 2009. Development and Validation of the Short

Grit Scale (Grit-S). J. Pers. Assess., 91, 166-174.

DUMITRIU, C., TIMOFTI, I. C., NECHITA, E. & DUMITRIU, G. 2014. The

Influence of the Locus of Control and Decision-making Capacity upon the

Leadership Style. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 494-499.

FERNANDO, L. & DILANI, J. 2011. Enterprise education: the effect of creativity on

training outcomes. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &

Research, 17, 224-244.

FUJITA, K., GOLLWITZER, P. & OETTINGEN, G. 2007. Mindsets and pre-

conscious open-mindedness to incidental information. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 43,

48-61.

FURNHAM, A. & RIBCHESTER, T. 1995. Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the

concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14, 179-199.

GARTNER, W. & LIAO, J. 2012. The effects of perceptions of risk, environmental

uncertainty, and growth aspirations on new venture creation success. An

Entrepreneurship Journal, 39, 703-712.

GARTNER, W. B. 1989. Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and

characteristics. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14, 27.

GOLLWITZER, P. 2003. Why we thought that action mind-sets affect illusions of

control. Psychol. Inq., 14, 261-269.

GOLLWITZER, P. & BRANDSTATTER, V. 1997. Implementation intentions and

effective goal pursuit. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 73, 186-199.

GOLLWITZER, P., SHEERAN, P., TROTSCHEL, R. & WEBB, T. 2011. Self-

Regulation of Priming Effects on Behavior. Psychol. Sci., 22, 901-907.

GOLLWITZER, P. M. 1999. Implementation Intentions. American Psychologist, 54,

493-503.

GOLLWITZER, P. M., HECKHAUSEN, H. & STELLER, B. 1990. Deliberative and

Implemental Mind-Sets: Cognitive Tuning Toward Congruous Thoughts and

Information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1119-1127.

GOLLWITZER, P. S., P. 2006. Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A

Meta-Analysis of Effects and Progress. Advances in Experiemental Socail

Psychology, 38, 50.

GUZMAN-ALFONSO, C. & GUZMAN-CUEVAS, J. 2012. Entrepreneurial intention

models as applied to Latin America. J. Organ. Chang. Manage., 25, 721-735.

GUZMAN-ALFONSO, C. & GUZMAN-CUEVAS, J. 2012. Entrepreneurial intention

models as applied to Latin America. J. Organ. Chang. Manage., 25, 721-735.

HIAN CHYE, K. 1996. Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics

A study of Hong Kong MBA students. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11, 12-25.

IM, S. & MIN, S. 2013. Exploration of the factor structure of the Kirton Adaption-

Innovation Inventory using bootstrapping estimation. Psychological reports,

112, 437.

KATZ, J. & GARTNER, W. B. 1988. Properties of Emerging Organizations. The

Academy of Management Review, 13, 429-441.

KIM, M. S. & HUNTER, J. 1993. RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ATTITUDES,

BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS, AND BEHAVIOR - A METAANALYSIS OF

PAST RESEARCH .2. Commun. Res., 20, 331-364.

KIRTON, M. 1976. Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 61, 622-629.

KRUEGER, N. 1993. The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of

new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship: Theory and

Practice, 18, 5.

KRUEGER, N., REILLY, M. D. & CARSRUD, A. L. 2000. Competing models of

entrepreneurial intentions. J. Bus. Ventur., 15, 411-432.

MARINA, Z. S., PAUL, W., LARS, K. & HARRY, M. 2012. Student intentions to

become self-employed: the Ukrainian context. Journal of Small Business and

Enterprise Development, 19, 441-460.

NGA, J. & SHAMUGANATHAN, G. 2010. The Influence of Personality Traits and

Demographic Factors on Social Entrepreneurship Start Up Intentions. J. Bus.

Ethics, 95, 259-282.

NORMAN, P., SHEERAN, P. & ORBELL, S. 2003. Does State Versus Action

Orientation Moderate the Intention‐Behavior Relationship? Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 33, 536-553.

PALICH, L. E. & RAY BAGBY, D. 1995. Using cognitive theory to explain

entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of

Business Venturing, 10, 425-438.

PATZELT, H. & SHEPHERD, D. 2011. Negative emotions of an entrepreneurial

career: Self-employment and regulatory coping behaviors. J. Bus. Ventur., 26,

226-238.

ROBINSON, P. B., STIMPSON, D. V., HUEFNER, J. C. & HUNT, H. K. 1991. An

attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. (includes appendix).

Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 15, 13.

SCHEIER, M., CARVER, C. S. & BRIDGES, M. 1994. DISTINGUISHING

OPTIMISM FROM NEUROTICISM (AND TRAIT ANXIETY, SELF-

MASTERY, AND SELF-ESTEEM) - A REEVALUATION OF THE LIFE

ORIENTATION TEST. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 67, 1063-1078.

SCHLAEGEL, C. & KOENIG, M. 2014. Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intent: A

Meta‐Analytic Test and Integration of Competing Models. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 38, 291-332.

SHEERAN, P., WEBB, T. & GOLLWITZER, P. 2005. The interplay between goal

intentions and implementation intentions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 31, 87-98.

Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982), “Social dimensions of entrepreneurship”, in Sexton,

D. and Vesper, K. (Eds), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 72-90.

SHEPHERD, D. 2003. Learning from business failure: Propositions of grief recovery

for the self-employed. Acad. Manage. Rev., 28, 318-328.

SHEPHERD, D. 2004. Educating Entrepreneurship Students About Emotion and

Learning From Failure. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ., 3, 274-287.

SPIESS, E. & WITTMANN, A. 1999. Motivational phases associated with the foreign

placement of managerial candidates: an application of the Rubicon model of

action phases. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 891.

TAYLOR, S. E. & GOLLWITZER, P. M. 1995. Effects of mindset on positive

illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 213-226.

THOMPSON, E. R. 2009. Individual entrepreneurial intent: construct clarification and

development of an internationally reliable metric.(Report). Entrepreneurship:

Theory and Practice, 33, 669.

UCBASARAN, D., WESTHEAD, P. & WRIGHT, M. 2009. The extent and nature of

opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs. Journal of Business

Venturing, 24, 99-115.

UCBASARAN, D., WESTHEAD, P., WRIGHT, M. & FLORES, M. 2010. The nature

of entrepreneurial experience, business failure and comparative optimism.

Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 541-555.

URBIG, D. & MONSEN, E. 2012. The structure of optimism: "Controllability affects

the extent to which efficacy beliefs shape outcome expectancies". J. Econ.

Psychol., 33, 854-867.

VAN GELDEREN, M., BRAND, M., VAN PRAAG, M., BODEWES, W.,

POUTSMA, E. & VAN GILS, A. 2008. Explaining Entrepreneurial Intentions

by Means of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Career Development

International, 13, 538-559.

VAN GELDEREN, M., KAUTONEN, T. & FINK, M. 2015. From entrepreneurial

intentions to actions: Self-control and action-related doubt, fear, and aversion.

Journal of Business Venturing.

WARD, T. 2004. Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur., 19, 173-

188.

WIEBER, F., ODENTHAL, G. & GOLLWITZER, P. 2010. Self-efficacy Feelings

Moderate Implementation Intention Effects. Self Identity, 9, 177-194.

XIAOHONG, Q. 2012. Prior experience, social network, and levels of entrepreneurial

intentions. Management Research Review, 35, 945-957.

XU, H. & TRACEY, T. J. G. 2015. Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance Scale:

Construction and Initial Validations. Journal of Vocational Behavior.