Cohesiveness Meaning and Definition, Cohesive or Cohesion refers back to the degree of team spirit or “we-ness” in a collection. More formally, they denote the energy of all ties that link individuals to a set. These ties can be social or mission-orientated. Specifically, a group this is tied together with the aid of mutual friendship, caring, or non-public liking is showing social cohesion.
Here is the article to explain, What is the Meaning and Definition of Cohesiveness, Cohesive, and Cohesion?
A group this ties together by way of shared goals or duties is displaying undertaking cohesive. Social and assignment can arise at an equal time, however, they do no longer have to. For instance, a group of pals can be very cohesive just due to the fact they enjoy spending time collectively, no matter whether or no longer they share similar dreams. Conversely, a hockey team can be very cohesive, without liking each different personality; because the gamers strongly pursue a commonplace goal.
Consequences of Cohesiveness;
An excessive degree of cohesion is a double-edged sword. Positive effects include a higher dedication to, and responsibility for, the organization. Also, pleasure with the group is better inside cohesive organizations. Furthermore, there may be a high-quality relationship between the diploma of them and the overall performance of a group. Although the route of causality among overall performance and remains disputed (in reality, cohesive and overall performance seem to mutually affect each other); cohesive organizations are in all likelihood to outperform noncohesive ones if the subsequent preconditions are met; First, the organization must be tied collectively using mission (in place of social). Second, the norms and standards inside the group should encourage excellence. Indeed, if the norm in a collection encourages low overall performance; growing they will bring about lower instead of better performance.
Thus, depending on the norms present in a group, its performance hyperlink may be useful or damaging. Aside from potentially worse performance, bad consequences entail multiplied conformity and pressure toward unanimity. They might also consequently result in avoidance of war of words, groupthink, and as a result horrific choice making. Another negative consequence of specifically social may be maladaptive behavior if the composition of a set changes. Indeed, in cases in which it is high and mainly because of private liking; changes inside the group’s shape may additionally bring about the disengagement of organization participants.
Enhancing Group Cohesiveness;
Social cohesiveness can be greater by increasing liking and attraction among group participants. Liking may be greater, for instance, through growing the similarity of institution contributors (humans like folks who are just like them or percentage comparable reviews). The task there can be more desirable by using emphasizing similar desires and making sure that the pursued dreams are critical to all individuals. Both social and undertaking cohesive can promote via encouraging voluntary interaction among organization individuals or by using creating a unique and attractive identity of the institution, for instance, by using introducing a commonplace logo or uniform. Finally, it is usually larger in small businesses.
Cohesive groups are those in which their contributors properly integrate, paintings nicely collectively, and do not need to separate. Learn the definition and importance of group cohesiveness, evaluate its positive and terrible consequences; and explore the elements that have an effect on organization cohesion thru some examples.
Group Cohesiveness Defined;
Imagine you are on a peace mission with 3 co-workers and are not able to make development due to war. Or perhaps you’re in a remedy institution for melancholy and feel connected to, and safe with, the other organization individuals. These are examples of group cohesion sorts that possibly revel in at the same time as being a member of a collection.
Group cohesiveness may define as a bond that pulls humans toward a club in a particular organization and resists separation from that institution. In addition, organization brotherly love typically has three traits. They include the subsequent:
Interpersonal Attraction; This means institution individuals have a desire or need to engage with every different. Group participants experience this interplay and are looking for it out.
Group Pride; This entails institution members viewing their club to a selected institution with fondness. They sense happiness with their institution club, and staying in the group feels valuable.
Commitment to the Work of the Group; Group contributors value the work of the institution and consider its goals. They incline to paintings together to complete tasks that align with these organization dreams, even via adversity.
What is the Meaning and Definition of Cohesiveness, Cohesive, and Cohesion? Image by Manfred Steger from Pixabay.
School Psychologist or School Counselor, Meaning, Definition, Characteristics, Features, Importance, Issues, and Problem. It can be confusing when thinking about the role of a school psychologist; especially when you compare them to a guidance counselor. A guidance counselor, who is very important to the everyday functioning of a school and students; focuses more on getting a student through their school career academically; and, if the student wants to attend a college they see to it that the student is equipped for the transition.
Here is the article to explain, School Psychologist or School Counselor, their Characteristics, Features, Importance, Issues, and Problem!
School Counselor or School Psychologist Meaning and Definition? Both occupations are important to a school’s function and at times go hand in hand; but, it is what a school psychologist can do that makes them vital. The school psychologist can work with a student on a much more personal level and find out; what is making them tick or what may be troubling them on a deeper level. The school counselor many times works with the student and their issues and how it pertains to their education. There are times that the guidance counselor looks upon to serve the students in both arenas and the same goes for the school psychologist.
The guidance counselor is more than likely going to have opportunities to counsel and work with a student especially; if they form a relationship with that student; but depending on the situation or issue that is occurring; it is in the best interest of the student for the school psychologist to work with them. However, it’s the individual expertise that makes them stand apart. While the guidance counselor is going over college plans and preparing transcripts for a student; the school counselor may be having a group counseling session with students who are dealing with a specific issue.
Futures or Characteristics of School Psychologist or School Counselor;
So, what does the future hold for the world of school psychology? The education realm will always be in existence but to what extent? Technology is always evolving and growing and that means there will be more and more opportunities for students to engage in specialized learning. The alternative setting may become more prominent, such as homeschooling and online/internet-based schools. This type of learning will suddenly become the normal way of educating.
The future of school psychology and educating and training new psychologists is vital. In the year 2000, the recommended ratio of students to school psychologists was 1000:1 (Curtis, Chesno Grier, & Hunley, 1998). That would be mean roughly one school counselor per school in a school district. The ratio also depends on the types of services that are being provided to the students by the school psychologist. Some students may never come into contact with their designated school psychologist; but, many need the services provided to be successful in their school career.
Other things;
In 2000, a call was made to see a shift in how a school psychologist approached their day. An ecological perspective was requested to see a change in how children were approached. It was felt that a school counselor could have more of an impact on a child’s life; if moved away from the old style and focused on making sure that the child had a healthy environment. Shifting the focus this way would also adapt to the shortage of school psychologists in an area. Making use of families, school, individual, and group settings would show genuine involvement for all who involve in a child’s life.
The role and involvement of a school counselor are where the question comes into the picture. With the homeschooling option becoming more popular a school psychologist will have to be more consultative; and, train more problem-solving skills when working with those adults (parents, teachers, administration) involved in homeschooling. School psychology is extremely important to a school and its daily function. As previously stated a school psychologist can involve very heavily in a student’s day and can be vital to their success.
Benefits or Importance of a School Psychologist or School Counselor;
It can be difficult to place a level of importance on any career; but, becoming a school psychologist is choosing a career where you could make a major impact. In the educational system, the ultimate satisfaction is seeing a student succeed not only during your time with them but watching them succeed outside of school. Unfortunately, each child or student is different and requires different approaches. Something that may bother or cause a problem for child A may not cause the issue for child B. Understanding what you are facing is key for a school counselor. The National Center for Children in Poverty or the NCCP states that one in five children from the ages of birth to 18 years old has a diagnosable mental disorder (Stagman & Cooper, 2010).
The School Psychologist must evaluate and create a plan of action for each unique as they arise and see to it that the student has the best available services. Life at home for a child is not always the best situation and it is beyond their control. The NCCP reports that fifty-seven percent of children and youth with mental health issues come from homes living at or below the federal poverty line. Students with special needs and/or mental disorders need someone that will advocate for them and has a desire to see breakthroughs and success at all levels.
Problems or Issues for School Psychologist or School Counselor;
The day for a school psychologist is not always an easy one. Each day they could be present with stressful anxiety-filled moments that would make many not envious of their career choice. School psychologists have a heart for helping and want nothing more than to see a child succeed not only in the classroom but in the real world as well. One glaring problem that the world of education is facing is that there is not enough funding in some parts of the country to hire a school counselor. If they currently have one, there is a good chance that steps are being taken to slowly eliminate that position (Weir, 2012). Schools are looking for ways to save money and have taken measures to eliminate “nonessential” school personnel and programs.
More issue to know;
In 2009, School Psychology International reported that there was an estimated 32,300 school psychologist in the nation and the task with servicing more than 6.5 million public school students (Weir, 2012). Having this much difference in the two numbers creates more of a workload for the school counselor. According to the National Association of School Psychologists, the ratio for psychologists to students is 1 to 500-700, but unfortunately; it is much higher and in some special cases can be close to 1 to 3,500. With numbers being so low, it forces school counselors to work longer hours and many times take their work home.
All careers have issues and all schools and places of education have problems; but, it’s how the issues handle and by whom. In 1995, The American Academy of School Psychology was founded to prepare and train those to deal effectively with problems or issues that stem from learning and/or human behavior (Cassel, 1999, p. 584). A school psychologist can be the most valuable person on your staff to deal with issues and problems when they pop up. That is why it is so important that funding for these positions continues and doesn’t dwindle.
Why you Becoming a School Psychologist or a School Counselor;
Before you can begin changing lives in the world of school psychology you must be willing to obtain specific education requirements. Throughout the United States, there are approximately 240 institutions that offer psychology graduate programs (“Becoming a School Psychologist,” n.d.). When deciding on an institution, the National Association of School Psychology or the NASP approves many universities that APA accredit.
How to become a school psychologist?
To become a school psychologist, you will need to either have a specialist-level degree designed for school psychology or a doctorate. Some graduate programs that offer degrees for school psychology may require that a student not only completes academic work; but, also has supervised fieldwork and possibly an internship that would equip you with the knowledge, skills, and the learning experience for working every day as a school counselor. During your graduate program, you may require to do a practicum or an internship.
This will allow you to work closely with a trained school psychologist and begin to discover what you will face when you have completed your training. Once you have completed the required schooling for this career you will need to become certified; and, depending on the state that you work in will determine if you have the requirements needed. Each state is different on what is required but the National Association of School Counselor or NASP requires minimum specialist-level training. The work and training need to become a school counselor can be daunting but it can pale in comparison to the issue that a student endures and the sheer idea that you can assist the student with their matters can make the process worth it and rewarding.
Reference; Benefits of a School Psychologist. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/education/benefits-of-a-school-psychologist.php?vref=1
School Psychologist or Counselor, Meaning, Definition, Characteristics, Features, Importance, Issues, and Problems; Image by StartupStockPhotos from Pixabay.
The most crucial issue in test construction is validity. Whereas reliability addresses issues of consistency, validity assesses what the test is to be accurate about. A test that is valid for clinical assessment should measure what it is intended to measure and should also produce information useful to clinicians. A psychological test cannot be said to be valid in any abstract or absolute sense, but more practically, it must be valid in a particular context and for a specific group of people (Messick, 1995). Although a test can be reliable without being valid, the opposite is not true; a necessary prerequisite for validity is that the test must have achieved an adequate level of reliability. Thus, a valid test is one that accurately measures the variable it is intended to measure. For example, a test comprising questions about a person’s musical preference might erroneously state that it is a test of creativity. The test might be reliable in the sense that if it is given to the same person on different occasions, it produces similar results each time. However, it would not be reliable in that an investigation might indicate it does not correlate with other more valid measurements of creativity.
Establishing the validity of a test can be extremely difficult, primarily because psychological variables are usually abstract concepts such as intelligence, anxiety, and personality. These concepts have no tangible reality, so their existence must be inferred through indirect means. In addition, conceptualization and research on constructs undergo change over time requiring that test validation go through continual refinement (G. Smith & McCarthy, 1995). In constructing a test, a test designer must follow two necessary, initial steps. First, the construct must be theoretically evaluated and described; second, specific operations (test questions) must be developed to measure it (S. Haynes et al., 1995). Even when the designer has followed these steps closely and conscientiously, it is sometimes difficult to determine what the test really measures. For example, IQ tests are good predictors of academic success, but many researchers question whether they adequately measure the concept of intelligence as it is theoretically described. Another hypothetical test that, based on its item content, might seem to measure what is described as musical aptitude may in reality be highly correlated with verbal abilities. Thus, it may be more a measure of verbal abilities than of musical aptitude.
Any estimate of validity is concerned with relationships between the test and some external independently observed event. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council for Measurement in Education [NCME], 1999; G. Morgan, Gliner, & Harmon, 2001) list the three main methods of establishing validity as content-related, criterion-related, and construct-related.
Content Validity
During the initial construction phase of any test, the developers must first be concerned with its content validity. This refers to the representativeness and relevance of the assessment instrument to the construct being measured. During the initial item selection, the constructors must carefully consider the skills or knowledge area of the variable they would like to measure. The items are then generated based on this conceptualization of the variable. At some point, it might be decided that the item content over-represents, under-represents, or excludes specific areas, and alterations in the items might be made accordingly. If experts on subject matter are used to determine the items, the number of these experts and their qualifications should be included in the test manual. The instructions they received and the extent of agreement between judges should also be provided. A good test covers not only the subject matter being measured, but also additional variables. For example, factual knowledge may be one criterion, but the application of that knowledge and the ability to analyze data are also important. Thus, a test with high content validity must cover all major aspects of the content area and must do so in the correct proportion.
A concept somewhat related to content validity is face validity. These terms are not synonymous, however, because content validity pertains to judgments made by experts, whereas face validity concerns judgments made by the test users. The central issue in face validity is test rapport. Thus, a group of potential mechanics who are being tested for basic skills in arithmetic should have word problems that relate to machines rather than to business transactions. Face validity, then, is present if the test looks good to the persons taking it, to policymakers who decide to include it in their programs, and to other untrained personnel. Despite the potential importance of face validity in regard to test-taking attitudes, disappointingly few formal studies on face validity are performed and/or reported in test manuals.
In the past, content validity has been conceptualized and operationalized as being based on the subjective judgment of the test developers. As a result, it has been regarded as the least preferred form of test validation, albeit necessary in the initial stages of test development. In addition, its usefulness has been primarily focused at achievement tests (how well has this student learned the content of the course?) and personnel selection (does this applicant know the information relevant to the potential job?). More recently, it has become used more extensively in personality and clinical assessment (Butcher, Graham, Williams, & Ben-Porath, 1990; Millon, 1994). This has paralleled more rigorous and empirically based approaches to content validity along with a closer integration to criterion and construct validation.
Criterion Validity
A second major approach to determining validity is criterion validity, which has also been called empirical or predictive validity. Criterion validity is determined by comparing test scores with some sort of performance on an outside measure. The outside measure should have a theoretical relation to the variable that the test is supposed to measure. For example, an intelligence test might be correlated with grade point average; an aptitude test, with independent job ratings or general maladjustment scores, with other tests measuring similar dimensions. The relation between the two measurements is usually expressed as a correlation coefficient.
Criterion-related validity is most frequently divided into either concurrent or predictive validity. Concurrent validity refers to measurements taken at the same, or approximately the same, time as the test. For example, an intelligence test might be administered at the same time as assessments of a group’s level of academic achievement. Predictive validity refers to outside measurements that were taken some time after the test scores were derived. Thus, predictive validity might be evaluated by correlating the intelligence test scores with measures of academic achievement a year after the initial testing. Concurrent validation is often used as a substitute for predictive validation because it is simpler, less expensive, and not as time consuming. However, the main consideration in deciding whether concurrent or predictive validation is preferable depends on the test’s purpose. Predictive validity is most appropriate for tests used for selection and classification of personnel. This may include hiring job applicants, placing military personnel in specific occupational training programs, screening out individuals who are likely to develop emotional disorders, or identifying which category of psychiatric populations would be most likely to benefit from specific treatment approaches. These situations all require that the measurement device provide a prediction of some future outcome. In contrast, concurrent validation is preferable if an assessment of the client’s current status is required, rather than a prediction of what might occur to the client at some future time. The distinction can be summarized by asking “Is Mr. Jones maladjusted?” (concurrent validity) rather than “Is Mr. Jones likely to become maladjusted at some future time?” (predictive validity).
An important consideration is the degree to which a specific test can be applied to a unique work-related environment (see Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996). This relates more to the social value and consequences of the assessment than the formal validity as reported in the test manual (Messick, 1995). In other words, can the test under consideration provide accurate assessments and predictions for the environment in which the examinee is working? To answer this question adequately, the examiner must refer to the manual and assess the similarity between the criteria used to establish the test’s validity and the situation to which he or she would like to apply the test. For example, can an aptitude test that has adequate criterion validity in the prediction of high school grade point average also be used to predict academic achievement for a population of college students? If the examiner has questions regarding the relative applicability of the test, he or she may need to undertake a series of specific tasks. The first is to identify the required skills for adequate performance in the situation involved. For example, the criteria for a successful teacher may include such attributes as verbal fluency, flexibility, and good public speaking skills. The examiner then must determine the degree to which each skill contributes to the quality of a teacher’s performance. Next, the examiner has to assess the extent to which the test under consideration measures each of these skills. The final step is to evaluate the extent to which the attribute that the test measures are relevant to the skills the examiner needs to predict. Based on these evaluations, the examiner can estimate the confidence that he or she places in the predictions developed from the test. This approach is sometimes referred to as synthetic validity because examiners must integrate or synthesize the criteria reported in the test manual with the variables they encounter in their clinical or organizational settings.
The strength of criterion validity depends in part on the type of variable being measured. Usually, intellectual or aptitude tests give relatively higher validity coefficients than personality tests because there are generally a greater number of variables influencing personality than intelligence. As the number of variables that influences the trait being measured increases, it becomes progressively more difficult to account for them. When a large number of variables are not accounted for, the trait can be affected in unpredictable ways. This can create a much wider degree of fluctuation in the test scores, thereby lowering the validity coefficient. Thus, when evaluating a personality test, the examiner should not expect as high a validity coefficient as for intellectual or aptitude tests. A helpful guide is to look at the validities found in similar tests and compare them with the test being considered. For example, if an examiner wants to estimate the range of validity to be expected for the extra-version scale on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, he or she might compare it with the validities for similar scales found in the California Personality Inventory and Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. The relative level of validity, then, depends both on the quality of the construction of the test and on the variable being studied.
An important consideration is the extent to which the test accounts for the trait being measured or the behavior being predicted. For example, the typical correlation between intelligence tests and academic performance is about .50 (Neisser et al., 1996). Because no one would say that grade point average is entirely the result of intelligence, the relative extent to which intelligence determines grade point average has to be estimated. This can be calculated by squaring the correlation coefficient and changing it into a percentage. Thus, if the correlation of .50 is squared, it comes out to 25%, indicating that 25% of academic achievement can be accounted for by IQ as measured by the intelligence test. The remaining 75% may include factors such as motivation, quality of instruction, and past educational experience. The problem facing the examiner is to determine whether 25% of the variance is sufficiently useful for the intended purposes of the test. This ultimately depends on the personal judgment of the examiner.
The main problem confronting criterion validity is finding an agreed-on, definable, acceptable, and feasible outside criterion. Whereas for an intelligence test the grade point average might be an acceptable criterion, it is far more difficult to identify adequate criteria for most personality tests. Even with so-called intelligence tests, many researchers argue that it is more appropriate to consider them tests of scholastic aptitude rather than of intelligence. Yet another difficulty with criterion validity is the possibility that the criterion measure will be inadvertently biased. This is referred to as criterion contamination and occurs when knowledge of the test results influences an individual’s later performance. For example, a supervisor in an organization who receives such information about subordinates may act differently toward a worker placed in a certain category after being tested. This situation may set up negative or positive expectations for the worker, which could influence his or her level of performance. The result is likely to artificially alter the level of the validity coefficients. To work around these difficulties, especially in regard to personality tests, a third major method must be used to determine validity.
Construct Validity
The method of construct validity was developed in part to correct the inadequacies and difficulties encountered with content and criterion approaches. Early forms of content validity relied too much on subjective judgment, while criterion validity was too restrictive in working with the domains or structure of the constructs being measured. Criterion validity had the further difficulty in that there was often a lack of agreement in deciding on adequate outside criteria. The basic approach of construct validity is to assess the extent to which the test measures a theoretical construct or trait. This assessment involves three general steps. Initially, the test constructor must make a careful analysis of the trait. This is followed by a consideration of the ways in which the trait should relate to other variables. Finally, the test designer needs to test whether these hypothesized relationships actually exist (Foster & Cone, 1995). For example, a test measuring dominance should have a high correlation with the individual accepting leadership roles and a low or negative correlation with measures of submissiveness. Likewise, a test measuring anxiety should have a high positive correlation with individuals who are measured during an anxiety-provoking situation, such as an experiment involving some sort of physical pain. As these hypothesized relationships are verified by research studies, the degree of confidence that can be placed in a test increases.
There is no single, best approach for determining construct validity; rather, a variety of different possibilities exist. For example, if some abilities are expected to increase with age, correlations can be made between a population’s test scores and age. This may be appropriate for variables such as intelligence or motor coordination, but it would not be applicable for most personality measurements. Even in the measurement of intelligence or motor coordination, this approach may not be appropriate beyond the age of maturity. Another method for determining construct validity is to measure the effects of experimental or treatment interventions. Thus, a posttest measurement may be taken following a period of instruction to see if the intervention affected the test scores in relation to a previous pretest measure. For example, after an examinee completes a course in arithmetic, it would be predicted that scores on a test of arithmetical ability would increase. Often, correlations can be made with other tests that supposedly measure a similar variable. However, a new test that correlates too highly with existing tests may represent needless duplication unless it incorporates some additional advantage such as a shortened format, ease of administration, or superior predictive validity. Factor analysis is of particular relevance to construct validation because it can be used to identify and assess the relative strength of different psychological traits. Factor analysis can also be used in the design of a test to identify the primary factor or factors measured by a series of different tests. Thus, it can be used to simplify one or more tests by reducing the number of categories to a few common factors or traits. The factorial validity of a test is the relative weight or loading that a factor has on the test. For example, if a factor analysis of a measure of psychopathology determined that the test was composed of two clear factors that seemed to be measuring anxiety and depression, the test could be considered to have factorial validity. This would be especially true if the two factors seemed to be accounting for a clear and large portion of what the test was measuring.
Another method used in construct validity is to estimate the degree of internal consistency by correlating specific subtests with the test’s total score. For example, if a subtest on an intelligence test does not correlate adequately with the overall or Full Scale IQ, it should be either eliminated or altered in a way that increases the correlation. A final method for obtaining construct validity is for a test to converge or correlate highly with variables that are theoretically similar to it. The test should not only show this convergent validity but also have discriminate validity, in which it would demonstrate low or negative correlations with variables that are dissimilar to it. Thus, scores on reading comprehension should show high positive correlations with performance in a literature class and low correlations with performance in a class involving mathematical computation.
Related to discriminant and convergent validity is the degree of sensitivity and specificity an assessment device demonstrates in identifying different categories. Sensitivity refers to the percentage of true positives that the instrument has identified, whereas specificity is the relative percentage of true negatives. A structured clinical interview might be quite sensitive in that it would accurately identify 90% of schizophrenics in an admitting ward of a hospital. However, it may not be sufficiently specific in that 30% of schizophrenics would be incorrectly classified as either normal or having some other diagnosis. The difficulty in determining sensitivity and specificity lies in developing agreed-on, objectively accurate outside criteria for categories such as psychiatric diagnosis, intelligence, or personality traits.
As indicated by the variety of approaches discussed, no single, quick, efficient method exists for determining construct validity. It is similar to testing a series of hypotheses in which the results of the studies determine the meanings that can be attached to later test scores (Foster & Cone, 1995; Messick, 1995). Almost any data can be used, including material from the content and criterion approaches. The greater the amount of supporting data, the greater is the level of confidence with which the test can be used. In many ways, construct validity represents the strongest and most sophisticated approach to test construction. In many ways, all types of validity can be considered as subcategories of construct validity. It involves theoretical knowledge of the trait or ability being measured, knowledge of other related variables, hypothesis testing, and statements regarding the relationship of the test variable to a network of other variables that have been investigated. Thus, construct validation is a never-ending process in which new relationships always can be verified and investigated.
Much research has been conducted on the four major psychological processes through which self-beliefs of efficacy affect human functioning.
Cognitive Processes
The effects of self-efficacy beliefs on cognitive processes take a variety of forms. Much human behavior, being purposive, is regulated by forethought embodying valued goals. Personal goal setting is influenced by self-appraisal of capabilities. The stronger the perceived self-efficacy, the higher the goal challenges people set for themselves and the firmer is their commitment to them.
Most courses of action are initially organized in thought. People’s beliefs in their efficacy shape the types of anticipatory scenarios they construct and rehearse. Those who have a high sense of efficacy, visualize success scenarios that provide positive guides and supports for performance. Those who doubt their efficacy, visualize failure scenarios and dwell on the many things that can go wrong. It is difficult to achieve much while fighting self-doubt. A major function of thought is to enable people to predict events and to develop ways to control those that affect their lives. Such skills require effective cognitive processing of information that contains many ambiguities and uncertainties. In learning predictive and regulative rules people must draw on their knowledge to construct options, to weight and integrate predictive factors, to test and revise their judgments against the immediate and distal results of their actions, and to remember which factors they had tested and how well they had worked.
It requires a strong sense of efficacy to remain task oriented in the face of pressing situational demands, failures and setbacks that have significant repercussions. Indeed, when people are faced with the tasks of managing difficult environmental demands under taxing circumstances, those who are beset by self-doubts about their efficacy become more and more erratic in their analytic thinking, lower their aspirations and the quality of their performance deteriorates. In contrast, those who maintain a resilient sense of efficacy set themselves challenging goals and use good analytic thinking which pays off in performance accomplishments.
Motivational Processes
Self-beliefs of efficacy play a key role in the self-regulation of motivation. Most human motivation is cognitively generated. People motivate themselves and guide their actions anticipatorily by the exercise of forethought. They form beliefs about what they can do. They anticipate likely outcomes of prospective actions. They set goals for themselves and plan courses of action designed to realize valued futures.
There are three different forms of cognitive motivators around which different theories have been built. They include causal attributions, outcome expectancies, and cognized goals. The corresponding theories are attribution theory, expectancy-value theory and goal theory, respectively. Self-efficacy beliefs operate in each of these types of cognitive motivation. Self-efficacy beliefs influence causal attributions. People who regard themselves as highly efficacious attribute their failures to insufficient effort, those who regard themselves as inefficacious attribute their failures to low ability. Causal attributions affect motivation, performance and affective reactions mainly through beliefs of self-efficacy.
In expectancy-value theory, motivation is regulated by the expectation that a given course of behavior will produce certain outcomes and the value of those outcomes. But people act on their beliefs about what they can do, as well as on their beliefs about the likely outcomes of performance. The motivating influence of outcome expectancies is thus partly governed by self-beliefs of efficacy. There are countless attractive options people do not pursue because they judge they lack the capabilities for them. The predictiveness of expectancy-value theory is enhanced by including the influence of perceived self- efficacy.
The capacity to exercise self-influence by goal challenges and evaluative reaction to one’s own attainments provides a major cognitive mechanism of motivation. A large body of evidence shows that explicit, challenging goals enhance and sustain motivation. Goals operate largely through self-influence processes rather than regulate motivation and action directly. Motivation based on goal setting involves a cognitive comparison process. By making self-satisfaction conditional on matching adopted goals, people give direction to their behavior and create incentives to persist in their efforts until they fulfill their goals. They seek self-satisfaction from fulfilling valued goals and are prompted to intensify their efforts by discontent with substandard performances.
Motivation based on goals or personal standards is governed by three types of self-influences. They include self-satisfying and self-dissatisfying reactions to one’s performance, perceived self-efficacy for goal attainment, and readjustment of personal goals based on one’s progress. Self-efficacy beliefs contribute to motivation in several ways: They determine the goals people set for themselves; how much effort they expend; how long they persevere in the face of difficulties; and their resilience to failures. When faced with obstacles and failures people who harbor self-doubts about their capabilities slacken their efforts or give up quickly. Those who have a strong belief in their capabilities exert greater effort when they fail to master the challenge. Strong perseverance contributes to performance accomplishments.
Affective Processes
People’s beliefs in their coping capabilities affect how much stress and depression they experience in threatening or difficult situations, as well as their level of motivation. Perceived self-efficacy to exercise control over stressors plays a central role in anxiety arousal. People who believe they can exercise control over threats do not conjure up disturbing thought patterns. But those who believe they cannot manage threats experience high anxiety arousal. They dwell on their coping deficiencies. They view many aspects of their environment as fraught with danger. They magnify the severity of possible threats and worry about things that rarely happen. Through such inefficacious thinking they distress themselves and impair their level of functioning. Perceived coping self-efficacy regulates avoidance behavior as well as anxiety arousal. The stronger the sense of self-efficacy the bolder people are in taking on taxing and threatening activities.
Anxiety arousal is affected not only by perceived coping efficacy but by perceived efficacy to control disturbing thoughts. The exercise of control over one’s own consciousness is summed up well in the proverb: “You cannot prevent the birds of worry and care from flying over your head. But you can stop them from building a nest in your head.” Perceived self-efficacy to control thought processes is a key factor in regulating thought produced stress and depression. It is not the sheer frequency of disturbing thoughts but the perceived inability to turn them off that is the major source of distress. Both perceived coping self-efficacy and thought control efficacy operate jointly to reduce anxiety and avoidant behavior.
Social cognitive theory prescribes mastery experiences as the principal means of personality change. Guided mastery is a powerful vehicle for instilling a robust sense of coping efficacy in people whose functioning is seriously impaired by intense apprehension and phobic self-protective reactions. Mastery experiences are structured in ways to build coping skills and instill beliefs that one can exercise control over potential threats. Intractable phobics, of course, are not about to do what they dread. One must, therefore, create an environment so that incapacitated phobics can perform successfully despite themselves. This is achieved by enlisting a variety of performance mastery aids. Feared activities are first modeled to show people how to cope with threats and to disconfirm their worst fears. Coping tasks are broken down into subtasks of easily mastered steps. Performing feared activities together with the therapist further enables phobics to do things they would resist doing by themselves. Another way of overcoming resistance is to use graduated time. Phobics will refuse threatening tasks if they will have to endure stress for a long time. But they will risk them for a short period. As their coping efficacy increases the time they perform the activity is extended. Protective aids and dosing the severity of threats also help to restore and develop a sense of coping efficacy.
After functioning is fully restored, the mastery aids are withdrawn to verify that coping successes stem from personal efficacy rather than from mastery aids. Self-directed mastery experiences, designed to provide varied confirmatory tests of coping capabilities, are then arranged to strengthen and generalize the sense of coping efficacy. Once people develop a resilient sense of efficacy they can withstand difficulties and adversities without adverse effects.
Guided mastery treatment achieves widespread psychological changes in a relatively short time. It eliminates phobic behavior and anxiety and biological stress reactions, creates positive attitudes and eradicates phobic ruminations and nightmares. Evidence that achievement of coping efficacy profoundly affects dream activity is a particularly striking generalized impact.
A low sense of efficacy to exercise control produces depression as well as anxiety. It does so in several different ways. One route to depression is through unfulfilled aspiration. People who impose on themselves standards of self-worth they judge they cannot attain drive themselves to bouts of depression. A second efficacy route to depression is through a low sense of social efficacy. People who judge themselves to be socially efficacious seek out and cultivate social relationships that provide models on how to manage difficult situations, cushion the adverse effects of chronic stressors and bring satisfaction to people’s lives. Perceived social inefficacy to develop satisfying and supportive relationships increases vulnerability to depression through social isolation. Much human depression is cognitively generated by dejecting ruminative thought. A low sense of efficacy to exercise control over ruminative thought also contributes to the occurrence, duration and recurrence of depressive episodes.
Other efficacy-activated processes in the affective domain concern the impact of perceived coping self-efficacy on biological systems that affect health functioning. Stress has been implicated as an important contributing factor to many physical dysfunctions. Controllability appears to be a key organizing principle regarding the nature of these stress effects. It is not stressful life conditions per se, but the perceived inability to manage them that is debilitating. Thus, exposure to stressors with ability to control them has no adverse biological effects. But exposure to the same stressors without the ability to control them impairs the immune system. The impairment of immune function increases susceptibility to infection, contributes to the development of physical disorders and accelerates the progression of disease.
Biological systems are highly interdependent. A weak sense of efficacy to exercise control over stressors activates autonomic reactions, catecholamine secretion and release of endogenous opioids. These biological systems are involved in the regulation of the immune system. Stress activated in the process of acquiring coping capabilities may have different effects than stress experienced in aversive situations with no prospect in sight of ever gaining any self-protective efficacy. There are substantial evolutionary benefits to experiencing enhanced immune function during development of coping capabilities vital for effective adaptation. It would not be evolutionarily advantageous if acute stressors invariably impaired immune function, because of their prevalence in everyday life. If this were the case, people would experience high vulnerability to infective agents that would quickly do them in. There is some evidence that providing people with effective means for managing stressors may have a positive effect on immune function. Moreover, stress aroused while gaining coping mastery over stressors can enhance different components of the immune system.
There are other ways in which perceived self-efficacy serves to promote health. Lifestyle habits can enhance or impair health. This enables people to exert behavioral influence over their vitality and quality of health. Perceived self-efficacy affects every phase of personal change–whether people even consider changing their health habits; whether they enlist the motivation and perseverance needed to succeed should they choose to do so; and how well they maintain the habit changes they have achieved. The stronger the perceived self-regulatory efficacy the more successful people are in reducing health-impairing habits and adopting and integrating health-promoting habits into their regular lifestyle. Comprehensive community programs designed to prevent cardiovascular disease by altering risk-related habits reduce the rate of morbidity and mortality.
Selection Processes
The discussion so far has centered on efficacy-activated processes that enable people to create beneficial environments and to exercise some control over those they encounter day in and day out. People are partly the product of their environment. Therefore, beliefs of personal efficacy can shape the course lives take by influencing they types of activities and environments people choose. People avoid activities and situations they believe exceed their coping capabilities. But they readily undertake challenging activities and select situations they judge themselves capable of handling. By the choices they make, people cultivate different competencies, interests and social networks that determine life courses. Any factor that influences choice behavior can profoundly affect the direction of personal development. This is because the social influences operating in selected environments continue to promote certain competencies, values, and interests long after the efficacy decisional determinant has rendered its inaugurating effect.
Career choice and development is but one example of the power of self-efficacy beliefs to affect the course of life paths through choice-related processes. The higher the level of people’s perceived self-efficacy the wider the range of career options they seriously consider, the greater their interest in them, and the better they prepare themselves educationally for the occupational pursuits they choose and the greater is their success. Occupations structure a good part of people’s lives and provide them with a major source of personal growth.
Entrepreneurship theories and research remain important to the development of the entrepreneurship field. This paper examines six entrepreneurship theories with underlying empirical studies. These are: 1) Economic entrepreneurship theory, 2) Psychological entrepreneurship theory, 3) Sociological entrepreneurship theory, 4) Anthropological entrepreneurship theory, 5) Opportunity-Based entrepreneurship theory, and 6) Resource-Based entrepreneurship theory. These theories offer us a fairly good opportunity to refocus our efforts at integrating the diverse viewpoints.
Economic Entrepreneurship Theories
The economic entrepreneurship theory has deep roots in the classical and neoclassical theories of economics, and the Austrian market process (AMP). These theories explore the economic factors that enhance entrepreneurial behavior.
Classical Theory
The classical theory extolled the virtues of free trade, specialization, and competition (Ricardo, 1817; Smith, 1776). The theory was the result of Britain’s industrial revolution which took place in the mid-1700 and lasted until the 1830s.The classical movement described the directing role of the entrepreneur in the context of production and distribution of goods in a competitive marketplace (Say, 1803). Classical theorists articulated three modes of production: land; capital; and labor. There have been objections to the classical theory. These theorists failed to explain the dynamic upheaval generated by entrepreneurs of the industrial age (Murphy, Liao & Welsch, 2006).
Neo-classical Theory
The neo-classical model emerged from the criticisms of the classical model and indicated that economic phenomena could be relegated to instances of pure exchange, reflect an optimal ratio, and transpire in an economic system that was basically closed. The economic system consisted of exchange participants, exchange occurrences, and the impact of results of the exchange on other market actors. The importance of exchange coupled with diminishing marginal utility created enough impetus for entrepreneurship in the neoclassical movement (Murphy, Liao & Welsch, 2006).
Some criticisms were raised against the neo-classical conjectures. The first is that aggregate demand ignores the uniqueness of individual-level entrepreneurial activity. Furthermore, neither use nor exchange value reflects the future value of innovation outcomes. Thirdly, rational resource allocation does not capture the complexity of market-based systems. The fourth point raised was that efficiency-based performance does not subsume innovation and non-uniform outputs; known means/ends and perfect or semi-perfect knowledge does not describe uncertainty. In addition, perfect competition does not allow innovation and entrepreneurial activity. The fifth point is that it is impossible to trace all inputs and outputs in a market system. Finally, entrepreneurial activity is destructive to the order of an economic system.
Austrian Market Process (AMP)
These unanswered questions of the neo-classical movement led to a new movement which became known as the Austrian Market process (AMP). The AMP, a model influenced by Joseph Aloi Schumpeter (1934) concentrated on human action in the context of an economy of knowledge. Schumpeter (1934) described entrepreneurship as a driver of market-based systems. In other words, an important function of an enterprise was to create something new which resulted in processes that served as impulses for the motion of market economy.
Murphy, Liao & Welsch (2006) contend that the movement offered a logic dynamic reality. In explaining this, they point to the fact that knowledge is communicated throughout a market system (e.g. via price information), innovation transpires, entrepreneurs satisfy market needs, and system-level change occurs. If an entrepreneur knows how to create new goods or services, or knows a better way to do so, benefits can be reaped through this knowledge. Entrepreneurs effectuate knowledge when they believe it will procure some individually-defined benefits.
The earlier neoclassical framework did not explain such activity; it assumed perfect competition, carried closed-system assumptions, traced observable fact data, and inferred repeatable observation-based principles. By contrast, AMP denied assumptions that circumstances are repeatable, always leading to the same outcomes in an economic system. Rather, it held entrepreneurs are incentivized to use episodic knowledge (that is, possibly never seen before and never to be seen again), to generate value.
Thus, the AMP was based on three main conceptualizations (Kirzner, 1973). The first was the arbitraging market in which opportunities emerge for given market actors as others overlook certain opportunities or undertake the suboptimal activity. The second was alertness to profit-making opportunities, which entrepreneurs discover and entrepreneurial advantage. The third conceptualization, following Say (1803) and Schumpeter (1934), was that ownership is distinct from entrepreneurship. In other words, entrepreneurship does not require ownership of resources, an idea that adds context to uncertainty and risk (Knight, 1921). These conceptualizations show that every opportunity is unique and therefore previous activity cannot be used to predict outcomes reliably.
The AMP model is not without criticisms. The first of the criticisms is that market systems are not purely competitive but can involve antagonist cooperation. The second is that resource monopolies can hinder competition and entrepreneurship. The third is that fraud /deception and taxes/controls also contribute to market system activity. The fourth is that private and state firms are different but both can be entrepreneurial and fifth, entrepreneurship can occur in non-market social situations without competition. Empirical studies by Acs and Audretsch (1988) have rejected the Schumpeterian argument that economies of scale are required for innovation. The criticisms of the AMP have given impetus to recent explanations from psychology, sociology, anthropology, and Management.
Psychological Entrepreneurship Theories
The level of analysis in psychological theories is the individual (Landstrom, 1998). These theories emphasize personal characteristics that define entrepreneurship. Personality traits need for achievement and locus of control are reviewed and empirical evidence presented for three other new characteristics that have been found to be associated with entrepreneurial inclination. These are risk-taking, innovativeness, and tolerance for ambiguity.
Personality Traits theory
Coon (2004) defines personality traits as “stable qualities that a person shows in most situations.” To the trait theorists, there are enduring inborn qualities or potentials of the individual that naturally make him an entrepreneur. The obvious or logical question on your mind may be “What are the exact traits/inborn qualities?” The answer is not a straightforward one since we cannot point at particular traits. However, this model gives some insight into these traits or inborn qualities by identifying the characteristics associated with the entrepreneur. The characteristics give us a clue or an understanding of these traits or inborn potentials. In fact, explaining personality traits means making an inference from behavior.
Some of the characteristics or behaviors associated with entrepreneurs are that they tend to be more opportunity was driven (they nose around), demonstrate the high level of creativity and innovation, and show the high level of management skills and business know-how. They have also been found to be optimistic, (they see the cup as half full then as half empty), emotionally resilient and have mental energy, they are hard workers, show intense commitment and perseverance, thrive on competitive desire to excel and win, tend to be dissatisfied with the status quo and desire improvement, entrepreneurs are also transformational in nature, who are lifelong learners and use failure as a tool and springboard. They also believe that they can personally make a difference, are individuals of integrity and above all visionary.
The trait model is still not supported by research evidence. The only way to explain or claim that it exists is to look through the lenses of one’s characteristics/behaviors and conclude that one has the inborn quality to become an entrepreneur.
Locus of Control
Locus of control is an important aspect of personality. The concept was first introduced by Julian Rotter in the 1950s. Rotter (1966) refers to Locus of Control as an individual’s perception about the underlying main causes of events in his/her life. In other words, a locus of control orientation is a belief about whether the outcomes of our actions are contingent on what we do (internal control orientation) or on events outside our personal control (external control orientation). In this context, the entrepreneur’s success comes from his/her own abilities and also support from outside. The former is referred to as internal locus of control and the latter is referred to as external locus of control. While individuals with an internal locus of control believe that they are able to control life events, individuals with an external locus of control believe that life’s events are the result of external factors, such as chance, luck or fate. Empirical findings that internal locus of control is an entrepreneurial characteristic have been reported in the literature (Cromie, 2000, Ho and Koh, 1992; Koh, 1996; Robinson et al., 1991). In a student sample, internal locus of control was found to be positively associated with the desire to become an entrepreneur (Bonnett & Furnham, 1991).
Rauch and Frese (2000) also found that business owners have a slightly higher internal locus of control than other populations. Other studies have found a high degree of innovativeness, competitive aggressiveness, and autonomy reports (Utsch et al., 1999). The same is reported of protestant work ethic beliefs (Bonnet and Furnham, 1991), as well as risk taking (Begley & Boyd, 1987).
Need for Achievement theory
While the trait model focuses on enduring inborn qualities and locus of control on the individual’s perceptions about the rewards and punishments in his or her life, (Pervin, 1980,), need for achievement theory by McClelland (1961) explained that human beings have a need to succeed, accomplish, excel or achieve. Entrepreneurs are driven by this need to achieve and excel. While there is no research evidence to support personality traits, there is evidence for the relationship between achievement motivation and entrepreneurship (Johnson, 1990). Achievement motivation may be the only convincing phonological factor related to new venture creation (Shaver & Scott, 1991).
Risk taking and innovativeness, need for achievement, and tolerance for ambiguity had the positive and significant influence on entrepreneurial inclination Mohar, Singh and Kishore (2007). However, a locus of control (LOC) had the negative influence on entrepreneurial inclination. The construct locus of control was also found to be highly correlated with variables such as risk-taking, need for achievement, and tolerance for ambiguity. The recent finding on risk taking strengthens earlier empirical studies which indicate that aversion to risk declines as wealth rises, that is, one’s net assets and value of future income (Szpiro, 1986).
In complementing Szpiro’s observation, Eisenhauer (1995) suggests that success in entrepreneurship, by increasing wealth, can reduce the entrepreneur’s degree of risk aversion, and encourage more venturing. In his view, entrepreneurship may, therefore, be a self-perpetuating process. Further evidence suggests that some entrepreneurs exhibit mildly risk-loving behavior (Brockhaus, 1980). These individuals prefer risks and challenges of venturing to the security of stable income.
Sociological Entrepreneurship Theory
The sociological theory is the third of the major entrepreneurship theories. Sociological enterprise focuses on the social context. In other words, in the sociological theories, the level of analysis is traditionally the society (Landstrom, 1998).
Reynolds (1991) has identified four social contexts that relate to entrepreneurial opportunity. The first one is social networks. Here, the focus is on building social relationships and bonds that promote trust and not opportunism. In other words, the entrepreneur should not take undue advantage of people to be successful; rather success comes as a result of keeping faith with the people.
The second he called the life course stage context which involves analyzing the life situations and characteristic of individuals who have decided to become entrepreneurs. The experiences of people could influence their thought and action so they want to do something meaningful with their lives.
The third context is ethnic identification. One’s sociological background is one of the decisive “push” factors to become an entrepreneur. For example, the social background of a person determines how far he/she can go. Marginalized groups may violate all obstacles and strive for success, spurred on by their disadvantaged background to make life better. The fourth social context is called population ecology. The idea is that environmental factors play an important role in the survival of businesses. The political system, government legislation, customers, employees, and competition are some of the environmental factors that may have an impact on survival of new venture or the success of the entrepreneur.
Anthropological Entrepreneurship Theory
The fourth major theory is referred to as the anthropological theory. Anthropology is the study of the origin, development, customs, and beliefs of a community. In other words, the culture of the people in the community. The anthropological theory says that for someone to successful initiate a venture the social and cultural contexts should be examined or considered.
Here the emphasis is on the cultural entrepreneurship model. The model says that new venture is created by the influence of one’s culture. Cultural practices lead to entrepreneurial attitudes such as innovation that also lead to venture creation behavior. Individual ethnicity affects attitude and behavior (Baskerville, 2003) and culture reflects particular ethnic, social, economic, ecological, and political complexities in individuals (Mitchell et al., 2002a). Thus, cultural environments can produce attitude differences (Baskerville, 2003) as well as entrepreneurial behavior differences (North, 1990; Shane 1994).
Opportunity–Based Entrepreneurship Theory
The opportunity-based theory is anchored by names such as Peter Drucker and Howard Stevenson. An opportunity-based approach provides a wide-ranging conceptual framework for entrepreneurship research (Fiet, 2002; Shane, 2000).
Entrepreneurs do not cause change (as claimed by the Schumpeterian or Austrian school) but exploit the opportunities that change (in technology, consumer preferences etc.) creates (Drucker, 1985). He further says, “This defines entrepreneur and entrepreneurship, the entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity.” What is apparent in Drucker’s opportunity construct is that entrepreneurs have an eye more for possibilities created by change than the problems.
Stevenson (1990) extends Drucker’s opportunity-based construct to include resourcefulness. This is based on research to determine the differences between entrepreneurial management and administrative management. He concludes that the hub of entrepreneurial management is the “pursuit of opportunity without regard to resources currently controlled.”
Resource-Based Entrepreneurship Theories
The Resource-based theory of entrepreneurship argues that access to resources by founders is an important predictor of opportunity-based entrepreneurship and new venture growth (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001). This theory stresses the importance of financial, social and human resources (Aldrich, 1999). Thus, access to resources enhances the individual’s ability to detect and act upon discovered opportunities (Davidson & Honing, 2003). Financial, social and human capital represents three classes of theories under the resource – based entrepreneurship theories.
Financial Capital/Liquidity Theory
Empirical research has shown that the founding of new firms is more common when people have access to financial capital (Blanchflower et al, 2001, Evans & Jovanovic, 1989, and Holtz-Eakin et al, 1994). By implication, this theory suggests that people with financial capital are more able to acquire resources to effectively exploit entrepreneurial opportunities, and set up a firm to do so (Clausen, 2006).
However , other studies contest this theory as it is demonstrated that most founders start new ventures without much capital and that financial capital is not significantly related to the probability of being nascent entrepreneurs (Aldrich,1999, Kim, Aldrich & Keister, 2003, Hurst & Lusardi, 2004, Davidson & Honing, 2003).This apparent confusion is due to the fact that the line of research connected to the theory of liquidity constraints generally aims to resolve whether a founder’s access to capital is determined by the amount of capital employed to start a new venture Clausen (2006). In his view, this does not necessarily rule out the possibility of starting a firm without much capital. Therefore, founders access to capital is an important predictor of new venture growth but not necessarily important for the founding of a new venture (Hurst & Lusardi, 2004).
This theory argues that entrepreneurs have individual-specific resources that facilitate the recognition of new opportunities and the assembling of new resources for the emerging firm (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001). Research shows that some persons are more able to recognize and exploit opportunities than others because they have better access to information and knowledge (Aldrich, 1999, Anderson &Miller, 2003, Shane 2000, 2003, Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).
Social Capital or Social Network Theory
Entrepreneurs are embedded in a larger social network structure that constitutes a significant proportion of their opportunity structure (Clausen, 2006). Shane and Eckhardt (2003) says “an individual may have the ability to recognize that a given entrepreneurial opportunity exists, but might lack the social connections to transform the opportunity into a business startup. It is thought that access to a larger social network might help overcome this problem.”
In a similar vein, Reynolds (1991) mentioned social network in his four stages in the sociological theory. The literature on this theory shows that stronger social ties to resource providers facilitate the acquisition of resources and enhance the probability of opportunity exploitation (Aldrich & Zimmers, 1986).Other researchers have suggested that it is important for nascent founders to have access to entrepreneurs in their social network, as the competence these people have represents a kind of cultural capital that nascent ventures can draw upon in order to detect opportunities (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003., Gartner et al, 2004., Kim, Aldrich & Keister, 2003).
Human Capital Entrepreneurship Theory
Underlying the human capital entrepreneurship theory are two factors, education, and experience (Becker, 1975). The knowledge gained from education and experience represents a resource that is heterogeneously distributed across individuals and in effect central to understanding differences in opportunity identification and exploitation (Anderson & Miller, 2003, Chandler & Hanks, 1998, Gartner et al, 2005, Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).
Empirical studies show that human capital factors are positively related to becoming a nascent entrepreneur (Kim, Aldrich & Keister, 2003, Davidson & Honing,2003, Korunka et al, 2003), increase opportunity recognition and even entrepreneurial success (Anderson & Miller, 2003, Davidson & Honing,2003).
The conclusion of Entrepreneurship Theories
The purpose of this paper was to examine the theories and research outcomes of entrepreneurship. From the above discussions, it is clear that the field of entrepreneurship has some interesting and relevant theories (ranging from economic, psychological, sociological, anthropological, opportunity-based, to resource based) which are underpinned by empirical research evidence. This development holds a rather brighter future for the study, research, and practice of entrepreneurship.
