just like that
...from the MIT institute and the Stanford University inspired scholars to investigate this type of venture that resulted in a va riety of research issues. Scholars have distinguished typologies of spin-offs (Elfring and Foss, 1999; Steffensen et al., 1999), the policy structures and growth patterns of spin-off venturing (Doutriaux, 1987; Roberts and Malone, 1996, Vohora et al., 2004), and the role of the pa rent organization or incubator on the 2 founding and successes of spin-off ventures (DiGregorio and Shane, 2003; Sorrentino and Williams, 1995). Research in the spin-off stream, however, has paid little attention to nascent entrepreneurs and the intention of entrepreneurship among academics. In order to support the founding of academic spin-offs, it is important to know who starts new spin-offs and what is driving these individuals. The traditional research stream on entrepreneurial be havior has emphasized psychologic al and non-psychological factors to explain who starts a new firm and why someone does. The psychological fac tors, or traits perspective, a ddresses several human attributes, such as the need for achievement (McClella nd, 1961) desire for inde pende nce (Cromie, 1987), internal locus of control (Cromie and Johns, 1983; Cromie, 1987), and self-efficacy (Bandura , 1997). This research approa ch is characterized by collecting data among entre preneurs and thus focuses on ex post situations. Gartner (1988; 1989) critic izes that these studies assume that the entreprene ur’s traits, attitudes and beliefs do not change because of the e ntrepreneurial experience itself. Howeve r, individuals seldom behave consistently in different times and situations and it is likely that the experience from the entrepreneurial event may affect the individual’s behavior. The entrepreneurial traits are questioned for their predictive performance and for this reason the trait perspective has proved largely unsuccessful (Garner, 1990). The non-psychological factors are event based and determine the behavior of the individual. Individuals act according the c onstraints and possibilities of the situation they found themselves in. The entre prene urial event approach stresses that intentions are a robust predictor of individual behavior such as starting a new firm (Ajzen, 1991; Krueger, 1993). The entrepreneurial event approach has received much attention (Krueger, 1993; Krueger and Brazael, 1994) and two models have emerged. First, Shapero’s (1982) model of entrepreneurial event assumes that someone’s behavior is more or less in a states-quo until some thing interrupts or displaces the states-quo. The displacement changes the behavior and the norms and va lues in which dec isions are made. The choice to become self-e mployed depends on alternative choic es and the propensity to a ct. According to Sha pero (1982), it is not the entrepreneur that ha s changed but the perceptions of the circumstances ha ve c hanged. The individual already exhibited a potentia l to become an entrepreneur, but it required some sort of displacement for tha t potential to surface (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). Examples of sudden interrupts are job loss or migration. The second model that is based on the event is the theory of planne d behavior (TPB) developed by Ajzen (1991). Azjen’s model dive rts from Sha pero’s model in that it is not based on interrupts or sudden displacements, but on planned behavior. The model assumes the individual’s experience and his/ her long te rm e xpectations to determine the choice of entrepreneurship. This study c ontinue s with Ajze n’s model for entrepreneurial intent. The argument that underlies this choice is that we try to explain the inte ntion a priori. In contrast, the model of Sha pero is e x post, the model explains the intention of entrepreneurship as a result of a sudden event. In our case we cannot predict intention based on a sudden event that still has to come. We seek the latent attitude of individuals towards entrepreneurship and there fore we apply the model of pla nned beha vior by Ajzen. The model builds on three key attitudes that predict inte ntion: 1) the attitude towards being an entrepre neur, 2) the image of entrepreneurship, and 3) the perceived behavioral control. The mode l is tested using data from 211 sc ientists in the life sciences in the Netherlands. The study adds to our understanding of what drive s the intention of scientist to become an entrepreneur. 3 Theory of planned behavior The theory of planned behavior deals with behavior that is not fully under volitional control, but which depends, at least to some extent, on non-motivational factors such as availability of requisite opportunities and resources (e.g. time, money, skills, equipment) (Ajzen, 1991). Particularly in high technology based entrepreneurship, the opportunities necessitate access to resources that are difficult to control and acquire. Sometimes, the transfer of intellectual property is needed and to develop the knowledge further, specific equipment suc h as laboratory instruments and space is required. These resources ask for high initial investments and support from organizations that can provide the entrepreneur with the equipment at low cost (Starr and MacMillan: 1990). The theory has proven successful in studies on behavioral intention (Kim and Hunter, 1993; Carter et al., 2003). The theory assumes inte ntion as the immediate antecedent of behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Consequently, the model stresses that three key attitudes predict intention. The first attitude is towards the act. This attitude is based on the perception of the person of what he/ she might think of as a desirable outcome. If some one expects that the outc ome of the act is getting him or her in a better position, it will be more likely that he/she will perform the act. The second attitude is that of the subjective norm. The subject norm reflects the extrapersonal influence on the decision-maker. If the people that are close to the individua l e xpect or respect that he/ she will do the act, it is more likely he /she will do so. The third factor is the perception of the beha vioral control. The extent to which someone perceives the act as feasible, it is more likely that he/ or she will execute it. Conseque ntly, we explain the three key attitudes as predictor for the intention towards entrepreneurship as follows: 1. Attitude toward entrepreneurship includes beliefs about the likely outcomes of starting a new company and the evaluations of these outcomes, 2. Image of entrepreneurship is the subjective norm that includes beliefs about the normative expecta tions of others and motivation to comply with the se expectations, 3. Perception of behavioral control include s beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of starting a new company and the perc eived power of these fac tors (control be liefs). As a rule, the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the perc eived control, the stronger the person’s intention toward entrepreneurship is expec ted to be. Besides the three ke y attitudes the intention towards entrepreneurship is also determined by the individual’s personal ba ckground. Factors that lie in the personal background are the educationa l level (Robinson and Sexton, 1994; Shaver a nd Sc ott, 1991), marital ...