SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.44 número3Trabajando con las preferencias del consultante en psicoterapia: consideraciones clínicas y éticasEl coste social de la violencia contra la infancia y la adolescencia índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Papeles del Psicólogo

versión On-line ISSN 1886-1415versión impresa ISSN 0214-7823

Pap. Psicol. vol.44 no.3 Madrid sep./dic. 2023  Epub 13-Nov-2023

https://dx.doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol.3020 

Articles

What's new in entrepreneurial personality assessment?

¿Qué hay de nuevo en la evaluación de la personalidad emprendedora?

Álvaro Postigo (orcid: 0000-0003-4228-8965)1  , Marcelino Cuesta (orcid: 0000-0002-1060-9536)1  , Eduardo García-Cueto (orcid: 0000-0002-1059-117X)1 

1Universidad de Oviedo, Spain

1886-1415-pappsicol-44-03-132-es.pdf

ABSTRACT

Entrepreneurship is one of the most important aspects for the growth of any country. On the one hand, because it is a source of innovation, employment, and wealth and, on the other, because of the negative consequences of entrepreneurial failure, economically, socially, and psychologically. The study of entrepreneurship is carried out through different approaches, such as social, economic, biological, and psychological. Although no one doubts the importance of each of them, the psychological approach−specifically, the entrepreneurial personality−has been one of the most productive on this topic in the last decade. Suárez-Álvarez and Pedrosa (2016)conducted a comprehensive review of the study of entrepreneurial personality. The present article, more than five years later, aims to present the main contributions of psychology to the assessment of entrepreneurial personality since then (theoretical models and measurement instruments and their psychometric properties). Future lines of research are discussed.

Keywords: Entrepreneurial Personality; Assessment; Entrepreneurship; Psychometrics

RESUMEN

El emprendimiento es uno de los aspectos más importantes para el crecimiento de cualquier país. Por un lado, por ser fuente de innovación, empleo y riqueza y, por otro, por las consecuencias negativas que conlleva el fracaso emprendedor, a nivel económico, social y psicológico. El estudio del emprendimiento se lleva a cabo mediante diferentes enfoques, como el social, económico, biológico y psicológico. Si bien nadie duda de la importancia de cada uno de ellos, el enfoque psicológico y, concretamente, la personalidad emprendedora, ha sido uno de los temas más estudiados en la última década. Suárez-Álvarez y Pedrosa (2016)realizaron una revisión exhaustiva del estudio de la personalidad emprendedora. El presente trabajo, más de cinco años después, tiene como objetivo presentar las principales aportaciones de la psicología a la evaluación de la personalidad emprendedora desde entonces (modelos teóricos e instrumentos de medida y sus propiedades psicométricas). Se discuten las líneas futuras de investigación.

Palabras clave: Personalidad emprendedora; Evaluación; Emprendimiento; Psicometría

“The word “entrepreneur” has been glamourized by today's media. When you hear the word “entrepreneur,” you are often shown an image of successful people with profitable, rapidly growing businesses and a glamorous lifestyle. Unfortunately, this representation of entrepreneurship reflects a minute fraction of entrepreneurs. The reality is that 8 out of 10 startups fail. The reality is that starting and running a business is psychologically and mentally distressing. It is years of dedication and relentless hard.”

Mr. Ahmed Osman

Past Chair of the International Council for Small Business

More than five years ago, in this same journal, Suárez-Álvarez and Pedrosa (2016)formulated the path to follow in the research of entrepreneurial personality. In this period, and with their help, an attempt has been made to advance in this field of knowledge. The same logic will be followed. Here we will present the point where the research on the entrepreneurial personality is at present and the possible paths that can be followed in the near future.

The Entrepreneur

Entrepreneurship has been a hot topicin the last few decades (Chell, 2008; Gielnik et al., 2021). The source of innovation, employment, and productivity it brings to a country makes it a formidable engine for growth in any economy (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor [GEM], 2020, 2021; Van Praag & Versloot, 2007). Moreover, entrepreneurship is essential in organizational psychology, since organizations, companies, and businesses only exist because of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship (Baum et al., 2007). One of the main motives guiding the study of entrepreneurship is the aim to analyze why some people, and not others, start a business. Furthermore, there is the purpose of analyzing why, among the people who are entrepreneurs, some succeed while others end up having to close their businesses.

One of the explanations guiding this reasoning is the more personal aspect of the individual. Suárez-Álvarez (2015)defines entrepreneurship as amultidimensional process that determines personal development oriented towards the proposal, resolution, and maintenance of new projects, whether these are of an economic, personal, or social nature. Thus, the entrepreneurial person can develop in multiple contexts (Figure 1; Muñiz et al., 2019). It is possible to differentiate, therefore, the person whose goal is the development of new external projects linked to business creation (extra-entrepreneur; Rauch & Frese, 2007b), from the person who innovates within an organization, improving projects that are already underway (intrapreneur; Lumpkin, 2007; Mumford et al., 2021). The person who manages difficult situations related to stressors, unemployment, or changes at work must be distinguished (personal entrepreneur; Frese & Fay, 2001) from the person who undertakes for social purposes (social entrepreneur; Dees et al., 2001). Similarly, entrepreneurs should also be differentiated according to the stage of business they are in, the type of business (family, agricultural, technological, service sector, and franchising) and according to their pre-entrepreneurship situation, such as unemployed people or immigrants (see Salmony & Kanbach, 2021).

Note.Taken from Muñiz et al. (2019)

Figure 1. Types of Entrepreneurs. 

The Psychological Approach to the Study of Entrepreneurship

Throughout the 21st century, there have been four main approaches to the study of entrepreneurial activity: economic, sociological, biological, and psychological. Within the psychological approach, which is the one that concerns us here, there have been variations on its influence on entrepreneurial activity. In the 1980s, the psychology of entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial psychology had not found its place in the literature. In fact, Gartner (1989)in his famous article "Who is an entrepreneur?" Is the wrong question, focuses on the rejection of the trait approach (and everything psychological), stating that no entrepreneur can be defined on the basis of his or her personal characteristics. The main reason is that during those years this approach had made little progress in the explanation and prediction of entrepreneurial performance (Wortman, 1987). As stated by Baum et al. (2007), despite the belief that personal characteristics are important for the creation and success of businesses, the psychology of entrepreneurship had not been widely studied. It is from the 21st century onwards that different perspectives within the psychological approach begin to gain recognitionwhen explaining the determinants that lead people to entrepreneurship and business success. Since then, it has begun to be demonstrated that entrepreneurship is fundamentally personal (Baum et al., 2007, p. 1), since it is an effort that depends largely on the actions of the entrepreneurial person (Frese, 2009). So much so that the GEM Spain report (2020, p. 29), in its framework of entrepreneurial activity, establishes psychological attributes as one of the central axes of entrepreneurship. Therefore, and as concluded by Cardon et al. (2021)in their recent chapter entitled The Psychology of Entrepreneurship: Looking 10 years back and 10 years ahead, "Gartner challenged us all to think beyond who an entrepreneur is in order to understand a more complex phenomenon of what entrepreneurs do and why, how they act, think, and feel" (Cardon et al., 2021, p. 566).

One of the essential aspects of the psychological approach in the entrepreneurial context is the success of training in different psychological aspects related to entrepreneurship, known as entrepreneurship training and transfer(ETT; Weers & Gielnik, 2021). ETT has responded to one of the major debates among professionals: whether the entrepreneur is born or made (Gartner, 1989; Ramoglou et al., 2020; Schoon & Duckworth, 2012; Walter & Heinrichs, 2015). Evidence shows that ETT can be effective in both the short and long run (Blume et al., 2010; Martin et al., 2013; Ubfal et al., 2019; Walter & Block, 2016). However, and as is the case in multiple disciplines, results vary widely depending on the study and methodology applied (Martin et al., 2013), and insufficient evidence has been provided on how and why ETT is effective (Weers & Gielnik, 2021).

It could be stated that the psychological approach is integrated in the combination of three perspectives: cognitive (Baker & Powell, 2021), affective (Huang et al., 2021), and personality. The present work will focus on the latter.

The Entrepreneurial Personality Perspective

This perspective emphasizes the personality traits of entrepreneurs, which help to make some individuals more likely than others to start a business and to be successful in it (Rauch & Frese, 2007a, 2007b). Research on entrepreneurial personality has been increasing exponentially (Frese & Gielnik, 2014; Rauch & Gielnik, 2021). In fact, of all the meta-analytic reviews conducted on the psychology of entrepreneurship, those on entrepreneurial personality (Rauch & Frese, 2007b; Stewart & Roth, 2001; Zhao et al., 2010; Zhao & Seibert, 2006) are the most cited in the literature (see Rauch & Gielnik, 2021, pp. 489-491). The rise of this perspective has been spurred by a consensus on a general model of personality (Big Five model; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and by the use of meta-analysis as a technique for aggregating and generalizing the results of many individual studies (Brandstätter, 2011). Thus, different positions have tried to explain, to a greater or lesser extent, which aspects of personality lead a person to start a business. One idea is that the person who decides to become an entrepreneur is shown to have certain personality traits that lead him or her to "self-select" for an entrepreneurial career (Walter & Heinrichs, 2015).

Within the entrepreneurial personality, there is a debate, which continues today, between those who advocate assessing entrepreneurial personality through broad personality traits (such as the Big Five model) and those who advocate assessing personality through more specific traits. Personality traits can be measured with different degrees of conceptual breadth (Soto & John, 2017). A broad character trait allows us to summarize a large amount of behavioral information and predict a wide variety of relevant criteria (having the advantage of breadth). A narrowly measured trait, on the other hand, has the advantage of fidelity, i.e., it accurately expresses a specific behavioral description and can predict criteria closely linked to that description (John et al., 2008). The fact that different breadths in personality traits have advantages and disadvantages is known as the bandwidth-fidelity tradeoff(John et al., 1991).

Within the psychology of entrepreneurship, researchers have focused on general personality frameworks (breadth), such as the Big Five model (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg et al., 2006; McCrae & John, 1992). The Big Five model captures individual differences in the way people feel, think, and behave along five broad dimensions: openness (broadminded vs. closed minded), conscientiousness (well-organized vs. careless), extraversion (sociable vs. reserved), agreeableness (compassionate vs. competitive), and neuroticism (emotionally unstable vs. stable). Supporting the assumption that psychological traits play an important role in the entrepreneurial process, research shows that the Big Five model successfully predicts both business creation and entrepreneurial success (Obschonka, Duckworth et al., 2012; Obschonka, Silbereisen et al., 2012; Shane et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2010; Zhao & Seibert, 2006). Thus, this approach continues to be used today in research on entrepreneurial personality (Antoncic et al., 2015; Dai et al., 2019; Fichter et al., 2020; Hussein & Aziz, 2017; López-Núñez et al., 2020; Sahinidis et al., 2020).

However, other researchers consider that trying to encompass many behaviors (breadth) in only five broad characteristics may become too reductionist (Almeida et al., 2014; Leutner et al., 2014; Muñiz et al., 2014). Specific entrepreneurial personality traits provide a more accurate description (fidelity) of how entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs differ on specific behavioral dimensions, allowing them to predict outcomes more accurately (Baum et al., 2007; Cuesta et al., 2018; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001; Rauch & Frese, 2007a; Suárez-Álvarez et al., 2014). For example, a meta-analysis by Rauch and Frese (2007b)showed that personality traits that were more closely related to the task of running a business were stronger predictors of business creation (r= 0.247) than general personality traits such as the Big Five (r= 0.124). Recent research has shown that specific personality traits offer, relative to the Big Five, incremental validity for predicting both business creation and entrepreneurial success (Leutner et al., 2014; Postigo, Cuesta, García-Cueto et al., 2021). Another advantage of taking into account specific traits is that they are more malleable than general, Big Five-type traits. As they are more specific traits (and, therefore, more specific behaviors), it is easier to intervene on them and try to enhance them. Personality change is not an oxymoron, as a person can change over time depending on life experiences (Blackie et al., 2014). In fact, recent longitudinal studies have shown that moving up in a company and even moving from employed to self-employed leads to changes in personality test scores (Li, Li et al., 2021; Li, Feng et al., 2021).

Entrepreneurial Personality Models

There are different theoretical models that have attempted to define the personality of an entrepreneur. Because the personality of the entrepreneur is a relatively new topic in the 21st century, there is considerable diversity in the personality traits of the different theoretical models. There are, however, certain personality traits that are essential to most theorists (Frese & Gielnik, 2014; Rauch & Gielnik, 2021). A summary of the entrepreneurial personality models with the definitions provided by their authors can be found below (Table 1).

Table 1. Entrepreneurial Personality Models. 

Model Dimensions Definition
Entrepreneurial Personality Model (Rauch & Frese, 2007a) Achievement motivation A preference for challenges rather than routines, taking personal responsibility for their performance, and seeking feedback on their performance as well as new ways to improve it (Rauch & Frese, 2007a).
Risk taking The probability or propensity of a person to take risks (Rauch & Frese, 2007a).
Innovation The inclination and interest to search for new forms of action (Patchen, 1965).
Autonomy The preference to be in control, to avoid restrictions and rules by organizations and, therefore, to choose entrepreneurial work (Brandstätter, 1997).
Locus of control Implies that one has the belief of controlling one's destiny and one's future (Rotter, 1966).
Self-efficacy The belief of being able to perform a certain action effectively (Rauch & Frese, 2007a).
Cambridge University Psychometric Center Model - Barclays Risk appetite The degree to which one is willing to take risks and miss experiences.
Locus of control The extent to which an individual believes that his or her actions and behaviors determine the outcomes of external events.
Achievement motivation The level at which a person needs success for self-motivation and strives for excellence and recognition.
Self-efficacy The way in which people perceive their capability as the way in which they perform novel and difficult tasks and overcome adversity.
Autonomy as an attitude Attitudes toward the degree to which others need autonomy.
Autonomy as a necessity The degree to which a person needs independence and freedom to make decisions freely, especially regarding the expectations of his or her workplace.
Initiative The level of how a person behaves at work.
Innovation The level at which a person seeks novelty and complexity, being willing to embrace and drive change.
Entrepreneurial and Intrapreneurial Attitudes Model (Jain et al., 2015). Achievement orientation A driving force for successful entrepreneurship.
Risk taking An individual's ability to take calculated risks and meet achievable challenges.
Internal locus of control The personal belief about the influence a person has on outcomes through his or her ability (Rotter, 1966).
Innovation The tendency to engage and support new ideas, creative processes, and experimentation that can lead to new products, services, and technological processes (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
Proactivity An opportunity-seeking and forward-looking perspective that involves new products or services ahead of competitors and acting in anticipation of future demand to create change (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001).
Market orientation The generation of market intelligence concerning future customer needs, promoting horizontal and vertical intelligence within the organization (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).
Measuring Entrepreneurial Talent(META; Ahmetoglu & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013). Business creativity The ability to generate innovative business ideas.
Opportunism The tendency to detect new business opportunities.
Proactivity The tendency to be proactive about projects.
Vision The ability to look at the business globally and create business progress.
The Entrepreneurial Personality System(EPS; Obschonka & Stuetzer, 2017). Risk taking The probability or propensity of a person to take risks (Rauch & Frese, 2007a).
Internal locus of control Implies that one has the belief of controlling one's destiny and future (Rotter, 1966).
Self-efficacy The belief of being able to perform a certain action effectively (Rauch & Frese, 2007a).
Integral Model of Entrepreneurship (Suárez-Álvarez & Pedrosa, 2016). Autonomy The motivation for entrepreneurship as an attempt to achieve a certain individual freedom (Van Gelderen & Jansen, 2006).
Self-efficacy The conviction that one can organize and execute actions efficiently as well as persist when faced with obstacles to produce desired outcomes (Costa et al., 2013).
Innovation Willingness and interest in new ways of doing things (Rauch & Frese, 2007b).
Internal locus of control The causal attribution that the consequences of a behavior are dependent on oneself (Chell, 2008; Rauch & Frese, 2007b; Suárez-Álvarez et al., 2013).
Achievement motivation The desire to achieve standards of excellence (Rauch & Frese, 2007b; Suárez-Álvarez, Campillo-Álvarez, Fonseca-Pedrero, García-Cueto, & Muñiz, 2013).
Optimism A person's beliefs regarding the occurrence of positive rather than negative events in his or her life (Shepperd et al., 2002).
Stress tolerance Resilience to perceive environmental and stressful stimuli through the appropriate use of coping strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1986).
Risk taking The tendency and willingness of people to face certain levels of insecurity that will allow them to achieve a goal that presents benefits greater than the possible negative consequences (Moore & Gullone, 1996).

The last model presented in Table 1, by Suárez-Álvarez and Pedrosa (2016), establishes that eight personality traits are related to entrepreneurial activity. Suárez-Álvarez and Pedrosa (2016)consider that specific personality traits, influenced by more general personality traits, influence entrepreneurial creation and success, together with cognitive and affective variables within the person's sociocultural context (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Integral Model of Entrepreneurship (Suárez-Álvarez & Pedrosa, 2016). 

Here we present another model, based on that of Suárez-Álvarez and Pedrosa (2016), but adding some personal as well as contextual variables that have shown an important relationship with entrepreneurship in recent years (see, Figure 3). The model takes biology into account, so that genetics, physiology with hormones, and neuroscience with brain activity have shown certain correlational patterns in entrepreneurship (Lindquist et al., 2015; Nofal et al., 2021). Political and sociocultural norms are the broadest contextual level, where the laws, regulations, and taxes of each country or region come into play. In short, the facilities and difficulties faced by the person in the place where he or she wants to start a business. The family and the social environment of the person is also relevant in entrepreneurial activity. The family can be a source of inspiration for entrepreneurship or the opposite (Arregle et al., 2015; Erdogan et al., 2020). In turn, many entrepreneurs inherit family businesses, helping to overcome the difficulties of the first stages of the entrepreneurial path. Next, there is the person's current situation, both economically and in terms of employment. The economic level of the person and the work situation (having or not having a job, stability, salary, and satisfaction with the job and with the organization, etc.) are relevant variables when making the decision to become an entrepreneur or not. Once this has been contemplated, there is the personal part, characterized by the psychological variables relevant to entrepreneurial activity. The cognitive perspective (intelligence, creativity, and cognitive styles) and the affective perspective (emotional intelligence, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction) help to explain entrepreneurial creation and success. Finally, the importance of the personality of individuals is highlighted. This is considered both from the breadth of the domains, Big Five type, and the fidelity of the facets (including grit, self-control, and the eight traits of the model of Suárez-Álvarez and Pedrosa, 2016).

Figure 3. Updating of the Integral Model of Entrepreneurship. 

Within the whole model, it is worth highlighting the two traits that are added to the entrepreneurial personality: grit and self-control. Both traits are considered facets of the Big Five trait Conscientiousness, one of the general traits that has shown the strongest relationship with entrepreneurship (Zhao et al., 2010). Grit is the one that has experienced the greatest boom in recent years in the study of entrepreneurial activity.

Grit is a concept that was rebornin 2007, after a study by Duckworth et al. (2007). Grit is defined as passion and perseverance for long-term goals (Duckworth, 2016; Duckworth et al., 2007). Specifically, "grit involves working strenuously toward challenges, maintaining effort and interest for years despite failure, adversity, and stagnation in progress. The person with high levels of grit approaches achievement like a marathon; his or her advantage is endurance" (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1087). This construct is composed of two dimensions, perseverance of effort and consistency of interest. Duckworth et al. (2007)studied grit in different contexts (e.g. school and military), finding that it shows incremental validity of different measures of success (e.g. academic performance) over IQ and Conscientiousness of the Big Five model. Within the organizational context, grit predicts job satisfaction and pay, as well as job tenure (Danner et al., 2020; Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014; Farina et al., 2019; Salles et al., 2017). In the entrepreneurial context, grit predicts entrepreneurial creation and success (Arco-Tirado et al., 2019; Mooradian et al., 2016; Mueller et al., 2017; Postigo, Cuesta, & García-Cueto, 2021) in addition to the job performance of workers (Dugan et al., 2019; Jordan et al., 2019). The idea is that the entrepreneurial process is fraught with challenges (Cardon & Patel, 2015) and people with higher levels of grit are more likely to interpret obstacles as problems to be solved rather than reasons to quit (Southwick et al., 2021; Yeager & Dweck, 2020).

It goes without saying that the term grit has not come out of nowhere, but that other researchers in the business world had already spoken previously of the importance of passion, interest, and effort (e.g. Baum & Locke, 2004). In fact, Eskreis-Winkler et al. (2016, p. 380)note that "grit has a short history but a long past" and its origins go back to Galton and Cox's observation that perseverance and persistence are key characteristics shared by successful people.

Entrepreneurial Personality Assessment Instruments

In the past decade, the development of instruments that integrate the assessment of entrepreneurial personality traits in one single instrument has been dizzying. Table 2presents the main entrepreneurship assessment measurement instruments developed to date. First of all, it should be said that this Table 2is a continuation of the information provided by Suárez-Álvarez and Pedrosa (2016)where the authors presented seven entrepreneurial personality assessment instruments. Today, the table has doubled in size, which is good evidence of the boom of assessment in the field of entrepreneurship. These scales are oriented towards the evaluation of different groups such as adolescents (Muñiz et al., 2014; Oliver & Galiana, 2015), university students (Caird, 2006; Oliver & Galiana, 2015), and workers (Almeida et al., 2014; Cuesta et al., 2018; Robinson et al., 1991).

Table 2. Entrepreneurial Personality Measurement Instruments. 

Name Dimensions Items Reference
Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation [EAO]. Motivation, innovation, perceived personal control, and perceived self-esteem in business. 75 Robinson et al. (1991)
Entrepreneurial Aptitude Test [TAI in Italian]. Goal orientation, leadership, adaptation, achievement motivation, self-fulfillment, innovation, flexibility and autonomy. 75 Favretto et al. (2003)
Skills Confidence Inventory [SCI]. Realistic, investigative, artistic, social, entrepreneurial, and conventional. 60 Betz et al. (2005)
General Enterprising Tendency [GET2]. Need for achievement, autonomy, determination, risk-taking, and creativity. 54 Caird (2006)
Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire [EIQ]. Professional attractiveness, social valuation, and entrepreneurial capacity and intention. 20 Liñán & Chen (2006)
Cuestionario de Orientación Emprendedora [Entrepreneurial Orientation Questionnaire, COE in Spanish]. Locus of control, self-efficacy, risk propensity, and proactivity. 34 Sánchez, (2010)
Measure of Entrepreneurial Tendencies and Abilities [META]. Creativity, opportunism, proactivity, and vision. 44 Almeida et al. (2014)
Battery for the Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Personality in Youth (BEPE-J) Self-efficacy, autonomy, innovation, internal locus of control, achievement motivation, optimism, stress tolerance, and risk taking. 87 Muñiz et al. (2014)
Escala de Actitudes Emprendedoras para Estudiantes[Entrepreneurial Attitudes Scale for Students, EAEE in Spanish]. Proactivity, professional ethics, empathy, innovation, autonomy, and risk taking. 18 Oliver & Galiana (2015)
Entrepreneurial Mindset Profile [EMP]. Personality traits: Independence, limited structure, nonconformism, risk acceptance, action orientation, passion, and need for achievement. Skills: Future focus, idea generation, execution, self-confidence, optimism, persistence, and interpersonal sensitivity. 72 Davis et al. (2016)
High Entrepreneurship, Leadership and Professionalism Questionnaire [HELP]. Entrepreneurship, leadership, and professionalism. 9 Di Fabio et al. (2016)
Role Related Personal Profile [FLORA] Extraversion (Interaction, Multitasking, Initiative, Activism, Influence, Leadership, Autonomy). Sociability (Interpersonal sensitivity, Affection, Collaboration, Support, Positive affectivity). Conscientiousness (Reliability, Consistency, Accuracy, Deliberation, Achievement). Openness (Learning, Inventive, Deepening, Flexibility). Emotional stability (stress tolerance, frustration tolerance, self-control). 176 Sartori et al. (2016)
Batería para la Evaluación de la Personalidad Emprendedora[Battery for the Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Personality in Adults, BEPE-A in Spanish] Self-efficacy, autonomy, innovation, internal locus of control, achievement motivation, optimism, stress tolerance, and risk taking. 80 Cuesta et al. (2018)
MindCette Entrepreneurial Test [MCET]. Confidence, diligence, entrepreneurial desire, innovation, leadership, motivation, permanence, resilience, and self-control. 38 Shaver et al. (2019)

Note.Expanded and updated from Suárez-Álvarez and Pedrosa (2016).

What is striking is not so much the type of dimensions, but the disparity in the number of traits measured by each instrument. Thus, one could go from the HELP (Di Fabio et al., 2016) with only three dimensions to the EMP (Davis et al., 2016) with 14. Furthermore, the EMP stands out for its distinction between skills, such as idea generation, and between personality traits, such as the need for achievement, the latter being better predictors of entrepreneurial behavior. The instruments also differ in terms of the number of items, ranging from nine items (HELP; Di Fabio et al., 2016) to the 176 items of FLORA (Sartori et al., 2016). On the other hand, the only ones developed in Spain are the Cuestionario de Orientación Emprendedora[Entrepreneurial Orientation Questionnaire], the Escala de Actitudes Emprendedoras para Estudiantes[the Entrepreneurial Attitudes Scale for Students] and the Batería para la Evaluación de la Personalidad Emprendedora[Entrepreneurial Personality Assessment Battery], both in its version for adolescents and adults, although others have been translated and adapted from different cultures (Almeida et al., 2014; Caird, 2006; Liñán & Chen, 2006). In contrast, the FLORA (Sartori et al., 2016) was constructed from the Big Five perspective, but in turn, it breaks down each general trait into certain specific traits or facets (see Table 2). The MCET (Shaver et al., 2019) assesses ten dimensions; however, it lacks a detailed explanation of the instrument construction process. Finally, the BEPE-A (in adults, Cuesta et al., 2018), which originated as the BEPE-J (in youth, Muñiz et al., 2014), assesses eight specific personality traits.

Characteristics of the Entrepreneurial Personality Instruments

Now that the current instruments for measuring entrepreneurial personality have been identified, an indicative overall assessment of the quality of these instruments is produced according to the criteria established by the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations (EFPA) for the evaluation of tests (Evers et al., 2013) and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Assessment (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education [AERA, APA, NCME], 2014).

First, as indicated by Suárez-Álvarez and Pedrosa (2016), it is striking that, although some authors mention evidence of content validity, few provide data based on expert judgments and quantitative indicators (Pedrosa et al., 2014; Sireci & Faulkner-Bond, 2014). However, it is true that more recent measurement instruments seem to pay more attention to this aspect during the construction process (Davis et al., 2016; Di Fabio et al., 2016; Oliver & Galiana, 2015). Other aspects that have scarcely been contemplated are the study of differential item functioning (DIF) and measurement invariance. In the case of DIF, only the BEPE has taken it into account, both in its version for adolescents (Muñiz et al., 2014) and in its version for adults (Cuesta et al., 2018). Even more neglected is measurement invariance, since only the BEPE in its adult version has analyzed this psychometric aspect (Postigo et al., 2023). Both are essential, since they make it possible to identify, roughly speaking, whether the content of the items that make up the instrument is biased and, therefore, prejudices a certain group, whether men or women, young people or adults, entrepreneurs or non-entrepreneurs, among other possible populations (Pendergast et al., 2017; Sandilands et al., 2013; Zumbo, 2007). Finally, despite the advances enabled by item response theory (IRT) in psychological assessment (Van der Linden, 2016), it seems that only the BEPE in youth and adults has been developed based on this methodological framework, developing a computerized adaptive test in both populations (Pedrosa et al., 2016; Postigo, Cuesta et al., 2020). Finally, the instruments with a smaller number of items are the EIQ (Liñán & Chen, 2006) with 20 items, the EAEE (Oliver & Galiana, 2015) with 18, and the HELP-Q (Di Fabio et al., 2016) with nine items. However, these instruments, despite having few items, do not offer a total score of entrepreneurial personality, limiting themselves to assessing each of the dimensions of which they are composed with a small number of items. Of the instruments with a high number of items, the BEPE has been developed in a short version, which assesses entrepreneurial personality with 16 items, two items per specific dimension, with the aim of covering the greatest possible content of the eight entrepreneurial personality traits of which it is composed (BEPE-16; Postigo, García-Cueto et al., 2020). Table 3shows the strengths and weaknesses of each entrepreneurial personality assessment instrument mentioned above. With respect to Spain, there are currently at least six measuring instruments for assessing entrepreneurial personality, either developed in Spain or translated and adapted from other countries and cultures: EIQ (Liñán & Chen, 2006); COE (Sánchez, 2010); META (Almeida et al., 2014)., EAEE (Oliver & Galiana, 2015), and BEPE-J (Muñiz et al., 2014) and BEPE-A (Cuesta et al., 2018). It is important to highlight that, to our knowledge, the META offers only a translation of its items into Spanish, which is not enough to confirm its reliable and valid use in the Spanish context (Hernández et al., 2020; Muñiz et al., 2013).

Table 3. Psychometric Properties of the Different Entrepreneurial Personality Assessment Instruments. 

Test Reliability Evidence of validity: Content Evidence of validity: Construct Evidence of validity: Criterion DIF Measurement invariance TAI Short version Available in Spanish
EAO x x x x x x
CAT x x x x x x
SCI x x x x x
GET2 x x x x x x
EIQ x x x x x x
COE x x x x x x
META x x x x x
BEPE-J x x x
EAEE x x x x
EMP x x x x x
HELP x x x x x
FLORA x x x x x x
BEPE-A
MCET x x x x x x x

Present Limitations and Future Lines

The first limitation in the study of entrepreneurial personality is the difficulty in differentiating a person who starts a business because he or she wants to from the person who starts a business because he or she needs to, as the outcomes can be (and are) very different (Henrekson & Sanandaji, 2014). Future studies should differentiate innovative entrepreneurs, i.e., those who have a business idea and start it, from subsistenceentrepreneurs, who see entrepreneurship as the only possible way to join or rejoin the labor market (GEM, 2020, 2021; OCDE, 2019). It is recalled that more than 70% of Spaniards started a business in 2020 due to the lack of employment opportunities (GEM, 2021). Also, most studies focus only on what is known as the extra-entrepreneur (Rauch & Frese, 2007b) or "general entrepreneur"−someone who chooses to work for himself or herself rather than for others. However, as we have seen, the very definition of an entrepreneurial person includes other types of entrepreneurs (e.g., intrapreneur). Thus, a person may claim to be an employee, but in reality he or she is in charge of entrepreneurship and innovation within his or her company. Likewise, no distinction is usually made between extra-entrepreneurs, and the terms "entrepreneur" and "self-employed" are used interchangeably. Future studies should differentiate entrepreneurs by type of business (e.g. technology vs. franchise) and motivation for entrepreneurship (those who have had to become entrepreneurs due to unemployment or immigration vs. those who have not).

Secondly, and following a limitation already pointed out by Suárez-Álvarez and Pedrosa (2016), the data collected on the different samples tend to be obtained through self-reports. When employing this methodology, it is assumed that there may be certain biases on the part of the participants when answering the items. Two examples of these biases would be acquiescence (agreeing with the wording of the items) and social desirability (wanting to give a positive self-image), which have been shown to have some influence on personality testing (Ferrando & Navarro-González, 2021; Navarro-González et al., 2016; Vigil-Colet et al., 2013). In recent years, attempts have been made to propose solutions such as implicit association tests (IATs), which allow the assessment of attitudes and beliefs through the strength of the automatic association between mental representations of concepts in memory (Greenwald et al., 2009). However, these attempts seem not to have worked in the field of entrepreneurial personality (Martínez-Loredo et al., 2018). A possible future line in the assessment of entrepreneurial personality is the use of situational judgment and forced-choice tests (Abad et al., 2022; Kyllonen, 2015; Murano et al., 2021), which can be very useful in the complex contexts in which entrepreneurial personality is assessed (grant-giving entities, recruitment firms, etc.) where the influence of social desirability is evident.

Thirdly, the IATs assessing entrepreneurial personality to date (Pedrosa et al., 2016; Postigo, Cuesta et al., 2020) are based on a unidimensional model, leaving out important information regarding traits and facets. Future lines should be directed towards multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) models and develop a multidimensional computerized adaptive version, to enable an adaptive profile of entrepreneurial personality based on the IRT approach. Multidimensional adaptive assessment has been receiving special attention for some years now (Frey & Seitz, 2009; Reckase, 2009), and the generation of an algorithm to assess all specific traits in an adaptive manner is an interesting future line of research.

Fourthly, it appears that measurement invariance has only been studied in two groups in relation to age and to being an entrepreneur or not. With regard to age, only two groups were taken into account, with the cut-off point being 30 years of age (Postigo et al., 2023). Future data collection should take this aspect into account, studying measurement invariance and differences in entrepreneurial personality across the different stages of life (Zacher et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2021) or, at least, contemplating the age cut-off points set by major international reports such as the GEM report (18-24; 25-34; 35-44; 45-54; 55-64 years; GEM, 2020, 2021).

Finally, one of the limitations of most of the studies is that they have studied the entrepreneurial personality in a practically isolatedmanner, neglecting the cognitive, affective, and contextual variables of individuals. Future studies should include, on the one hand, other personal characteristics by addressing other approaches such as the aptitudinal or cognitive (Mitchell et al., 2021; Sternberg, 2004) and affective (Baron & Branscombe, 2017; Baron et al., 2012) and, on the other, contextual and biographical variables. Contemplating the seas in which the entrepreneur navigates becomes a fundamental task in order to understand well what drives entrepreneurs to start a business. Attention must be paid to factors such as the opportunities and resources available to the person, culture, laws, and even family influence, which are essential aspects in the study of the entrepreneur. Lastly, among the emerging topicson the subject of entrepreneurship (Cardon et al., 2021) are entrepreneurial teams. Entrepreneurship research has traditionally implied that a new venture is founded by a single person, whereas awareness is emerging that many companies are founded by entrepreneurial teams, formed by two or more individuals pursuing the same business idea (Breugst & Preller, 2021; Jin et al., 2017; Lazar et al., 2020). In view of all this, we will see what the field of entrepreneurial personality has in store for us in the next five years.

References

Abad, F. J., Kreitchmann, R. S., Sorrel, M. A., Nájera, P., García-Garzón, E., Garrido, L. E., & Jiménez, M. (2022). Construyendo Test adaptativos de elección forzosa “On The Fly” para la medición de la personalidad [Building adaptive forced choice tests “On The Fly” for personality measurement]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 43(1), 29-35. https://dx.doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol.2982 [ Links ]

AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Psychological Association. [ Links ]

Ahmetoglu, G., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013). Measuring Entrepreneurial Talent. Technical Manual. Metaprofiling Ltd. [ Links ]

Almeida, P. I. L., Ahmetoglu, G., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? The relationship between vocational interests and individual differences in entrepreneurship. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(1), 102-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713492923 [ Links ]

Antoncic, B., Bratkovic Kregar, T., Singh, G., & Denoble, A. F. (2015). The Big Five personality-entrepreneurship relationship: Evidence from Slovenia. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3), 819-841. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12089 [ Links ]

Arco-Tirado, J. L., Bojica, A., Fernández-Martín, F., & Hoyle, R. H. (2019). Grit as predictor of entrepreneurship and self-employment in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00389 [ Links ]

Arregle, J. L., Batjargal, B., Hitt, M. A., Webb, J. W., Miller, T., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). Family ties in entrepreneurs' social networks and new venture growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 313-344. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12044 [ Links ]

Baker, T., & Powell, E. (2021). Founder identity theory. En M. M. Gielnik, M. S. Cardon & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives (pp. 257-281). Routledge. [ Links ]

Baron, R. A., & Branscombe, N. (2017). Social psychology (14th ed.). Pearson. [ Links ]

Baron, Robert A., Hmieleski, K. M., & Henry, R. A. (2012). Entrepreneurs' dispositional positive affect: The potential benefits - and potential costs - of being “up”. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(3), 310-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.002 [ Links ]

Baum, J. R., Frese, M., Baron, R. A., Katz, J. A. (2007). Entrepreneurship as an area of Psychology study: An introduction. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 1-18). Lawrence Erlbaum. [ Links ]

Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.587 [ Links ]

Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (2005). Manual for the Skills Confidence Inventory (Revised Ed). Consulting Psychologists Press. [ Links ]

Blackie, L. E. R., Roepke, A. M., Forgeard, M. J. C., Jayawickreme, E., & Fleeson, W. (2014). Act well to be well: The promise of changing personality states to promote well-being. In A. C. Parks & S. M. Schueller (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychological interventions (pp. 462-473). Wiley-Blackwell. [ Links ]

Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880 [ Links ]

Brandstätter, H. (1997). Becoming an entrepreneur−A question of personality structure? Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 157-177. [ Links ]

Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 222-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007 [ Links ]

Breugst, N., & Preller, R. (2021). Opening the Black box of entrepreneurial team functioning. In M. M. Gielnik, M. S. Cardon, & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives (pp. 134-158). Routledge. [ Links ]

Caird, S. (2006). General measure of Enterprising Tendency version 2 (GET2). In T. Mazzarol (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and Innovation (pp. 247-266). Tilde University Press. [ Links ]

Cardon, M. S., & Patel, P. C. (2015). Is stress worth it? Stress-related health and wealth trade-offs for entrepreneurs. Applied Psychology, 64(2), 379-420. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12021 [ Links ]

Cardon, Melissa S., Shepherd, D. A., & Baron, R. (2021). The psychology of entrepreneurship: Looking 10 years back and 10 years ahead. In M. M. Gielnik, M. S. Cardon, & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives (pp. 566-591). Routledge. [ Links ]

Chell, E. (2008). The Entrepreneurial Personality: A Social Construction. Routledge. [ Links ]

Costa, H., Ripoll, P., Sánchez, M., & Carvalho, C. (2013). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy: Effects on psychological well-being in college students. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, e50. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.39 [ Links ]

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I [ Links ]

Cuesta, M., Suárez-Álvarez, J., Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Assessment of eight entrepreneurial personality dimensions: Validity evidence of the BEPE battery. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2352. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02352 [ Links ]

Dai, S., Li, Y., & Zhang, W. (2019). Personality traits of entrepreneurial top management team members and new venture performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 47(7), Article e8107. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8107 [ Links ]

Danner, D., Lechner, C. M., & Rammstedt, B. (2020). A cross-national perspective on the associations of grit with career success. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50(2), 185-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1617110 [ Links ]

Davis, M. H., Hall, J. A., & Mayer, P. S. (2016). Developing a new measure of entrepreneurial mindset: Reliability, validity, and implications for practitioners. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68(1), 21-48. [ Links ]

Dees, J., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. John Wiley & Sons. [ Links ]

Duckworth, A. (2016). The power of passion and perseverance. Scribner. [ Links ]

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 92(6), 1087-1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 [ Links ]

Dugan, R., Hochstein, B., Rouziou, M., & Britton, B. (2019). Gritting their teeth to close the sale: the positive effect of salesperson grit on job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 39(1), 81-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2018.1489726 [ Links ]

Erdogan, I., Rondi, E., & Massis, A. de (2020). Managing the tradition and innovation paradox in family firms: A family imprinting perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(1), 20-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719839712 [ Links ]

Eskreis-Winkler, L., Gross, J. J., & Duckworth, A. L. (2016). Grit: Sustained self-regulation in the service of superordinate goals. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory and Applications (pp. 380-395). Guilford. [ Links ]

Evers, A., Muñiz, J., Hagemeister, C., Hstmaelingen, A., Lindley, P., Sjöberg, A., & Bartram, D. (2013). Assessing the quality of tests: Revision of the EFPA review model. Psicothema, 25(3), 283-291. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.97 [ Links ]

Fabio, A. di, Bucci, O., & Gori, A. (2016). High Entrepreneurship, Leadership, and Professionalism (HELP): Toward an integrated, empirically based perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1842. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01842 [ Links ]

Farina, E. K., Thompson, L. A., Knapik, J. J., Pasiakos, S. M., McClung, J. P., & Lieberman, H. R. (2019). Physical performance, demographic, psychological, and physiological predictors of success in the US Army Special Forces Assessment and Selection course. Physiology y Behavior, 210, Article 112647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.112647 [ Links ]

Favretto, G., Pasini, M., & Sartori, R. (2003). Attitudine imprenditoriale e misura psicométrica: il TAI [Entrepreneurial attitude and psychometric measurement: the TAI]. Revista di Psicologia del Lavoro e dell´Organizzazione, 9, 271-282. [ Links ]

Ferrando, P. J., & Navarro-González, D. (2021). Reliability and external validity of personality test scores: The role of person and item error. Psicothema, 33(2), 259-267. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2020.346 [ Links ]

Fichter, L., Bernstorff, C. von, & Rohrmann, S. (2020). The necessity of targeted aptitude diagnostics for company founders: Relationships between personality traits, perceived stress, satisfaction, and performance. Heliyon, 6(9), Article e04987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04987 [ Links ]

Frese, M. (2009). Towards a psychology of entrepreneurship - An action theory perspective. Foundations and Trends ® in Entrepreneurship, 5(6), 437-496. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000028 [ Links ]

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23005-6 [ Links ]

Frese, M., & Gielnik, M. M. (2014). The Psychology of Entrepreneurship. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 413-438. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091326 [ Links ]

Frey, A., & Seitz, N. N. (2009). Multidimensional adaptive testing in educational and psychological measurement: Current state and future challenges. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35(2-3), 89-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.10.007 [ Links ]

Gartner, W. B. (1989). “Who is an entrepreneur?” Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(4), 47-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878901300406 [ Links ]

Gelderen, M. van, & Jansen, P. (2006). Autonomy as a start-up motive. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000610645289 [ Links ]

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor [GEM] (2020). Global report 2019/20. [ Links ]

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor [GEM] (2021). Global report 2020/21. [ Links ]

Gielnik, M. M., Cardon, M. S., & Frese, M. (2021). The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives. Routledge. [ Links ]

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007 [ Links ]

Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17-41. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015575 [ Links ]

Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2014). Small business activity does not measure entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(5), 1760-1765. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307204111 [ Links ]

Hernández, A., Hidalgo, M. D., Hambleton, R. K., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2020). International Test Commission guidelines for test adaptation: A criterion checklist. Psicothema, 32(3), 390-398. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.306 [ Links ]

Huang, Y., Foo, M., Murnieks, C. Y., & Uy, M. A. (2021). Mapping the heart: Trends and future directions for affect research in entrepreneurship. En M. M. Gielnik, M. S. Cardon & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives (pp. 54-85). Routledge. [ Links ]

Hussein, S. N. A., & Aziz, H. H. A. (2017). The Big Five personality dimensions as a predictor of entrepreneurial status in Egypt. International Journal Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 32(4), 423-443. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2017.087830 [ Links ]

Jain, R., Ali, S. W., & Kamble, S. (2015). Entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial attitudes: Conceptualization, measure development, measure test and model fit. Management and Labour Studies, 40(1-2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X15601529 [ Links ]

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700304 [ Links ]

Jin, L., Madison, K., Kraiczy, N. D., Kellermanns, F. W., Crook, T. R., & Xi, J. (2017). Entrepreneurial team composition characteristics and new venture performance: A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(5), 743-771. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12232 [ Links ]

John, O. P., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (1991). The Basic level in Personality-Trait hierarchies: Studies of trait use and accessibility in different contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 348-361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.348 [ Links ]

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to Big Five. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). The Guilford Press. [ Links ]

Jordan, S., Wihler, A., Hochwarter, W., & Ferris, G. (2019). The roles of grit in Human Resources theory and research. In M. Buckley, A. Wheeler, J. Baur, & J. Halbesleben (Eds.), Research in personnel and Human Resources management (pp. 53-88). Emerald Publishing Limited. [ Links ]

Kyllonen, P. C. (2015). Designing tests to measure personal attributes and noncognitive skills. In S. Lane, M. B. Raymond, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 190-211). [ Links ]

Lazar, M., Miron-Spektor, E., Agarwal, R., Erez, M., Goldfarb, E., & Chen, G. (2020). Entrepreneurial team formation. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 29-59. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0131 [ Links ]

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1986). Cognitive theories of stress and the issue of circularity. In M. H. Appley & R. Trumbull (Eds.), Dynamics of stress: Physiological, psychological, and social perspectives (pp. 63-80). Plenum Press. [ Links ]

Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 58-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.042 [ Links ]

Li, W.-D., Li, S., Feng, J., Wang, M., Zhang, H., Frese, M., & Wu, C.-H. (2021). Can becoming a leader change your personality? An investigation with two longitudinal studies from a role-based perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(6), 882-901. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000808 [ Links ]

Li, W., Feng, J. J., & Yu, K. (2021). Can entrepreneurship experiences change who you are? A three-wave longitudinal investigation. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2021.20 [ Links ]

Linden, W. van der (2016). Handbook of Item Response Theory, Vol. 1. Chapman & Hall/CRC. [ Links ]

Lindquist, M. J., Sol, J., & Praag, M. van (2015). Why do entrepreneurial parents have entrepreneurial children? Journal of Labor Economics, 33(2), 269-296. https://doi.org/10.1086/678493 [ Links ]

Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. (2006). Testing the entrepreneurial intention model on a two-country sample (06/7). Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona. [ Links ]

López-Núñez, M. I., Rubio-Valdehita, S., Aparicio-García, M. E., & Díaz-Ramiro, E. M. (2020). Are entrepreneurs born or made? The influence of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, Article 109699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109699 [ Links ]

Lumpkin, G. T. (2007). Intrapreneurship and innovation. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 237-264). Lawrence Erlbaum. [ Links ]

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568 [ Links ]

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00048-3 [ Links ]

Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002 [ Links ]

Martínez-Loredo, V., Cuesta, M., Lozano, L. M., Pedrosa, I., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Multifactor implicit measures to assess enterprising personality dimensions. Psicothema, 30(4), 357-363. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.204 [ Links ]

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215. [ Links ]

Mitchell, J. R., Israelsen, T., & Mitchell, R. K. (2021). Entrepreneurial cognition research - An update. In M. M. Gielnik, M. S. Cardon, & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives (pp. 23-52). Routledge. [ Links ]

Mooradian, T., Matzler, K., Uzelac, B., & Bauer, F. (2016). Perspiration and inspiration: Grit and innovativeness as antecedents of entrepreneurial success. Journal of Economic Psychology, 56, 232-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.08.001 [ Links ]

Moore, S., & Gullone, E. (1996). Predicting adolescent risk behavior using a personalized cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescent, 25(3), 343-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537389 [ Links ]

Mueller, B. A., Wolfe, M. T., & Syed, I. (2017). Passion and grit: An exploration of the pathways leading to venture success. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(3), 260-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.02.001 [ Links ]

Mumford, M. D., Elliott, S., & Martin, R. W. (2021). Intrapreneurship and firm innovation: Conditions contributing to innovation. In M. M. Gielnik, M. S. Cardon, & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives (pp. 160-190). Routledge. [ Links ]

Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R. K. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: Segunda edición [International Test Commission Guidelines for test translation and adaptation: Second edition]. Psicothema, 25(2), 151-157. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.24 [ Links ]

Muñiz, J., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Lozano, L. M., & Postigo, Á. (2019). Fomentar el espíritu emprendedor del alumnado: posible y necesario. Informe de evaluación nº 24, Consejería de Educación del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias. https://www.educastur.es/documents/10531/879356/2020-03+informe_evaluacion_N24_V04.pdf/57ee8e8f-9b04-437d-af53-2eb715595ec3Links ]

Muñiz, J., Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., & García-Cueto, E. (2014). Enterprising personality profile in youth: Components and assessment. Psicothema, 26(4), 545-553. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2014.182 [ Links ]

Murano, D., Lipnevich, A. A., Walton, K. E., Burrus, J., Way, J. D., & Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2021). Measuring social and emotional skills in elementary students: Development of self-report Likert, situational judgment test, and forced choice items. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, Article 110012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110012 [ Links ]

Navarro-González, D., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Vigil-Colet, A. (2016). How response bias affects the factorial structure of personality self-reports. Psicothema, 28(4), 465-470. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.113 [ Links ]

Nofal, A. M., Nicolaou, N., & Shane, S. (2021). The biology of entrepreneurship. En M. M. Gielnik, M. S. Cardon & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives (pp. 104-133). Routledge. [ Links ]

Obschonka, M., Duckworth, K., Silbereisen, R. K., & Schoon, I. (2012). Social competencies in childhood and adolescence and entrepreneurship in young adulthood: A two-study analysis. International Journal of Developmental Sciences, 6(3-4), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-2012-12108 [ Links ]

Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2012). Explaining entrepreneurial behavior: Dispositional personality traits, growth of personal entrepreneurial resources, and business idea generation. The Career Development Quarterly, 60, 178-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2012.00015.x [ Links ]

Obschonka, M., & Stuetzer, M. (2017). Integrating psychological approaches to entrepreneurship: The Entrepreneurial Personality System (EPS). Small Business Economics, 49(1), 203-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9821-y [ Links ]

OCDE (2019). SME and entrepreneurship outlook 2019. OCDE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/34907e9c-en [ Links ]

Oliver, A., & Galiana, L. (2015). Development and validation of the Escala de Actitudes Emprendedoras para Estudiantes (EAEE). Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18, e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.14 [ Links ]

Patchen, M. (1965). Some questionnaire measures of employee motivation and morale: A report on their reliability and validity. University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research. [ Links ]

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524-539. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524 [ Links ]

Pedrosa, I., Suárez-Álvarez, J., & García-Cueto, E. (2014). Content validity evidences: Theoretical advances and estimation methods. Acción Psicológica, 10(2), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.10.2.11820 [ Links ]

Pedrosa, I., Suárez-Álvarez, J., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2016). A computerized adaptive test for enterprising personality assessment in youth. Psicothema, 28(4), 471-478. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.68 [ Links ]

Pendergast, L. L., Embse, N. von der, Kilgus, S. P., & Eklund, K. R. (2017). Measurement equivalence : A non-technical primer on categorical multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.002 [ Links ]

Postigo, Á., Cuesta, M., & García-Cueto, E. (2021). Personalidad emprendedora, responsabilidad, autocontrol y grit: El lado psicológico del autoempleo [Entrepreneurial personality, responsibility, self-control, and grit: The psychological side of self-employment]. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 37(2), 361-370. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.453711 [ Links ]

Postigo, Á., Cuesta, M., García-Cueto, E., Prieto-Díez, F., & Muñiz, J. (2021). General versus specific personality traits for predicting entrepreneurship. Personality and Individual Differences, 182, Article 111094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111094 [ Links ]

Postigo, Á., Cuesta, M., Pedrosa, I., Muñiz, J., & García-Cueto, E. (2020). Development of a computerized adaptive test to assess entrepreneurial personality. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 33(6), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-020-00144-x [ Links ]

Postigo, Á., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., Menéndez-Aller, Á., Prieto-Díez, F., & Lozano, L. M. (2020). Assessment of the enterprising personality: A short form of the BEPE battery. Psicothema, 32(4), 575-582. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2020.193 [ Links ]

Postigo, Á., García-Cueto, E., Muñiz, J., González-Nuevo, C., & Cuesta, M. (2023). Measurement invariance of entrepreneurial personality in relation to sex, age, and self-employment. Current Psychology, 42, 3160-3170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01685-9 [ Links ]

Praag, C. M. van, & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9074-x [ Links ]

Ramoglou, S., Gartner, W. B., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2020). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is (still) the wrong question. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13, Article e00168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00168 [ Links ]

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007a). Born to be an entrepreneur? Revisiting the personality approach to entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 41-65). Lawrence Erlbaum. [ Links ]

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007b). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701595438 [ Links ]

Rauch, A., & Gielnik, M. M. (2021). Evidence-based entrepreneurship. In M. M. Gielnik, M. S. Cardon, & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives (pp. 487-510). Routledge. [ Links ]

Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory models. Springer. [ Links ]

Robinson, P. B., Stimpson, D. V, Huefner, J. C., & Hunt, H. K. (1991). An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(4), 13-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101500405 [ Links ]

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28. [ Links ]

Sahinidis, A. G., Tsaknis, P. A., Gkika, E., & Stavroulakis, D. (2020). The influence of the Big Five personality traits and risk aversion on entrepreneurial intention. In A. Kavoura, E. Kefallonitis, & P. Theodoridis (Eds.), Strategic Innovative Marketing and Tourism (pp. 215-224). Springer, Cham. [ Links ]

Salles, A., Lin, D., Liebert, C., Esquivel, M., Lau, J. N., Greco, R. S., & Mueller, C. (2017). Grit as a predictor of risk of attrition in surgical residency. The American Journal of Surgery, 213(2), 288-291. [ Links ]

Salmony, F. U., & Kanbach, D. K. (2021). Personality trait differences across types of entrepreneurs: A systematic literature review. Review of Managerial Science, 16, 713-749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00466-9 [ Links ]

Sánchez, J. C. (2010). Evaluation of entrepreneurial personality: Factorial validity of entrepreneurial orientation questionnaire (COE). Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologia, 42(1), 41-52. [ Links ]

Sandilands, D., Oliveri, M. E., Bruno, D., & Ercikan, K. (2013). Investigating sources of differential item functioning in international large-scale assessments using a confirmatory approach. International Journal of Testing, 13(2), 152-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2012.690140 [ Links ]

Sartori, R., Ceschi, A., Costantini, A., & Scalco, A. (2016). Big Five for work and organizations: FLORA (Role Related Personal Profile), an Italian personality test based on the Five-Factor Model and developed for the assessment of candidates and employees. Quality & Quantity, 50(5), 2055-2071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0250-9 [ Links ]

Schoon, I., & Duckworth, K. (2012). Who becomes an entrepreneur? Early life experiences as predictors of entrepreneurship. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1719-1726. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029168 [ Links ]

Shane, S., Nicolaou, N., Cherkas, L., & Spector, T. D. (2010). Genetics, the Big Five, and the tendency to be self-employed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1154-1162. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020294 [ Links ]

Shaver, K. G., Wegelin, J., & Commarmond, I. (2019). Assessing entrepreneurial mindset: Results for a new measure. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 10(2), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2019-0014 [ Links ]

Shepperd, J. A., Carroll, P., Grace, J., & Terry, M. (2002). Exploring the causes of comparative optimism. Psychologica Belgica, 42(1/2), 65-98. [ Links ]

Sireci, S., & Faulkner-Bond, M. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema, 26(1), 100-107. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.256 [ Links ]

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The Next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117-143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096 [ Links ]

Southwick, D. A., Tsay, C., & Duckworth, A. L. (2021). Grit at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 39, Article 100126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2020.100126 [ Links ]

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Successful intelligence as a basis for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00006-5 [ Links ]

Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.145 [ Links ]

Suárez-Álvarez, J. (2015). Evaluación de la personalidad emprendedora[Assessment of entrepreneurial personality]. Tesis. Universidad de Oviedo. [ Links ]

Suárez-Álvarez, J., Campillo-Álvarez, Á., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2013). Professional training in the workplace: The role of achievement motivation and locus of control. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.19 [ Links ]

Suárez-Álvarez, J., & Pedrosa, I. (2016). Evaluación de la personalidad emprendedora: Situación actual y líneas de futuro [Assessment of entrepreneurial personality: Current situation and future directions]. Papeles del Psicologo, 37(1), 62-68. [ Links ]

Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2014). Screening enterprising personality in youth: An empirical model. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, E60. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.61 [ Links ]

Ubfal, D., Arraiz, I., Beuermann, D., Frese, M., Maffioli, A., & Verch, D. (2019). The impact of soft-skills training for entrepreneurs in Jamaica. IZA Institute of Labor Economics. Unpublished Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3374406 [ Links ]

Vigil-Colet, A., Morales-Vives, F., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). How social desirability and acquiescence affect the age-personality relationship. Psicothema, 25(3), 342-348. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2012.297 [ Links ]

Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016). Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: An institutional perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 216-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.10.003 [ Links ]

Walter, S. G., & Heinrichs, S. (2015). Who becomes an entrepreneur? A 30-years-review of individual-level research. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 22(2), 225-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-09-2012-0106 [ Links ]

Weers, K. J., & Gielnik, M. M. (2021). Entrepreneurship training and transfer. In M. M. Gielnik, M. S. Cardon, & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives (pp. 429-460). Routledge. [ Links ]

Wortman, M. S. (1987). Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical research in the field. Journal of Management, 13(2), 259-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638701300205 [ Links ]

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies? American Psychologist, 75(9), 1269-1284. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000794 [ Links ]

Zacher, H., Mensmann, M., & Gielnik, M. M. (2019). Aging and entrepreneurship: A psychological perspective. In M. Karlsson, M. Backman, & O. Kekezi (Eds.), Handbook on entrepreneurship and aging (pp. 228-245). Edward Elgar Publishing. [ Links ]

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259-271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.259 [ Links ]

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(2), 381-404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309335187 [ Links ]

Zhao, Hao, Connor, G. O., Wu, J., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2021). Age and entrepreneurial career success: A review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(1), Article 106007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106007 [ Links ]

Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701375832 [ Links ]

Cite this article as:Postigo, A., Cuesta, M., & García-Cueto, E. (2023). What’s new in entrepreneurial personality assessment? Papeles del Psicólogo/Psychologist Papers, 44(3), 132-144. https://doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol.3020

Received: November 23, 2022; Accepted: March 24, 2023

Correspondence: postigoalvaro@uniovi.es

Conflic of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License