Acta Universitatis Danubius. Œconomica, Vol 15, No 1 (2019)

Cape Town: Exploring the Effect of Cultural Values on Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy among University Students

Vivence Kalitanyi¹

Abstract: Various studies suggest that research on entrepreneurship places a greater emphasis on the role of culture, as it affects all aspects of human being. Cultural values are perceived as a shared interpretation of bahaviour as well as actual differences in behaviours, while entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) is best seen as a multidimensional construct made of individuals’ beliefs about their abilities and capabilities for tackling the challenges and nurture entrepreneurial intentions towards starting a new business. This study discussed both concepts of cultural values and self-efficacy with an intention to determine whether the former has an impact on the later in the Cape Town environment. The insufficiency of references in entrepreneurial undertakings in South Africa was the main reason to conduct the current study. A deductive approach was adopted and a purposive sample of 274 entrepreneurship students from four universities in Cape Town was analysed using bivariate and multivariate tests of statistical significance. Cronbach’s Alpha was used to measure the reliability of the research instrument. Unlike religion, other variables of culture – language and customs & traditions – were found to have impact on self-efficacy. Considering the unit of analysis of the study, as well as the role of self-efficacy, University management should think about designing courses and modules that enhance self-efficacy. The findings reveal what culture can do for entrepreneurship, but contests the view that all its variables support self-efficacy.

Keywords: cultural values; entrepreneurial self-efficacy; university students; Cape Town

JEL Classification: L26

1. Introduction

From a broader perspective, insufficiencies in self-beliefs (in this article, both concepts of self-efficacy and self-belief are used interchangeably) affect negatively the entrepreneurial activity in South Africa (Urban, 2006). It is therefore imperative that potential entrepreneurs perceive themselves capable and psychologically equipped to succeed in entrepreneurial venture. Self-beliefs, self-assurance, self-awareness and feelings of empowerment are essential for both social learning (acquisition of appropriate positive attitudes) and social confidence (belief in one’s idea and waiting to take it forward), and defines it as one’s ability to perform certain activities successfully (European commission, 2012). Much research have been done on self-efficacy and its impact on entrepreneurial behaviour. For example, (Urban, 2012; Forbes, 2005; Bradley & Roberts, 2004) alluded that previous studies have been consistent on the fact that self-efficacy leads to entrepreneurial orientation.

A study conducted by Bird (1988) on intentionality, has been refined by Boyd and Vozikis, 1994), and both studies supported the argument that self-efficacy does impact on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and other actions. Furthermore, Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud (2000) claim that learned attitudes such as self-efficacy is vital for the field of entrepreneurial behaviour, while other authors seem to inflate its scope of influence and generalise that its importance embraces all endeavours of human beings.

Culture has been considered as a source of self-efficacy. For example, Bandura (1995) referred to culture as a source of self-efficacy, and claimed that culture may affect not only the type of information provided by the various sources, but also which information is selected and how it is weighted and integrated in people’s self-efficacy judgements. By this statement, Bandura clearly highlights the relationship between culture and self-efficacy.

However, the way self-efficacy can come about has been neglected, thereby opening doors for researchers and academics alike, to write more on the topic. Hence, (Stevens & Gist, 1997; Vesper & McMullan, 1997; Earley, 1994, Gist & Mitchell, 1992) outlined that self-efficacy can be developed through training and modelling. Conducting this study, is therefore increasing the amount of literature in the field in an attempt to bring clarification on the topic, while responding to calls by (McGee, Peterson, Mueller & Sequeira, 2009) that more research on Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE) are needed in order to understand causal directions and see how it can be related to venture performance.

It is from this perspective that the current study finds its justification, with the aim to investigate how cultural values such as language, religion and traditions affect the individuals’ self-efficacies. Arising from this aim, the study can formulate the following hypotheses:

H1: The language frequently spoken by entrepreneurship students positively affect their entrepreneurial self-efficacy;

H2: The religion of entrepreneurship students positively affects their entrepreneurial self-efficacy;

H3: Customs and traditions of entrepreneurship students positively affect their entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

In South Africa, a few studies on self-efficacy have made recommendations geared towards enhancement of self-efficacy. For example, (Krueger et al., 2000) recommend that government initiatives can yield positive results only if they are perceived in a way that influences entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions. They go further and articulate that education as well as training should focus not only on technical and managerial competencies, but also on people’s self-efficacies.

As articulated by Luthans, Stajkovic and Ibrayeva (2000), many people from emerging economies who might have the aspiration to behave entrepreneurially, are not doing so, due to the lack of self-belief and the necessary entrepreneurial skills. The same occurrence is observed in South Africa, where this lack of “can-do” attitude is prevailing with aspiring entrepreneurs having a low self-belief, lack of experience, inadequate education and lack of access to finance and business oriented-networks (Herrington, Kew & Kew, 2010; Urban, 2006).

In their study, Lenartowicz & Roth (2001) show how culture influences self-efficacy and how some cultures put high importance on motivational domains, including self-efficacy while influencing the person’s cognitions and beliefs. Similarly, (Urban, 2012; Bandura, 2001, 1997, 1986; Bird, 1989; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998) indicate that self-efficacy is based on tenants of social cognitive (SCT) which favours the concept of interaction where behaviour, personal factors and environmental influences all operate interactively as determinants of each other. As a result, individuals with higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy perceive their environment as more opportunistic and become more confident of using that perception to achieve their goals (Urban, 2012; De Noble, Jung & Ehrlich, 1999; Chen, Greene & Crick, 1998).

The figure below represents the study model, where the independent variable of cultural values is operationalized through language, religion, customs and traditions to investigate its impact on dependent variable of self-efficacy.

Language

Cultural values Religion Self-efficacy?

Customs & traditions

Figure 1

Source: Author’s notes

• Arrangement of the study

This article is arranged in the following way: the next section reviews the literature on cultural values, as well as self-efficacy. The methodology section will follow, before findings are presented and analysed. The conclusion and recommendations will end the article.

2. Theoretical Overview

2.1. Cultural Values

In recent years, researchers, educators, psychologists as well as social scientists have paid a particular attention to the importance of cultural values and their influence on people’s behaviours and lifestyles and concluded that society’s performance and actions are driven by cultural values (McFeeters & Bennett, 2013). However, each discipline has defined cultural values from its own perspective, while different methods have been used to measure and study cultural values that are specific to it.

Cultural values are defined as the beliefs, symbols, specific norms and personal values that are shared by people in a society (McFeeters & Bennett, 2017). Similarly, Sagiv & Schwartz, 2007; 2000; Schwartz, 2007; 2004; 1999) refer to cultural values as guidelines that describe how people behave and how organisations should perform.

Previous study by Schwartz (1999) had stated that cultural values tell people, policy-makers as well as organisational managers how to behave, as well as serving them as guiding principles for their lives. Schwartz (2010) makes a distinction between western values and socialist values. He asserts that western values promote success, self-assertion and drive, thereby being competitive and confrontational. Socialist societies are opposite, where in some countries, cultural values emphasis is more on cooperation, equality and concern for others. Concerning African indigenous societies and their cultural values, (Tondi, 2016; Davidson, 1994) ascertain that prior to the encounter between European and African cultures, African cultural values provided them with …” a confident sense of exercising a real control over their lives”. According to McFeeters (2013), various cultures are at liberty to interpret their cultural values depending on what they deem important for them.

In his study on cultural values, Hofstede (2001) covered more than 50 countries and settled on five dimensions of values that constitute each culture:

• Power distance;

• Uncertainty avoidance;

• Individualism vs. collectivism;

• Masculinity vs. femininity, and

• Long term orientation.

For the purpose of the current study, the dimension of long-term orientation is more relevant as it suggests that cultures with long-term orientation are very fugal and encourage their members and children to work hard. Similarly, (Kalitanyi & Bbenkele, 2017; Stevens, 2013; Bandura, 2004) posit that when individuals receive realistic boost through verbal messages and social encouragements, it can lead to people believing in themselves, exerting greater efforts, which increases chances of success.

As rightly put, (Tondi, 2016; Vilakazi, 2001), the issue of cultural values is complex and efforts inhibiting in some instances in Africa. There is on one side, indigenous Africa that is characterised by the essence of values, morality and philosophy, wisdom, culture as well as political philosophy of African civilisation. On the other side, this set of values has to coexist with another culture that has its ethos without any link with African village.

The cultural values that have been used in the current study are language, religion, customs and traditions and will be analysed to assess their impact on self-efficacy of entrepreneurship University students in Cape Town. A similar research that has been conducted in Turkey by Altinay (2008) used language, religion and education and ascertains that these cultural attributes have a huge contribution in developing abilities that are required in keeping the venture alive. The current study aims to test whether these cultural components will show similar results in South African environment. The following paragraphs drawn from a study by, Hofstede, Noorderhaven, Thurik, Uhlaner, Wennekers, & Wildeman (2004) highlight two forms of alternatives in which cultural influence may be exercised. They are relevant to the current study and contribute to its contextualisation:

Firstly, there is a positive aggregate effect, which would take place when culture shapes economic and social institutions, thereby strengthening the people’s beliefs.

In South Africa, a closer look on cultural settings and the resulting effects, would lead to conclude that economic and social institutions are shaped by the culture. Therefore, the current study will prove the relevance of this statement concerning how people’s beliefs are strengthened by their cultures.

Secondly, where culture is relatively unfavourable for entrepreneurship, “dissatisfied” individuals would seek personal realisations that foster their beliefs leading to self-employment.

The above statement is also true in South Africa, a country where culture - in many segments of the population – does not seem to be favouring entrepreneurial initiatives. Simultaneously, some individuals consider themselves excluded due to their cultural backgrounds, thereby pushing them into nurturing their beliefs for self-employment.

2.2. Link between Culture and Self-Efficacy

As mentioned earlier, Bandura (1995) ascertains that culture is a source of self-efficacy. This relationship should be viewed from a number of perspectives such as being the spring of self-efficacy as well as an instrument for identification and processing of correct and useful information.

In the view of Bandura (1997; 1986), self-efficacy is partially socially constructed, but this construction is hugely impacted on national culture. Hopp and Stephan (2012) postulate that community-level cultural norms (performance-based culture and socially supportive institutional norms) affect some major supply-side variables such as entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial motivation. In contrast, Urban (2006) argues that little evidence exists between both constructs (culture and self-efficacy), and with no surprise, this affirmation still stands even more than a decade later.

Bandura posits that individuals do live their lives neither entirely interdependently nor entirely autonomously in their communities. They rather live in both personal and collective affects. Therefore, their reactive emphasis will depend mostly on which affect they are raised in. This can therefore justify a low level of entrepreneurial spirit, and perhaps a lower level of self-efficacy, a situation that will be confirmed at the end of this study. Stevens (2013); Orford, Wood and Herrington (2004) ascertain that peoples’ beliefs in their own abilities and skills to succeed, is an important tool to start a business and this measure is low in South Africa. Bandura argues further that not only self-efficacy beliefs are shaped by cultural embeddedness, but also, the purpose to which they are put, and the social structure arrangements through which they are best exercised.

Erez & Earley (1993) attest that cross-cultural studies have concluded to the general value of efficacy beliefs. Hence, a year later, Earley (1994) advances that a strong perceived efficacy fosters both individual and societal performances in their endeavours. Additionally, Earley (1994) claimed that self-efficacy is influenced by a variety of sources of information that are more or less persuasive due to personal cultural values.

2.3. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy

In similar fashion, Urban (2006) and Bandura (1997) define self-efficacy as one’s level of confidence in performing specific tasks and it is at the centre of the cognitive motivator that predicts the behaviour, while Ajzen (1987) refers to self-efficacy as the person’s beliefs in his/her ability to execute a targeted behavior.

Krueger (1993) has emphasized the role of self-efficacy as defined by the European commission above, and Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud (2000) pointed out that previous studies have identified self-efficacy as a key contributor to entrepreneurial intentions, either directly or indirectly through influencing perceived feasibility. Markaman, Balkin & Baron (2002) append that some recent studies have related self-efficacy to the pursuit of entrepreneurial activity, perseverance in difficult fields and personal effectiveness and associated with greater work satisfaction (Bradley & Roberts, 2004). All these studies have been conducted in an environment other than South Africa. By undertaking the current study, we aim to verify whether the same conclusions can also be reached.

“Self-efficacy reflects the individual’s innermost thoughts on whether they have the abilities perceived as necessary to afford a task, as well as the belief that they will be able to translate those skills into a chosen outcome” (Bandura, 1997). Similarly, other researchers have noted that self-efficacy motivates people throughout their lives, rather than by objective ability, and that our perceptions affect both our affective states and our behaviours (Markham et al., 2002).

Because Krueger and Brazeal (1994) considered self-efficacy as the alleged personal ability to execute target behaviour - that is attribution of personal competence and control - they deduced that self-efficacy is conceptually and empirically allied to attribution theory that experienced a spectacular growth interest in entrepreneurship field.

How to Promote Self-Efficacy

Promoting self-efficacy is more than teaching competencies, where students or trainees should fully incorporate those competencies through perceived mastery. Therefore, learning institutions or governments should provide credible models of critical behaviours, taking into account that non-credible models can result in reduction of self-efficacy (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). Psychological and emotional support will also boost self-efficacy. Importantly, and consistently with the current study, Kourilsky (1995) and Dyer (1994) advanced that self-efficacy can be enhanced through social persuasion, or from the positive encouragement and feedback that individuals are given by lecturers, facilitators and instructors, through entrepreneurship programmes.

Kalitanyi and Bbenkele (2017); Stevens (2013) and Bandura (2004) append that when individuals receive realistic boost through verbal messages and social encouragements, it can lead to people exerting greater efforts, which increases chances of entrepreneurial success. These opinions will be enhanced by the recommendations towards the end of this article.

Role of self-efficacy

In order to achieve their goals and objectives, it is crucially important that people become confident that they possess the skills and abilities needed to perform all the necessary tasks, particularly self-efficacy (Hopp & Stephan, 2012). Evidence throughout a number of populations and research fields such as academic achievement, health behaviours to work performance as well as methodological approaches, have all been consistent on the fact that efficacy beliefs are significantly contribute to motivation and performance (Hopp & Stephan, 2012, Bandura & Locke, 2003).

Consistent with this view, the creation and operation of a venture need a substantial confidence into the individuals’ abilities to face the challenges and persevere when faced with difficulties and obstacles (Hopp & Stephan, 20012; Markam & Baron, 2003). Townsend, Busenitz & Arthurs, 2010) append that self-efficacy has been found to be predictive of progress in establishment of an operational venture.

Self-efficacy is regarded as one of the determinant of whether people achieve their goals The European commission (2012) stipulates that self-efficacy helps to determine a number of crucial issues in the realisation of an objective, including the amount of time and effort, the level of perseverance and how resilient they can be when faced with obstacles. It represents serious cognitive bias because it leads to the false perception of a very low possibility of failure, while it is an important prerequisite for entrepreneurial actions.

In their study in East Germany, Utsch, Rauch, Rothfufs, & Frese (1999) concluded that self-efficacy, or belief in one’s ability to succeed and control rejection of outside forces, is the major difference between managers and entrepreneurs. Chen, Greene & Crick (1998) report that self-efficacy’s importance on students is that it instils in them the skills needed to plan and make strategic decisions, regardless of their personality traits, while it helps potential entrepreneurs to ensure that they follow through with their intentions.

Similarly, Krueger and Brazeal (1994, p. 94) posited that self-efficacy is closely associated with initiating perseverance in behaviour under high uncertainty, to setting higher goals and to reducing threat rigidity and learned helplessness. “No self-efficacy, no behaviour”, affirm Krueger & Brazeal (1994). Bandura & Wood (1989) append and claim that self-efficacy contributes to the reduction of behavioural rigidity in the face of threats, while it fortifies persistence and performance in the face of harsh conditions.

Self-efficacy predicts opportunity recognition (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). Therefore, it is not surprising that self-efficacy perceptions appear central to intentions of entrepreneurship (Scherer, Adams, Carley, & Wiebe, 1989). In the view of Stevens (2013) and Bandura (1997), self-efficacy in our abilities comes from four key sources:

Mastery experiences: it is regarded as the most efficient way of implanting a strong sense of efficacy through personal successes. People interpret it as a result of one’s past performance (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000, p. 216), and more importantly, experience of overcoming obstacles through perseverance and build a robust efficacy.

Social Modelling: having people similar to oneself who succeed through by perseverant efforts raises observer’s beliefs in their own abilities (Bandura, 2004). Bandura’s opinion came as a contrast to Boyd and Vozikis’ (1994) opinion that learning vicariously provides a slightly less effective method of strengthening self-efficacy than personal mastery.

Social persuasion: where individuals receive realistic boosts through verbal messages and social encouragement it can lead to people exerting greater effort, which increases chances of success. This results in the continued development of skills and of personal efficacy (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000).

Judgments of our own physiological states: are also seen to influence efficacy. While assessing individual capabilities, people often consider partly their own perceptions of their physiological situations. Emotional stimulation and tension may be interpreted as indicators of vulnerability to poor performance (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994).

For the purpose of this study, only social persuasion as part of socio-cultural aspects is discussed. Other socio-cultural aspects fall outside the scope of the study.

3. Methodology

3.1. The Research Approach

The research approach used for this study was hypothetico-deductive method. This method suggests that researcher formulates hypotheses to be tested by the observable data. For the purpose of the current study, statistical operations (bivariate analysis, Anova and Chi-Sqaure for nominal data) were performed in order to test specific hypotheses towards accepting or rejecting them. The following are the steps through which the study was conducted:

• The literature review on cultural values, link between culture and self-efficacy, how to support self-efficacy and role of self-efficacy.

• The questionnaire was designed before its pilot-test.

• Collection of data was done in classrooms from entrepreneurship students.

• Data were captured with the use of SPSS22 to generate the statistical data.

• Lastly, the data were analysed and interpreted.

3.2. Research Design

According to Bless, Higson-Smith & Kagee (2006), research design relates directly to the testing of hypotheses, while being a specification of the most adequate tasks to be performed in order to test those specific hypotheses under given conditions. In this process, a researcher should ask himself the question of “What steps should be taken in order to demonstrate that a particular hypothesis is true and that all others must be rejected?” The following sections describe the steps undertaken during the process of conducting this study.

3.3. Research Strategy

The research strategy adopted by the current study was a survey-correlational. Neuman (2005, p. 250) argued that a survey is often called correlational, while Babbie and Mouton (2001) posit that a survey usually adopts both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. This type of study makes use of sample from a population and analyse the data using statistics to make inferences about it. This study also used both methodologies, with statistical data to make it more accurate. For the purpose of this study, the researcher out to figure out –through statistical analysis - whether cultural values have impact on university students’ self-efficacy.

3.4. Questionnaire Construction

For the purpose of the current study, the questionnaire construction followed the model of Willemse (2009, pp. 15-17), suggesting that the structure of the questionnaire should ensure a logical flow from question to question, and that any radical jumps between topics will tend to confuse, derail or disorient the respondents and will influence the answers given.

During the process of designing the questionnaire, aspects such as complexity, length, layout and wording were given a particular attention, taking into account, Baker’s (2003) argument that effective communication depends on the design and phrasing of the questions. After designing the questionnaire, a pilot test was conducted to check whether the questionnaire was ready for application.

For the purpose of the current study, preliminary data for developing the questionnaire were collected using face-to-face interview from both entrepreneurship lecturers and students. Furthermore, an already used questionnaire was identified, and together with the data collected from lecturers and students, a new questionnaire was compiled with the following main sections:

• Administrative part: date, name, address;

• Classification part: age, gender, race, marital status, occupation;

• Subject matter if inquiry (questions).

3.5. Determination of the Population

The process of determining the population started with the researcher making numerous contacts with relevant personalities from the universities that were the units of investigation of the study, in order to find out the total number of students doing entrepreneurship programme. Those contacts resulted in the figures reflected in the table below:

Table 1. Determination of the population

3.6. Determination of the Sample

The determination of the correct sample is crucial to avoid a waste of time and money that may result in taking larger sample. At the same time, researchers need to avoid smaller sample that may not be representative, thereby rendering findings inconclusive (Willemse, 2009). Below are the three main factors on which the correct sample depends according to Willemse (2009).

1. The level of confidence desired – this as selected by the researcher

2. The variability in the population being studied – so if the population is widely dispersed, a large sample is required, while a small dispersion would require a smaller sample.

3. The maximum allowable error (E) – this is the maximum amount a point estimate should - in the opinion of the researcher - differ above or below the parameter being estimated, i.e. the difference between the sample mean and the population mean.

In a similar vein, and in accordance with The Research Advisors (2006), it is possible to use one of the sample calculation formulae to construct a table that suggests the optimal sample size – given a population size, a specific margin of error, and a desired confidence interval. Below is also a formula that, according to Researcher Advisors (2006) is used in the calculation of the sample size.

Formula for sample calculation according to The Research Advisors (2006)

Where: n= sample size

X²=Chi – Square for the specified confidence level at one degree of freedomN= Population size

P= Population proportion (.50 in the table above)

ME= Desired margin of error (expressed as proportion)

Thus, for the purpose of the current study, the four universities that were the units of investigation had a total of ± 966 entrepreneurship students and students doing programmes involving entrepreneurship modules. With a 95% confidence level considered, together with a margin error of 5%, a sample of between 260 and 278 was considered sufficient as suggested by Research Advisers (2006). Hence, the researcher settled on 270 as the sample for the study.

Table 2. Population and sample

3.7. Data Collection

The process of distributing the questionnaires, and have them completed and returned is described in the following paragraphs.

At UCT, the researcher was granted permission to use the students as respondents, after which the data was collected. At the University of Stellenbosch Business School (USB), the researcher got assistance from administrative staff who distributed the questionnaires to all 40 MBA students. These questionnaires were filled in self-administered format, and returned them to the administrator, from whom they were collected by the researcher. At US main campus, the researcher physically collected data from 82 students after liaising with one of the lecturers. Eighty-one questionnaires were successfully completed.

At UWC, after scheduling a meeting between the lecturer and the researcher, data collection took place when a total number of 52 students were in class and all completed the questionnaires.

At CPUT, the process of questionnaire distribution, data collection and questionnaire collection was completed in collaboration between the researcher and four different lecturers from the entrepreneurship department. They all received, distributed and collected the 335 completed questionnaires from the students.

3.8. Data Analysis and Interpretation

The collected data was coded by means of the Statistical Program for Social Science (SPSS, version 22). The SPSS was utilised to generate the descriptive statistics, as well as correlation statistics. Then descriptive statistics were compiled with the help of Univariate Analysis (frequency tables, pie chart and histograms), while correlation was done by using a combination of factor analysis (Bivariate analysis), analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square for nominal data (Multivariate analysis).

4. Findings

4.1. Regression Analysis

The formula for regression equation as used in this article is: (y) = a+bx

Where: x and y are the variables

b= the slope of the regression line

a= the intercept point of the regression line and the y axis

Table 4.1. Regression between language and self-efficacy

The results provided by the regression analysis concerning the variable of language indicate a statistical significance with a model summary of 0.080>0.05, while the “p” value indicates 0.000<0.05, meaning that the model fits the data. Table 4.1 above shows how language is an important factor to positively influence the self-efficacy among entrepreneurship students. The item about the understanding of the language facilitates social and economic integration and productivity, and so does the item about the stronger the communication skills of the entrepreneur; both have a positive relationship with the variable of language, which means this variable influences entrepreneurship students in becoming self-confident. This led to the conclusion of retaining the first hypothesis of the study that “The language frequently spoken by entrepreneurship students positively affect their entrepreneurial self-efficacy”.

These items had p=0.017 and 0.001 respectively, and this means that the variable of language increases the chances of self-efficacy among entrepreneurship students. This finding also correlates with what Levent, Masurel & Nijkamp (2003) said, “If communication is stronger, the entrepreneur has a higher level of confidence to seek capital from banks and other financial institutions, rather than relying on co-ethnic capital”. The language does not only support self-efficacy, but also entrepreneurial initiatives as confirmed by Altinay (2008) when he articulates that the availability of information in a language that one uses regularly is a major boost for entrepreneurial behaviour. A study conducted by Magongwe and Oliver (2007) in Botswana, also presents a correlation with this finding, when they report that there is a positive correlation between the use of language and self-efficacy.

Such a finding that language supports self-efficacy did not come as a surprise because it is widely recognised that the ability to communicate effectively, good command of language, as well as the possession of articulation skills make people confident in almost all their endeavours.

Table 4.2. Regression between religion and self-efficacy

In order to establish the relationship between religion and self-efficacy, regression analysis was conducted, and results show the model coefficients of 0.006<0.05, while the model summary indicates 0.296>0.05. This means that the model does fit the data.

Looking at the individual items in the table 4.2, there is no single item that fits the model, meaning that this variable of religion does not increase the chances of self-efficacy among entrepreneurship students from Cape Town Universities. This led to the conclusion of rejecting the second hypothesis of the study that “The religion of entrepreneurship students positively affect their entrepreneurial self-efficacy”.

Previously, studies conducted about language and business, had reached conclusions that religion can be a barrier to business growth (Metcalf, Moddod and Virdee, 1996). In support of this statement, they posit that Indians are more successful business people than their Pakistani counterparts, who rely heavily on the influence of religion, which prohibits the payments of interest rates, among other issues.

Table 4.3. Regression between customs/traditions and self-efficacy

The regression analysis between the independent variable of customs/traditions and the dependent variable of self-efficacy has shown that the test of model coefficients was significant at p=0.000<0.05 and the model summary indicated 0.127>0.05. This means the model fits the data. Considering the individual items in the table above, two items with p=0.011 and 0.008 are considered to have an impact on entrepreneurship students’ self-efficacy. Since these items of the variable have a positive influence, it means that the variable of customs and traditions increases the chances of self-efficacy among entrepreneurship students. This leads to confirm the third hypothesis that “Customs and traditions of entrepreneurship students positively affect their entrepreneurial self-efficacy”.

Hampel-Milagrosa, Van Hong, Quoc & Thanh (2010) argued that female with entrepreneurial orientations feel frustrated as their roles of carrying almost all family responsibilities, make their entrepreneurial ventures more difficult than their male counterparts and this may results in giving up their business orientations. An example was taken from Vietnam environment where women occupy subordinate economic roles, while men make all the important decisions. However, according to Hampel-Milagrosa, Van Hong, Quoc & Thanh (2010) traditions play a major role in determining the behaviour of the people in many parts of the world. In those societies, members are mobilised to be self-reliant and confident in their undertakings, including entrepreneurship. No distinction of gender was mentioned here, hence we conclude that this claim is in line with the current study.

4.2. Correlation Analysis

Figure 2. Formula for correlation

Table 4.4. Explanation of the formula

Table 4.5. Correlation between language and self-efficacy

From Table 4.5, the following findings were made concerning the relationship between various items of the independent variable of language compared with the dependent variable of self-efficacy:

All five items (out of seven) have a correlation value (r) of more than 0.005, with two of them having a par value of 0.000. It can therefore be concluded that the independent variable of language has a relationship with the dependent variable of self-efficacy. This finding is very important, as it confirms the claim that language as an instrument of communication is an essential asset that enhances self-efficacy. This finding enriches the literature in this field, and it correlates with what Altinay (2008) alluded to that people become more convinced about entrepreneurial behaviour, if they are confident about their level of skills to bring the initiative to a successful end.

In their study, Levent et al. (2003) alluded that “the stronger the language skills of the entrepreneur, the higher the level of confidence they will have to seek capital from banks and other financial institutions, and they will rely less on co-ethnic capital”. This claim is in line with the above finding. They go further to say that the ability to communicate effectively in a language, permits entrepreneurs to break into the mainstream market successfully, while the availability of information in a language that one speaks fluently supports entrepreneurial initiatives (Altinay, 2008). The relationship between religion and self-efficacy did not show any correlation, which means the variable is not statistically significant.

Table 4.6. Correlation between customs and traditions and self-efficacy

From Table 4.6, the following findings were made concerning the relationship between various items of the independent variable of customs and traditions compared with the dependent variable of self-efficacy:

Only four out of seven items show a correlation “p” of more than 0.005 with a par value of 0.000 for all four. It can therefore be affirmed that there is a relationship between the independent variable of customs and traditions and the dependent variable of self-efficacy. This shows that the variable of traditions and customs is statistically significant. Looking at the above items that positively influence self-efficacy, it is important to emphasise the role and importance of teachings and activities that may take place at home for the future of the children. This is supported by what Nsaminang (2007) said as mentioned in the literature review section that: “Different cultures invest in children, not as an end state, but in recognition that tomorrow’s adults are the products of their childhood”.

This finding also underscores President Mandela’s call that we have to make every home, every shack or rickety structure, a centre of learning.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

The study’s objectives were three folds: firstly, to investigate if the language frequently spoken by entrepreneurship students positively affect their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Secondly, to examine if the religion of entrepreneurship students positively affect their entrepreneurial self-efficacy and lastly, to explore if customs and traditions of entrepreneurship students positively affect their entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

In order to place the article in its context, the literature on cultural values, as well as on self-efficacy was reviewed. The literature provided a background of the topic under investigation, while uncovering some gaps that have been overlooked by some researchers. The study made use of statistical inferences to be able to arrive at the reality of the topic under investigation.

After this analysis, it was discovered that the dependent variable of language supports the independent variable of self-efficacy. The same finding went for the variable of customs and traditions towards self-efficacy. However, the variable of religion was not found to influence self-efficacy. This led to the conclusion of accepting H1 and H3 set out earlier, while H2 has been rejected as mentioned earlier.

Taking into account the South African socio-economic context within which this study has been conducted, the results of this study are of paramount significance, as they show the opinions of university students doing entrepreneurship programme about the role of culture on self-efficacy. The study has briefly discussed the mechanisms of how to enhance self-efficacy, and yet, the findings show that self-efficacy may come from our language and our daily routines and traditions. We can therefore make the following practical recommendations that may bear positive consequences on entrepreneurial behaviour in South Africa:

• Universities that were units of investigation to explore the possibilities of including self-efficacy programmes in their curricula;

• The same Universities to invite successful entrepreneurs to speak to the students in an attempt to instil self-efficacy;

• Universities that were units of investigation to make provision of entrepreneurial self-efficacy materials in languages that students speak the most.

The communities where students live are recommended to:

• Enhance customs and traditions that support entrepreneurial self-efficacy;

• Introduce features of self-reliance in their customs and traditions practices.

Given the heightened level of needs in entrepreneurial behaviour in South Africa, the concerned departments of the South African government are recommended to work more closely with universities, especially those that were concerned by the study, in order to draw a pool of real needs so that the necessary resources can be rightly deployed. This can be an important partnership which would support a big number of entrepreneurs who do not have business background and low level of self-efficacy.

6. Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research

The geographical scope and the age of the respondents, constitute the major limitations of this study. The study was only conducted in Universities of Cape Town city, and even though the respondents come from all parts of the country, it cannot be said that the results and findings represent the opinion of the whole country.

Most of the respondents are undergraduate students that are still in transition in terms of deciding what to do or become in their lives. This rends these results relatively inconclusive. Lastly, the study only involved university students. The researcher is aware of the existence of a significant number of young people who might be interested in voicing their opinions. Unfortunately, due to time and scope of the study, they were not heard. This gives direction for future research. Moreover, future research should also consider covering more universities and young entrepreneurs in various parts of the country.

7. References

Altinay, L. (2008). The relationship between an entrepreneur’s culture and the entrepreneurial behaviour of the firm. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(1), pp. 111-129.

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits and actions: Dispositional prediction of behaviour in personality and social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1(2), pp. 1-63.

Baker, M.J. (2003). Data collection-questionnaire design. The Marketing Review, 3(20), pp. 343-370.

Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling media. In: Singhal, A., Cody, M.J., Rogers, E.M. & Sabido, M. (Eds.), Entertainment-education and social change: History, research, and practice Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 75-96.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology. 52, pp. 1-26.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press. New York, USA.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on the self-regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), pp. 805-814.

Bird, B. (1989). Entrepreneurial behaviour: Engineering Management Journal, 1(4).

Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), pp. 442–453.

Bless, C.; Higson-Smith, C. & Kagee A. (2006). Fundamentals of social research methods. An African perspective. 3rd edition. Cape Town: Zebra Publications.

Boyd, N. & Vozikis, G. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), pp. 63–77.

Bradley, D.E. & Roberts, J.A. (2004). Self-employment and job satisfaction: investigating the role of self-efficacy, depression, and seniority. Journal of small business management, 42(1), pp. 37-58.

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

Davidson, P.; De Noble, A.F.; Jung, D. & Ehrlich, S.B. (1999). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: the development of a measure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action. Frontiers of entrepreneurial research, USA: Babson College.

Dyer, W.G. (1994). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial careers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(2), pp. 7-21.

Earley, P.C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, pp. 89-109.

Erez, M. & Earley, P.C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

European Commission. (2012). Effects and impact of entrepreneurship programmes in higher education. Brussels: European Commission Entrepreneurship Unit.

Forbes, D.P. (2005). The effects of strategic decisions making on ESE. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Sep, pp. 599-626.

Gist, M.E. & Micthell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, pp. 183-212.

Hampel-Milagrosa, A.; Van Hong, P.; Quoc, N. & Thanh, N. (2010). Gender related obstacles to Vietnamese women entrepreneurs. Technical report no. FM/VIE/09/005. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

Herrington, M.; Kew, J. & Kew, P. (2010). Global entrepreneurship monitor. UCT Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

Hofstede, G.; Noorderhaven, N.; Thurik, A.R.; Uhlaner, L.M.; Wennekers, A.R. & Wildeman, R.E. (2004). Culture’s role in entrepreneurship: Self-employment out of dissatisfaction. In Brown, T.E. & Ulijn, J.M. (eds.), Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Culture, 162-203. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Hopp, C. & Stephan, U. (2012). The influence of socio-cultural environments of performance of the nascent entrepreneurs: community culture, motivation, self-efficacy and start-up success. Journal of entrepreneurship and regional development. 24, pp. 9-10.

Kalitanyi, V. & Bbenkele, E., (2017). Assessing the role of socio-economic values on entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Cape Town, South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 20(1), a1768. https://doi.org/ 10.4102/sajems.v20i1.1768.

Kourilsky, M.L. (1995). Entrepreneurship education: Opportunity in search of curriculum. Business Education Forum, October, pp. 1-18.

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

Krueger, N.F. & Brazeal, D.V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potentiel and potentiel entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), pp. 91-104.

Krueger, N.F.; Reilly, M.D. & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), pp. 411-432.

Lenartowicz, T. & Roth,K. (2001). Does Subculture Within a Country Matter? A Cross-Cultural Study of Motivational Domains and Business Performance in Brazil. Journal of international business studies. 32(2), pp. 305-325.

Levent, B.T.; Masurel, E. & Nijkamp, P. (2003). Diversity in entrepreneurship: Ethnic and female roles in urban economic life. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(11), pp. 1131-1161.

Luthans, F.; Hills, G.E. & Ibrayeva, E. (2000). Environmental and psychological challenges facing entrepreneurial development in transitional economies. Journal of World Business. 35, pp. 95-117.

Markman, G. & Baron, R. (2003). Person-entrepreneurship fit: Why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human resource management review, 13(2), pp. 281-301.

Markman, G.D.; Balkin, D.B. & Baron, R.A. (2002). Investors and new venture formation: the effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, Winter, pp. 149-165.

McFeeters, B.B. (2013). Cultural values and their impact on education. Research Starters: Education (Online Edition), 2013.6p.

McGee, J.E.; Perterson, M.; Mueller, S.L. & Sequeira, J.M. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, May 1-24.

Metcalf, H.; Moddod, T. & Virdee, S. (1996). Asian self-employment: The interaction of culture and economics in England. London: Policy Studies Institute.

Magogwe J.M. & Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: a study of language learners in Botswana. Science direct, 35(3), pp. 338-352.

Orford, J.; Wood, E. & Herrington, M. (2004). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2004 South African Executive Report. Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town.

The Research Advisors. (2006). Research Methods • Study Design • Statistical Analysis. [Online] Available: http://research-advisors.com Accessed: 15 June 2013.

Sagiv, L. & Schwartz, S.H. (2007). Cultural values in organizations: Insights for Europe. European Journal of International Management, 1, pp. 176–190.

Sagiv, L. & Schwartz, S.H. (2000). A new look at national cultures: Illustrative applications to role stress and managerial behaviour. In N.N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate, pp. 417–436. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Scherer, R.; Adams, J.; Carley, S. & Wiebe, F. (1989). Role model performance effects on development of entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, 13(3), pp. 53-81.

Schwartz, S. (2010). Cultural values. In K. M. Hannum, B.B. McFeeters, & A.E. Booysen (Eds). Leading Across Differences: Cases and Perspectives. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Schwartz, S.H. (2007). Cultural and individual value correlates of capitalism: A comparative analysis. Psychological Inquiry, 18, pp. 52–57.

Schwartz, S.H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective, pp.43–73. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Schwartz, S.H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, pp. 23–47. Retrieved July 7, 2009, from EBSCO online database, Business Source Complete.

Stajkovic, A.D. & Luthans, F. (1998). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Going beyond traditional motivational and behavioural approaches. Organisational dynamics, 26(4), pp. 62-74.

Stevens, J. (2013). Shattering the boundaries through elf-efficacy: exploring the social media habits of South African previously disadvantaged entrepreneurs: Stellenbosch University: http://scholar.sun.ac.za.

Stevens, C.K. & Gist, M.E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal oriented training on negotiation skill maintenance: what are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50, pp. 955-979.

Tondi, P. (2016). The appropriation of African cultural values and practices as a strategy in true nation building in post-Apartheid South Africa: Model and lessons from Lawino and Ochol relationship. The centre for psychological studies/services, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Central University of Technology, FS, South Africa.

Townsend, D.M.; Busenitz, L.W. & Arthurs, J.D. (2010). To start or not to start: Outcome and ability expectations in the decision to start a new venture. Journal of business venturing, 25(2), pp.192-202.

Utsch, A.; Rauch, A.; Rothfufs, R. & Frese, M. (1999). Who becomes a small-scale entrepreneur in a post-socialist environment: On the differences between entrepreneurs and managers in East Germany. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(3), pp. 21-42.

Urban, B. (2012). Tracking the venture creation phases in terms of entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Links to competitiveness of South African ventures. South African Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 15(2012), p. 4.

Urban, R. (2006). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy in a multicultural society: measures and ethnic differences. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 32(1), pp. 2-10

Vesper, K. & McMullan, E. (1997). New venture scholarship versus practice: when entrepreneurship academy try real thing as applied research. Technovation, 17(7), pp. 349-359.

Vilakazi, H. (2001). Rural + Urban = good mix, Tribute Magazine, January 2001.

Willemse, I. (2009). Statistical methods and calculation skills. 3^rd edition. Cape Town: Juta.

Zeldin, A.L. & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the Odds: Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Women in Mathematical, Scientific, and Technological Careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), pp. 215-246.

Refbacks

• There are currently no refbacks.