College seems to be important for entrepreneurship. The model shows at a significant level of 1 percent the influence of education to be relatively high (0.58). The positive association between education and entrepreneurship is supported by the literature (Hisrich, 1990; Van der Sluis et al., 2008; Nair & Pandey, 2006). Secondly, model two shows that being Protestant has a positive influence on the probability of being an entrepreneur. This effect is significant at a five percent level and is 0.58. This is in line with the findings, which find relatively higher participation rates for Protestant entrepreneurs compared to Non-religious and Catholic entrepreneurs (Audretsch et al., 2007; Light, 2010; Dodd & Gotsis, 2007). The third finding of model two is about the Frequency of visiting a religious place. This variable is negatively influencing the likelihood of being an entrepreneur by 0.70. However, this result is probably not trustful because non-religious participants also answer the question about the Frequency of visiting. This variable is significant at a ten percent level. Though this result is questionable because being Protestant is influencing entrepreneurship positively according to model two and the Protestants tend to visit religious places more often compared to others. For this model Age has a positive influence of 0.32 at a significance level of one percent, which means that older people are more involved in entrepreneurship than younger people. Finally, and not surprisingly, in this model the influence of the attitude towards risk is significant and positive (0.27) with a significance level of one percent. All these findings are in line with the literature (Cramer, Hartog, Jonker & Van Praag, 2002; Newman, 1999; Van Praag & Cramer, 2001; Nair & Pandey, 2006). Model 3 For the third model all variables are included except for the variable risk attitude in order to add more observations. The effect of College (the dummy for higher or lower education) is still significant at a one percent level and this effect remains big (0.43). Even though over 3,000 observations are added by excluding risk attitude, there are less significant results. Another finding for this model is the effect of gender; it turns out to be positive (0.25) for this model at a five percent significance level. This is in line with the literature, which shows that being male lifts the probability to be an entrepreneur
Sternberg, R., & Wennekers, S. (2005). Determinants and effects of new business creation using global entrepreneurship monitor data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 193-203. Storey, D.J., Green, F.J. (2010). Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Pearson Education, Harlow, UK Thurik, R., & Wennekers, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship, small business and economic growth. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(1), 140-149. Van der Sluis, J., Van Praag, M., & Vijverberg, W. (2008). Education and entrepreneurship selection and performance: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(5), 795-841. Van Stel, A., Carree, M., & Thurik, R. (2005). The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 311-321. Van Praag, C. M., & Cramer, J. S. (2001). The roots of entrepreneurship and labour demand: Individual ability and low risk aversion. Economica, 68(269), 45-62. Van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351-382. Vivarelli, M. (1991). The birth of new enterprises. Small Business Economics, 3(3), 215-223. Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small business economics, 13(1), 27-56. Witter, R. A., Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., & Haring, M. J. (1985). Religion and subjective well-being in adulthood: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Religious Research, 332-342.