| Literature DB >> 34966323 |
Shihao Chen1, Qianqian Zhang1, Qun Zhao1, Huiru Deng1, Yu-Sheng Su2.
Abstract
In modern society, the power of college students has been able to provide creative growth for the local economy, so the work situation of college students is closely related to the social dynamics. Colleges and universities are important places for talent cultivation and output. They are closely related to the cultivation of college students and the choice of employment and entrepreneurship of college students. Entrepreneurship and employment are interdependent. It is not enough to rely only on entrepreneurs to make enterprises stronger. In order to increase the creativity and environmental adaptability of enterprises, there need to be sufficient and excellent employees who are willing to work in the regions where enterprises are located. Therefore, enterprises need college students with innovation and creativity in their regions. In this study, graduates from a university in Zhejiang Province were selected as the subjects. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action, literature analysis and interview method were combined to systematically construct a research model affecting college Students' choice of entrepreneurship and employment. The questionnaire survey method and structural equation model (PLS-SEM) were used to test the hypothesis. A total of 798 valid questionnaires were collected. The results show that local attraction and family factors are the two most important factors affecting the entrepreneurship and employment of college students. Family factors have a significant positive impact on the attitude toward entrepreneurship and employment, subjective norms and intention to entrepreneurship and employment; local attraction also has a significant positive impact on the subjective norms, intention to entrepreneurship and employment, and attitude toward entrepreneurship and employment. The results of this study provide a reference for the decision-making of improving local attractiveness and promoting college Students' employment in start-up enterprises under the background of higher education popularization.Entities:
Keywords: county education; employment; entrepreneurship; family factors; local attraction
Year: 2021 PMID: 34966323 PMCID: PMC8710757 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.750972
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Research model.
The research question.
| Construct | Operational definition | Item | Literature |
| Family factors | The interference and influence of parents on their children’s choice of occupation | 1. Regarding career selection, when I hold an opinion different from that of my family, they listen and consider my thoughts. |
|
| 2. My family is willing to accept my thoughts and suggestions. | |||
| 3. My opinions often influence my family’s decisions. | |||
| 4. Regarding entrepreneurship and employment, my family often seek my opinion. | |||
| 5. Despite different opinions, if I can convince my family, they would grant their permission (in relation to entrepreneurship or selecting a location of employment, for example). | |||
| 6. My family often communicate with me about my employment interests and plans. | |||
| 7. My family often provide me with information of various job opportunities. | |||
| 8. My family analyze the advantages and disadvantages of entrepreneurship and employment (such as entrepreneurship and employment in county-level cities). | |||
| 9. Regarding entrepreneurship and employment, my family believe that I should consider both family and career development. | |||
| 10. Regarding entrepreneurship and employment, my family believe that I should consider both salary and promotion opportunities. | |||
| 11. My family encourage me to obtain employment information as much as possible. | |||
| Local attraction | The social environment and policies that promote the willingness of college students to remain in a place for employment | 1. The housing prices and cost of living in county-level cites are low. |
|
| 2. The policies of county entrepreneurship and employment attract me. | |||
| 3. Entrepreneurship and employment in counties equate to less pressure at work. | |||
| 4. Entrepreneurship and employment in counties are less competitive, facilitating job promotion. | |||
| Employment intention | Intention of being employed or starting a new enterprise | 1. I would choose the county-level city where my college is located or another county-level city for entrepreneurship and employment. |
|
| 2. I am currently preparing myself for work in county-level cities. | |||
| 3. If I choose to work in county-level cities, I intend to work diligently. | |||
| 4. In the future, I will likely undertake entrepreneurship and employment in county-level cities. | |||
| Attitude | The positive or negative feelings an individual holds toward a behavior | 1. I enjoy challenging myself. |
|
| 2. I enjoy dealing with challenges, and I can learn a lot from them. | |||
| 3. I enjoy solving difficult tasks or problems. | |||
| 4. To achieve my goals, I will work diligently. | |||
| 5. Compared with simple tasks, I enjoy challenging myself and my abilities. | |||
| 6. I enjoy challenging tasks, from which I can learn new skills. | |||
| 7. When I choose a task I am interested in, I feel satisfied. | |||
| 8. I enjoy tasks that require high levels of skill and talent. | |||
| 9. I often gain knowledge and explore new personal skills. | |||
| Subjective norms | Whether an individual perceives social pressure when adopting a specific behavior | 1. My family supports my entrepreneurship and employment choices (such as remaining in a county-level city to work). |
|
| 2. My family thinks that remaining in a county-level city to work is a good choice. | |||
| 3. My friends support my entrepreneurship and employment choices (such as remaining in a county-level city to work). | |||
| 4. My friends are proud of me for my choices. |
Dimension reliability and validity.
| Construct | Factor loading | Cronbach’s alpha | Composite reliability | AVE | VIF |
| Subjective norm | 0.881 | 0.912 | 0.938 | 0.792 | 2.284 |
| Local attraction | 0.873 | 0.933 | 0.953 | 0.834 | 1.693 |
| Family factor | 0.875 | 0.960 | 0.965 | 0.716 | 2.377 |
| Attitude | 0.921 | 0.967 | 0.972 | 0.792 | 2.395 |
| Employment and entrepreneurship Intention | 0.883 | 0.924 | 0.947 | 0.816 | DV |
Analysis of discriminant validity.
| Subjective norm | Local attraction | Family factor | Attitude | Employment and entrepreneurship intention | |
| Subjective norm |
| ||||
| Local attraction | 0.624 |
| |||
| Family factor | 0.617 | 0.476 |
| ||
| Attitude | 0.622 | 0.450 | 0.726 |
| |
| Employment and entrepreneurship intention | 0.697 | 0.669 | 0.403 | 0.447 |
|
Bold values mean average variation extract square root.
Analysis of heterotrait–monotrait.
| Subjective norm | Local attraction | Family factors | Attitude | Employment and entrepreneurship intention | |
| Subjective norm | |||||
| Local attraction | 0.674 | ||||
| Family factors | 0.663 | 0.504 | |||
| Attitude | 0.665 | 0.474 | 0.754 | ||
| Employment and entrepreneurship intention | 0.754 | 0.719 | 0.428 | 0.473 |
FIGURE 2Structural model (*** significant at 0.05).
Results of sex difference.
| Relationship | Path coefficients (male) | Path coefficients (female) | ||||
| Family factor - > Employment and entrepreneurship intention | 0.594 | 7.293 | 0.000 | 0.443 | 7.651 | 0.000 |
| Attitude - > Employment and entrepreneurship intention | 0.454 | 6.293 | 0.000 | 0.410 | 5.786 | 0.000 |
| Local attraction -> Attitude | 0.086 | 1.618 | 0.106 | 0.158 | 3.442 | 0.001 |
| Local attraction -> Employment and entrepreneurship intention | 0.357 | 5.110 | 0.000 | 0.415 | 9.061 | 0.000 |
| Family factor -> Subjective norms | 0.404 | 5.669 | 0.000 | 0.421 | 6.600 | 0.000 |
| Local attraction -> Subjective norms | 0.723 | 15.886 | 0.000 | 0.625 | 14.896 | 0.000 |
| Subjective norms -> Employment and entrepreneurship Intention | −0.157 | 2.409 | 0.016 | −0.110 | 1.805 | 0.071 |
| Family factor -> Attitude | 0.036 | 0.578 | 0.563 | 0.054 | 0.866 | 0.387 |