DOI: 10.7341/20181415 JEL code: L26/ 91 Testing Students' Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy as an Early Predictor of Entrepreneurial Activities. Evidence from the SEAS Project Krzysztof Ziba and Jakub Golik? Abstract Over the last forty years, since Bandura (1977) introduced the concept of self- efficacy, there have been a constantly growing number of research publications using this concept. Its early development resulted in the creation of a new construct of entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) proposed for the first time by (Chen et al. 1998). Since then, many different groups of research concerning ESE have emerged - one of them is the study of ESE of students. With regard to this particular group, a recent tendency to study ESE in a pre-post setting can be noticed i.a. Karlsson, Moberg (2013), Shinnar, Hsu, Powell (2014), Ismail, Zain, Zulihar (2015). Due to the increasing interest in entrepreneurial self-efficacy research and the need to fill the gap in the literature with regard to European post-communist countries (and particularly - Poland) (Drnovsek, Wincent, Cardon, 2010), in this paper we present a brief overview of ESE research and pose the question whether ESE of Polish students can serve as an early predictor of their subsequent entrepreneurial activities, potentially leading them to nascent entrepreneurship. The research material was collected from the SEAS (Survey on Entrepreneurial Attitudes of Students) Project carried out at the Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdansk University of Technology. The research sample was composed of 72 students - ESE was measured in a pre-post setting using a single item based on a five-point Likert scale. One of the research conclusions is that ESE manifested by student-beginners seems to influence their later entrepreneurial behavior in a statistically significant way - potentially making ESE a valuable early predictor of future entrepreneurial activities. In the concluding part of the study, limitations are discussed and future study developments are indicated. Keywords: self-efficacy, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurship. 1 Krzysztof Ziba, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdansk University of Technology. Traugutta Str. 79, 80-233 Gdansk, Poland, e-mail: krzysztof zieba@zie.pg.gda.pl. 2 Jakub Golik, M.Sc., Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdansk University of Technology, 79, 80-233 Gdarisk, Poland, e-mail: jakub golik@pg.edu.pl. Received 12 May 2017, Revised 26 November 2017, Accepted 23 January 2018 The notion of self-efficacy has been extensively studied over the last 40 years. The term at the very beginning was deeply rooted in psychological theories. It has gained wide recognition among scientists after the publication of Bandura (1977) who defined it on the basis of his social learning theory as an individual's belief in his or hers capability of performing a given task (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). Self-efficacy is rooted in social cognitive theory which states that human behavior can be perceived as a function constituting personal, behavioral and environmental determinants (Coleman & Kariv, 2013). Since Bandura's publication, self-efficacy has been the subject of research and comparison with other psychological constructs. One such construct similar to self-efficacy is the locus of control. The main difference between them is the level of generality. The latter is a more general concept which refers to a wide variety of situations. It consists of internal locus of control, where one's belief is that rewards are based on an individual's behavior, and the external locus of control, where one's belief is that rewards are controlled by outside factors. In contrast to this notion, self-efficacy refers to the specific task and situation. Hence, an individual might be characterized by a strong internal locus of control while having low self-efficacy regarding a particular task (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). This contextuality of self-efficacy should be stressed as an important feature of this notion, as it leads to the conclusion that self-efficacy cannot be generalized across various fields of application. In the early stage of development of research concerning self-efficacy, scientists concluded that it is a multidimensional construct. Furthermore, the connection between self-efficacy and notions related to entrepreneurship was found. By applying the work of Bandura to the concept of entrepreneurship, the more specific notion of entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) was created (Coleman & Kariv, 2013). The main research question of this paper is whether students' entrepreneurial self-efficacy can serve as an early predictor of their current and future entrepreneurial activities. We start by presenting a brief overview of entrepreneurial self-efficacy research which offers a background to the stated research problem. Empirical data gathered within the framework of the SEAS project allowed us to address this question with regard to Polish students. LITERATURE REVIEW The formal construct of entrepreneurial self-efficacy was proposed for the first time by Chen, Green and Crick (1998). Their motivation for introducing Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Psychological Traits as Factors Influencing Productivity Justyna Sokoowska-Woniak and Dariusz Woniak (Ed.) Krzysztof Ziba and Jakub Golik / 93 Krzysztof Ziba and Jakub Golik / 93 the concept was due to the fact that previous research on psychology of entrepreneurs failed to distinguish managers from entrepreneurs on the basis of characteristics such as the above-mentioned locus of control. By presenting entrepreneurial self-efficacy, they intended to find an individual characteristic that is distinctively entrepreneurial (Chen, Green & Crick, 1998). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy was defined as "the strength of a person's belief that he or she is capable of successfully performing the various roles and tasks of entrepreneurship." It was a multidimensional construct consisting of five factors: marketing, innovation, management, risk-taking, and financial control. The work by Chen, Green and Crick (1998) at the same time defined, in a sense, the trend of research of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. They studied among others the relation between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. The research was conducted on two groups: among students and small business executives. Many of the following studies on this matter were based on these target groups and measured similar relations, After the introduction of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, both the general and entrepreneurial self-efficacy notions were discussed in scientific papers with regard to other psychological theories and concepts. For instance, Markman, Balkin and Baron (2002) measured general self-efficacy and regretful thinking on 217 patent inventors and showed that both of these determinants distinguish technological entrepreneurs from technological non-entrepreneurs. On the other hand, Arora, Haynie and Laurence (2011), on the basis of social cognition theory, investigated the relationship between counterfactual thinking and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, implying that "counterfactual thinking for entrepreneurial self-efficacy is moderated by individual differences based on the dispositional attributes of the entrepreneur." Some works also incorporated the Theory of Planned Behavior as their theoretical research basis for studies regarding prior family exposure to entrepreneurial intent (Carr & Sequeira, 2007) or impact of entrepreneurship education (Maresch, Harms, Kailer & Wimmer-Wurm, 2016). Finally, Hsu, Wiklund and Cotton (2017) contrasted two theories - Self- Efficacy Theory and Prospect Theory in a model determining an individual's intention to re-enter entrepreneurship following a business exit. Among many publications regarding entrepreneurial self-efficacy, a group of research concerning relations or mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy can be distinguished. For instance, Oyugi (2015) studied the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the relationship between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intentions of university students. He concluded his research by stating that there exists a significant relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention. However, self- efficacy only partially mediated these factors. The study on the effects of Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), Volume 14, Issue 1, 2018: 91-108 94 Testing Students' Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy as an Early Predictor of Entrepreneurial Activities. Evidence from the SEAS Project emotional intelligence on entrepreneurial intention and self-efficacy made by Mortan, Ripoll, Carvalho and Bernal (2014) showed that emotional intelligence positively affects entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Tsai, Chang and Peng (2016) studied a link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention involving the previously mentioned Theory of Planned Behavior. There are also many other works involving study on entrepreneurial self- efficacy and entrepreneurship intention i.a., Piperopoulos and Dimov (2015), Wang, Chang, Yao and Liang (2016), Klyver and Thornton (2010). Densberger (2014) explored the relationship between entrepreneurs' self-efficacy and risk propensity by analyzing data from semi-structured, in-person interviews (49 entrepreneurs from three American cities). Her study indicated that high levels of self-efficacy result in entrepreneurs being comfortable with risk-taking. Another example of exploring different relations is the work by Pollack, Burnette and Hoyt (2012) which studied mind-set impact on self-efficacy in the face of threats to entrepreneurial success. Other scientists have studied the connection between entrepreneurial self efficacy and firms' performance. Cumberland, Meek and Germain (2015) carried out a more detailed study using a multidimensional attitude of investigating the impact of five entrepreneurial self-efficacy dimensions (Chen, Green & Crick, 1998) on firms' performance. In particular, the study was focused on a franchise context which is understudied in entrepreneurial literature (Cumberland, Meek & Germain, 2015). Another research by Coleman and Kariv (2013) also used a multidimensional approach to study the entrepreneurial self-efficacy impact on firms' performance. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy has also been studied in the context of culture (e.g., Wennberg, Pathak & Autio, 2013; Klyver & Thornton, 2010). The former study had a sample of 42 countries while the latter was based on a random sample survey of 51 countries. Some more theoretical works also concerned methodology (e.g., Barakat, Boddington & Vyakarnam, 2014 based on the CALLINO project, or Drnovsek, Wincent & Cardon, 2010). Finally, the group concerning research of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on students at various educational stages should be mentioned. In this group two subcategories can be distinguished: research concerning primary and secondary school students (e.g., Studdard, Dawson & Jackson, 2013; Lope Pihie & Bagheri, 2011) and research concerning university students (distinguishing students who had an entrepreneurship course and those who did not e.g., Maresch, Harms, Kailer & Wimmer-Wurm, 2016; Setiawan, 2014). 3 CALLINO stands for Creative Activities in Learning for Innovation. It is a project funded by the European Union whose main focus is to identify the impact of different types of creative learning activities on the innovation potential of its participants. The project is focused on universities in 6 participant EU countries. Project Reference: 512448-LLP-1-2010-1-LV-KA1-KA1SCR Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Psychological Traits as Factors Influencing Productivity Justyna Sokoowska-Woniak and Dariusz Woniak (Ed.) Krzysztof Ziba and Jakub Golik / 95 In general, among studies concerning research of entrepreneurial self- efficacy on students, two trends can be noticed. The majority of articles concerns entrepreneurship education - its effects, flaws and possible improvements (e.g., Karlsson & Moberg, 2013; Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015; Abaho, Olomi & Urassa, 2015; Izquierdo & Buelens, 2011; Shinnar, Hsu & Powell, 2014) or works by Bagheri and Pihie (2011, 2013, 2013). The second recognized group of articles concerns mostly entrepreneurship intention with less attention paid to the entrepreneurship education process (e.g., Yasruddin et al., 2011; Rachmawan, Lizar & Mangundjaya, 2015; Franco, Haase & Lautenschlager, 2010; Carr & Sequeira, 2007 or Krecar & Coric, 2013). Among this specific group of studies it should be noted that many publications come from Asian countries, for example, Malaysia: Lope Pihie and Bagheri (2011), Yasruddin et al. (2011), and Indonesia (Setiawan, 2014; Rachmawan, Lizar & Mangundjaya, 2015). This fact is of great importance in view of the conclusions of previously mentioned studies of Wennberg, Pathak and Autio (2013) and Klyver and Thornton (2010). They showed that self-efficacy is correlated with cultural practices and cultural legitimacy of entrepreneurship respectively. It implies that there is a need for more locally focused studies in other parts of the world, especially as most studies on this subject seem to be focused on either Asian countries or less developed countries like Uganda (Oyugi, 2015; Abaho, Olomi & Urassa, 2015). In accordance with what was suggested by Krecar and Coric (2013), that "entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a dynamic construct which changes along with entrepreneurial status", a recent tendency to study entrepreneurial self-efficacy in a pre-post setting can be noticed i.a., Karlsson and Moberg (2013), Shinnar, Hsu and Powell (2014), Ismail, Zain and Zulihar (2015). Such an approach seems to be necessary in order to measure the development of entrepreneurial self-efficacy of students itself with regard to entrepreneurial education, as well as to study the impact of other relations involving, for instance, prior family business exposure (Carr & Sequeira, 2007). Furthermore, the necessity of pre-post setting studies in this context can also be supported by the characteristic determinants of the life period of being a student. It first and foremost entails gaining a legal personality which enables young adults to start their own business. External factors, such as a dynamic market environment, make the students' career choice inevitable at this age, thus under particular circumstances, the possibility of being self- employed is deliberated. All of these, combined with internal factors such as the enhanced emotional and intellectual development of students, make the subject of measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy important in terms of a better understanding and improvement of methodology (Drnovsek, Wincent & Cardon, 2010), as well as formulating guidelines for entrepreneurship Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), Volume 14, Issue 1, 2018: 91-108 Krzysztof Ziba and Jakub Golik / 103 CONCLUSION Entrepreneurial self-efficacy manifested by student-beginners seems to influence their later entrepreneurial behavior in a statistically significant way. Those who started their studies and believed they would be able to successfully run their own business, upon their graduation three years later were more oriented towards setting up own business in a few years to come (mostly between 3 to 5 years). Since many of them considered professional experience as something necessary to become a business owner, the majority of them started working part-time or full time even before the graduation. ESE also seems to influence the business idea generation process. Those characterized by ESE more often had a defined business idea, which makes their future business venture more feasible. All of that makes ESE a potentially valuable early predictor of future entrepreneurial activities. The major limitation of the study is the low number of participants, which does not allow for more sophisticated and in-depth analysis. Despite its preliminary pilot character, this research can be useful for showing new paths and developments. Particularly, it would be very interesting to investigate the reasons for losing (and gaining) ESE during the course of studies. On one hand, reducing the number of ESE-characterized students can sometimes be beneficial, as premature ESE can possibly result in serious problems when a business venture fails (Ziba & Ziemiaski, 2013). On the other hand, preventing students from losing their ESE could increase the number of successful business ventures. If the education process can influence students, in the sense that they lose or gain ESE, then the consequences of this influence should be investigated thoroughly. References Abaho, E., Olomi, D. R., & Urassa, G. C. (2015). Students' entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Does the teaching method matter? Education + Training, 57(8/9), 908-923. Arora, P., Haynie, J. M., & Laurence, G. A. (2013). Counterfactual thinking and entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The moderating role of self-esteem and dispositional effect. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 359385. Balkin, D. B., & Baron, R. A. (2002). Inventors and new venture formation: The effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 149165. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. Barakat, S., Boddington, M., & Vyakarnam, S. (2014). Measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy to understand the impact of creative Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), Volume 14, Issue 1, 2018: 91-108 DOI: 10.7341/20181415 JEL code: L26/ 91 Testing Students' Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy as an Early Predictor of Entrepreneurial Activities. Evidence from the SEAS Project Krzysztof Ziba and Jakub Golik? Abstract Over the last forty years, since Bandura (1977) introduced the concept of self- efficacy, there have been a constantly growing number of research publications using this concept. Its early development resulted in the creation of a new construct of entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) proposed for the first time by (Chen et al. 1998). Since then, many different groups of research concerning ESE have emerged - one of them is the study of ESE of students. With regard to this particular group, a recent tendency to study ESE in a pre-post setting can be noticed i.a. Karlsson, Moberg (2013), Shinnar, Hsu, Powell (2014), Ismail, Zain, Zulihar (2015). Due to the increasing interest in entrepreneurial self-efficacy research and the need to fill the gap in the literature with regard to European post-communist countries (and particularly - Poland) (Drnovsek, Wincent, Cardon, 2010), in this paper we present a brief overview of ESE research and pose the question whether ESE of Polish students can serve as an early predictor of their subsequent entrepreneurial activities, potentially leading them to nascent entrepreneurship. The research material was collected from the SEAS (Survey on Entrepreneurial Attitudes of Students) Project carried out at the Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdansk University of Technology. The research sample was composed of 72 students - ESE was measured in a pre-post setting using a single item based on a five-point Likert scale. One of the research conclusions is that ESE manifested by student-beginners seems to influence their later entrepreneurial behavior in a statistically significant way - potentially making ESE a valuable early predictor of future entrepreneurial activities. In the concluding part of the study, limitations are discussed and future study developments are indicated. Keywords: self-efficacy, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurship. 1 Krzysztof Ziba, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdansk University of Technology. Traugutta Str. 79, 80-233 Gdansk, Poland, e-mail: krzysztof zieba@zie.pg.gda.pl. 2 Jakub Golik, M.Sc., Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdansk University of Technology, 79, 80-233 Gdarisk, Poland, e-mail: jakub golik@pg.edu.pl. Received 12 May 2017, Revised 26 November 2017, Accepted 23 January 2018 The notion of self-efficacy has been extensively studied over the last 40 years. The term at the very beginning was deeply rooted in psychological theories. It has gained wide recognition among scientists after the publication of Bandura (1977) who defined it on the basis of his social learning theory as an individual's belief in his or hers capability of performing a given task (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). Self-efficacy is rooted in social cognitive theory which states that human behavior can be perceived as a function constituting personal, behavioral and environmental determinants (Coleman & Kariv, 2013). Since Bandura's publication, self-efficacy has been the subject of research and comparison with other psychological constructs. One such construct similar to self-efficacy is the locus of control. The main difference between them is the level of generality. The latter is a more general concept which refers to a wide variety of situations. It consists of internal locus of control, where one's belief is that rewards are based on an individual's behavior, and the external locus of control, where one's belief is that rewards are controlled by outside factors. In contrast to this notion, self-efficacy refers to the specific task and situation. Hence, an individual might be characterized by a strong internal locus of control while having low self-efficacy regarding a particular task (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). This contextuality of self-efficacy should be stressed as an important feature of this notion, as it leads to the conclusion that self-efficacy cannot be generalized across various fields of application. In the early stage of development of research concerning self-efficacy, scientists concluded that it is a multidimensional construct. Furthermore, the connection between self-efficacy and notions related to entrepreneurship was found. By applying the work of Bandura to the concept of entrepreneurship, the more specific notion of entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) was created (Coleman & Kariv, 2013). The main research question of this paper is whether students' entrepreneurial self-efficacy can serve as an early predictor of their current and future entrepreneurial activities. We start by presenting a brief overview of entrepreneurial self-efficacy research which offers a background to the stated research problem. Empirical data gathered within the framework of the SEAS project allowed us to address this question with regard to Polish students. LITERATURE REVIEW The formal construct of entrepreneurial self-efficacy was proposed for the first time by Chen, Green and Crick (1998). Their motivation for introducing Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Psychological Traits as Factors Influencing Productivity Justyna Sokoowska-Woniak and Dariusz Woniak (Ed.) Krzysztof Ziba and Jakub Golik / 93 Krzysztof Ziba and Jakub Golik / 93 the concept was due to the fact that previous research on psychology of entrepreneurs failed to distinguish managers from entrepreneurs on the basis of characteristics such as the above-mentioned locus of control. By presenting entrepreneurial self-efficacy, they intended to find an individual characteristic that is distinctively entrepreneurial (Chen, Green & Crick, 1998). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy was defined as "the strength of a person's belief that he or she is capable of successfully performing the various roles and tasks of entrepreneurship." It was a multidimensional construct consisting of five factors: marketing, innovation, management, risk-taking, and financial control. The work by Chen, Green and Crick (1998) at the same time defined, in a sense, the trend of research of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. They studied among others the relation between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. The research was conducted on two groups: among students and small business executives. Many of the following studies on this matter were based on these target groups and measured similar relations, After the introduction of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, both the general and entrepreneurial self-efficacy notions were discussed in scientific papers with regard to other psychological theories and concepts. For instance, Markman, Balkin and Baron (2002) measured general self-efficacy and regretful thinking on 217 patent inventors and showed that both of these determinants distinguish technological entrepreneurs from technological non-entrepreneurs. On the other hand, Arora, Haynie and Laurence (2011), on the basis of social cognition theory, investigated the relationship between counterfactual thinking and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, implying that "counterfactual thinking for entrepreneurial self-efficacy is moderated by individual differences based on the dispositional attributes of the entrepreneur." Some works also incorporated the Theory of Planned Behavior as their theoretical research basis for studies regarding prior family exposure to entrepreneurial intent (Carr & Sequeira, 2007) or impact of entrepreneurship education (Maresch, Harms, Kailer & Wimmer-Wurm, 2016). Finally, Hsu, Wiklund and Cotton (2017) contrasted two theories - Self- Efficacy Theory and Prospect Theory in a model determining an individual's intention to re-enter entrepreneurship following a business exit. Among many publications regarding entrepreneurial self-efficacy, a group of research concerning relations or mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy can be distinguished. For instance, Oyugi (2015) studied the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the relationship between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intentions of university students. He concluded his research by stating that there exists a significant relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention. However, self- efficacy only partially mediated these factors. The study on the effects of Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), Volume 14, Issue 1, 2018: 91-108 94 Testing Students' Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy as an Early Predictor of Entrepreneurial Activities. Evidence from the SEAS Project emotional intelligence on entrepreneurial intention and self-efficacy made by Mortan, Ripoll, Carvalho and Bernal (2014) showed that emotional intelligence positively affects entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Tsai, Chang and Peng (2016) studied a link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention involving the previously mentioned Theory of Planned Behavior. There are also many other works involving study on entrepreneurial self- efficacy and entrepreneurship intention i.a., Piperopoulos and Dimov (2015), Wang, Chang, Yao and Liang (2016), Klyver and Thornton (2010). Densberger (2014) explored the relationship between entrepreneurs' self-efficacy and risk propensity by analyzing data from semi-structured, in-person interviews (49 entrepreneurs from three American cities). Her study indicated that high levels of self-efficacy result in entrepreneurs being comfortable with risk-taking. Another example of exploring different relations is the work by Pollack, Burnette and Hoyt (2012) which studied mind-set impact on self-efficacy in the face of threats to entrepreneurial success. Other scientists have studied the connection between entrepreneurial self efficacy and firms' performance. Cumberland, Meek and Germain (2015) carried out a more detailed study using a multidimensional attitude of investigating the impact of five entrepreneurial self-efficacy dimensions (Chen, Green & Crick, 1998) on firms' performance. In particular, the study was focused on a franchise context which is understudied in entrepreneurial literature (Cumberland, Meek & Germain, 2015). Another research by Coleman and Kariv (2013) also used a multidimensional approach to study the entrepreneurial self-efficacy impact on firms' performance. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy has also been studied in the context of culture (e.g., Wennberg, Pathak & Autio, 2013; Klyver & Thornton, 2010). The former study had a sample of 42 countries while the latter was based on a random sample survey of 51 countries. Some more theoretical works also concerned methodology (e.g., Barakat, Boddington & Vyakarnam, 2014 based on the CALLINO project, or Drnovsek, Wincent & Cardon, 2010). Finally, the group concerning research of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on students at various educational stages should be mentioned. In this group two subcategories can be distinguished: research concerning primary and secondary school students (e.g., Studdard, Dawson & Jackson, 2013; Lope Pihie & Bagheri, 2011) and research concerning university students (distinguishing students who had an entrepreneurship course and those who did not e.g., Maresch, Harms, Kailer & Wimmer-Wurm, 2016; Setiawan, 2014). 3 CALLINO stands for Creative Activities in Learning for Innovation. It is a project funded by the European Union whose main focus is to identify the impact of different types of creative learning activities on the innovation potential of its participants. The project is focused on universities in 6 participant EU countries. Project Reference: 512448-LLP-1-2010-1-LV-KA1-KA1SCR Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Psychological Traits as Factors Influencing Productivity Justyna Sokoowska-Woniak and Dariusz Woniak (Ed.) Krzysztof Ziba and Jakub Golik / 95 In general, among studies concerning research of entrepreneurial self- efficacy on students, two trends can be noticed. The majority of articles concerns entrepreneurship education - its effects, flaws and possible improvements (e.g., Karlsson & Moberg, 2013; Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015; Abaho, Olomi & Urassa, 2015; Izquierdo & Buelens, 2011; Shinnar, Hsu & Powell, 2014) or works by Bagheri and Pihie (2011, 2013, 2013). The second recognized group of articles concerns mostly entrepreneurship intention with less attention paid to the entrepreneurship education process (e.g., Yasruddin et al., 2011; Rachmawan, Lizar & Mangundjaya, 2015; Franco, Haase & Lautenschlager, 2010; Carr & Sequeira, 2007 or Krecar & Coric, 2013). Among this specific group of studies it should be noted that many publications come from Asian countries, for example, Malaysia: Lope Pihie and Bagheri (2011), Yasruddin et al. (2011), and Indonesia (Setiawan, 2014; Rachmawan, Lizar & Mangundjaya, 2015). This fact is of great importance in view of the conclusions of previously mentioned studies of Wennberg, Pathak and Autio (2013) and Klyver and Thornton (2010). They showed that self-efficacy is correlated with cultural practices and cultural legitimacy of entrepreneurship respectively. It implies that there is a need for more locally focused studies in other parts of the world, especially as most studies on this subject seem to be focused on either Asian countries or less developed countries like Uganda (Oyugi, 2015; Abaho, Olomi & Urassa, 2015). In accordance with what was suggested by Krecar and Coric (2013), that "entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a dynamic construct which changes along with entrepreneurial status", a recent tendency to study entrepreneurial self-efficacy in a pre-post setting can be noticed i.a., Karlsson and Moberg (2013), Shinnar, Hsu and Powell (2014), Ismail, Zain and Zulihar (2015). Such an approach seems to be necessary in order to measure the development of entrepreneurial self-efficacy of students itself with regard to entrepreneurial education, as well as to study the impact of other relations involving, for instance, prior family business exposure (Carr & Sequeira, 2007). Furthermore, the necessity of pre-post setting studies in this context can also be supported by the characteristic determinants of the life period of being a student. It first and foremost entails gaining a legal personality which enables young adults to start their own business. External factors, such as a dynamic market environment, make the students' career choice inevitable at this age, thus under particular circumstances, the possibility of being self- employed is deliberated. All of these, combined with internal factors such as the enhanced emotional and intellectual development of students, make the subject of measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy important in terms of a better understanding and improvement of methodology (Drnovsek, Wincent & Cardon, 2010), as well as formulating guidelines for entrepreneurship Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), Volume 14, Issue 1, 2018: 91-108 Krzysztof Ziba and Jakub Golik / 103 CONCLUSION Entrepreneurial self-efficacy manifested by student-beginners seems to influence their later entrepreneurial behavior in a statistically significant way. Those who started their studies and believed they would be able to successfully run their own business, upon their graduation three years later were more oriented towards setting up own business in a few years to come (mostly between 3 to 5 years). Since many of them considered professional experience as something necessary to become a business owner, the majority of them started working part-time or full time even before the graduation. ESE also seems to influence the business idea generation process. Those characterized by ESE more often had a defined business idea, which makes their future business venture more feasible. All of that makes ESE a potentially valuable early predictor of future entrepreneurial activities. The major limitation of the study is the low number of participants, which does not allow for more sophisticated and in-depth analysis. Despite its preliminary pilot character, this research can be useful for showing new paths and developments. Particularly, it would be very interesting to investigate the reasons for losing (and gaining) ESE during the course of studies. On one hand, reducing the number of ESE-characterized students can sometimes be beneficial, as premature ESE can possibly result in serious problems when a business venture fails (Ziba & Ziemiaski, 2013). On the other hand, preventing students from losing their ESE could increase the number of successful business ventures. If the education process can influence students, in the sense that they lose or gain ESE, then the consequences of this influence should be investigated thoroughly. References Abaho, E., Olomi, D. R., & Urassa, G. C. (2015). Students' entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Does the teaching method matter? Education + Training, 57(8/9), 908-923. Arora, P., Haynie, J. M., & Laurence, G. A. (2013). Counterfactual thinking and entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The moderating role of self-esteem and dispositional effect. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 359385. Balkin, D. B., & Baron, R. A. (2002). Inventors and new venture formation: The effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 149165. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. Barakat, S., Boddington, M., & Vyakarnam, S. (2014). Measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy to understand the impact of creative Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), Volume 14, Issue 1, 2018: 91-108