**5. Concluding remarks**

The main critique toward entrepreneurial intentions studies argues that whereas intentions are the best predictors of future individual behavior particularly when behavior is rare, hard to observe or involves unpredictable time lags [7, 71], there is still insufficiently understanding of the intention–action/behavior link. Entrepreneurship scholars have to define clearly their concepts and antecedents, and choose the adequate models and measurements. In addition, they have to precise carefully the relationships between antecedents, the types of intentions, the desired behaviors, and the direction of causality of the relationships between variables in intention-based models. In providing helpful critiques to most of these models, [94] questioned the direction of causality in intentions models (notably significant correlation between perceived desirability, intention and perceived feasibility). An evidence was seen a causation in the TPB model, confirming previous findings. The exploration of the aforementioned theoretical and empirical models based on leading theories (TRA and TPB) and alternative ones, has led to the identification of keys roles played by certain variables such as distal or proximal predictors, mediators or moderators, or as facilitator or accelerator of the

There is an urgent need for integrating, improving and modifying entrepreneurial intention models to better represent the complexity of the entrepreneurial process and reduce the number of alternative entrepreneurial intentions models [21, 49, 89]. For example, the application of MGB and EMGB or of ImIn improves the predictive validity of the behavioral intention

There is also a call for scholars to take the temporal dimensions into account for the intention formation/enactment process when choosing or conceiving their models. These models have to be considered as models of changing intentions. Scholars must move from static models toward theories and formal models that address the implications of that change [6, 7, 72]. Furthermore, researchers need to embrace theories reflecting the inherent dynamics of human decision making in order to understand how entrepreneurial intentions evolve: "*Capturing the dynamics is necessary to advance our understanding of how intent becomes action*" [6]. They have to monitor intentions and their antecedents longitudinally through experimentations by mobilizing the alternative theories [22]. For example, when studying the link between intention and behavior with longitudinal data, researchers can consider the TT, ImIn and commitment to fill the knowledge gap. A dynamic model such as TT and its variants should prove rich,

In a recent work, [40] questioned about the few studies, which were conducted to make the leap from intent to action except the study of [59]. He urged scholars to deploy dynamic and specified models more often [45]. Very recent studies have found to respond to this call including the studies of [95] and of [54]. For example, [95] used the temporal construal theory to propose longitudinal study that tracks individuals' intentions over time and the occurrence of the entrepreneurial action. In fact, researchers suggested that the inclusion of temporal construal theory in intent models "*would suggest path dependent influence on intent, and more specifically, that intent may be subdivided into temporally based categories, broadly codified as short-term and long-term intent*". This research intended to specify two kinds of intentions (short- and long-term) in the intentional process. Indeed, [54] proposed that intentions predict start-up

action initiation [21, 49, 77].

116 Entrepreneurship - Trends and Challenges

within the framework of the TPB [28, 49].

fertile territory for entrepreneurship scholars [6, 40].

This chapter discussed the theories, concepts and empirical models mobilized to wander and understand the gap between intentions and actions and behaviors. A social and cognitive psychological approach was adopted to understand entrepreneurship and in particular the intention-behavior link. This chapter provided certain challenges and avenues for entrepreneurship research field. This overview of study of intention-behavior link and the critiques directed to most of intentions-based models together lead to a series of critical issues that are not yet adequately taken into account within entrepreneurship research. These issues concern the following questionings:

• What types or kind of intentions do we focus on? The literature review shows that there is a diversity of intentions: competing/conflicting intentions; initial intention vs. formed/ enacted intention; strong vs. weak intentions, well-informed vs. ill-informed intentions [39, 40, 66]. There is a need for entrepreneurship scholars to specify them when conducting a research on intention-behavior link.

• How to study the lack of transition from intentions to actions? And by which variables this transition is likely to be affected? Is it a lack of motivation, ImIn, commitment or volition? [7, 15, 27, 81].

[9] Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human

From Entrepreneurial Intentions to Behaviors: Wandering In-Between and Wondering…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70836

119

[10] Sheeran P. Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European

[11] Sutton S. Predicting and explaining intentions and behaviour: How well are we doing?

[12] Carsrud AL, Johnson RW. Entrepreneurship: A social psychological perspective.

[13] Frese M. Toward a psychology of entrepreneurship – An action theory perspective.

[14] Bruyat C. Création d'entreprise: contributions épistémologiques et modélisation [thesis].

[15] Carsrud A, Brannback M. Entrepreneurial motivations: What do we still need to know?

[16] Ajzen I, Czasch C, Flood MG. From intentions to behaviour: Implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2009;

[17] Gollwitzer PM. Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American

[18] Gollwitzer PM, Brandstätter V. Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit.

[19] Kim M, Hunter J. Relationships among attitudes, intention and behaviour. Communi-

[20] Orbell S, Sheeran P. Motivational and volitional processes in action initiation: A field study of the role of implementation intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

[21] Adam AF, Fayolle A. Bridging the entrepreneurial intention-behaviour gap: The role of commitment and implementation intention. International Journal of Entrepreneurship

[22] Adam AF, Fayolle A. Can implementation intention help to bridge the intention-behaviour gap in the entrepreneurial process? An experimental approach. The International

[23] Aloulou W. Contribution à la compréhension de la dynamique de l'engagement individuel dans le processus de création d'entreprises innovantes. Etude longitudinale de cas

[24] De Clercq D, Menzies TV, Diochon M, Gasse Y. Explaining nascent entrepreneurs' goal commitment: An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship.

d'ingénieurs tunisiens [thesis]. France: University of Grenoble; 2008. 472 p

Decision Processes. 1991;**50**(2):179-211

Review of Social Psychology. 2002;**12**(1):1-36

Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1998;**28**(15):1317-1338

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. 1989;**1**(1):21-31

Grenoble: Université Pierre Mendés France; 1993. 431 p

Journal of Small Business Management. 2011;**49**(1):9-26

**39**(6):1356-1372

2000;**30**(4):780-797

2009;**22**(2):123-139

Psychologist. 1999;**54**(7):493-503

cations Research. 1993;**20**(3):331-364

and Small Business. 2015;**25**(1):36-54

Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship. 2009;**5**(6):437-496

Journal of Personality and social Psychology. 1997;**73**(1):186-199

Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. 2016;**17**(2):80-88


We know little about how intentions evolve and even less about the timing of acting and behaving. Entrepreneurship scholars may find a suitable theoretical framework to explore and solve these questionings, and fill in the knowledge gap on the intention-behavior link.
