Modern diverse environment provides multiple opportunities for entrepreneurial activities. Now entrepreneurship is widely recognized as a driving force for economic development and innovation [Galvгo et al., 2017]. Entrepreneurship can be defined as "a way of thinking, reasoning and acting that is opportunity obsessed, holistic in approach, and leadership balanced for the purpose of value creation and capture" [Timmons & Spinelli, 1994, p. 101]. Entrepreneurship being regarded as a key driver of economic growth has captured the attention of researches and policy makers in last decades.

The need in entrepreneurial activities increases the scholars' concern in the prerequisites of people's decision to start an entrepreneurial career [Turker & Selcuk, 2008]. The need to understand why some people choose the career of an entrepreneur and others do not has become more acute. Young educated individuals stand at the beginning of choosing their career path, therefore undergraduate and graduate students are usually chosen to be the subject of research on issues related to entrepreneurial intentions. A considerable number of studies have made an attempt to examine factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions of students [Autio et al., 2001; Baubonienл et al., 2018; Canever et al., 2017; Gelaidan & Abdullateef, 2017; Lьthje & Franke, 2003; Nowiсski et al. 2019; Oftedal et al., 2018; Palaliж et al., 2017; Pruett et al., 2009, Saeed at al., 2015, Turker & Selcuk, 2009].

Canever et al. (2017) argued that educational institutions are a strong influential force to encourage entrepreneurship among students. It is proven by research conducted by Gelaidan and Abdullateef (2017) that students can be taught how to become an entrepreneur. Consequently, educational support provided by universities can be claimed to be a significant factor influencing on entrepreneurial intentions of students.

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is another part of the author's interest. Bellт et al. (2018) provided evidence of self-efficacy's influence on entrepreneurial intentions of students. Moreover, this study intends to consider the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intentions.

The notions of innovation and creativity are used inseparably by researchers. Both creativity and innovation are considered to be the foundation of the modern organization's competitive advantage [Acar et al., 2019; Indriartiningtias et al., 2017]. Creativity and innovativeness are claimed to be necessary elements of entrepreneurial processes [Timmons & Spinelli, 1994]. The study of Shane and Nicoloau (2013) demonstrated that people with creative personalities are more expected to identify business opportunities and start entrepreneurial career. Recently emerged area of research is dedicated to the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and creativity [Bellт et al., 2018; Yar Hamidi et al., 2008; Laguнa et al., 2019] and the surrounding mechanisms moderating or mediating this relationship.

The field of research on entrepreneurial intentions of students in Russia has recently expanded gradually. It should be emphasized that there is a substantial source of statistical data on entrepreneurial intentions of Russian students called Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students' Survey (GUESS). GUESS is a global research project implemented in Russia by GSOM SPbU ["Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students' Survey", n.d.]. In the latter report the need for increased support of student entrepreneurship was highlighted [Shirokova et al., 2016]. There are several recent research papers written by Russian scholars that are focused on exploring factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions of university students and partly based on data collected by GUESS [Belyaeva et al., 2016; Shirokova & Belyaeva, 2015; Shirokova et al., 2015]. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of research dedicated to the examining of creativity as an important aspect of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intentions in Russian context. This gap should be filled by future research considering the significance of creativity's considerable impact proven by outputs of international investigating efforts [Yar Hamidi et al., 2008; Suacamram, 2019].

The study provides new insights to the research of the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intentions. Moreover, it aims to fill the gap by addressing the question of the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Russian context. National Research University - Higher School of Economics is one of the leading universities in the country, so this university can be employed as a site for the research ["QS World University Ranking", 2019]. It allows to appeal to diverse background of students from all over the Russia.

Research question is formulated: "How does creativity of students relate to their entrepreneurial intentions?" The study seeks to explore the relationship between students' creativity and entrepreneurial intentions focusing on the role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and educational support.

In order to achieve the purpose of the current research, the following tasks are set:

a) to establish theoretical and conceptual framework for creativity, entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and educational support;

b) to investigate the link between creativity and entrepreneurial intentions of students influenced by different factors based on previous research;

c) to create a questionnaire based on previous findings;

d) to conduct a survey among the students of the faculty of International Business and Management of different years of study of NRU HSE in Saint-Petersburg;

e) to statistically analyze collected data;

f) to determine the impact of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and educational support on the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intentions;

g) to make practical recommendations on developing students' creativity and entrepreneurial intentions as a necessary element of educational program.

The goal is achieved through the analysis of data collected among university students with the help of a self-administered questionnaire. Data processing is carried out through statistical analysis using IBM SPSS and AMOS software.

Our research has implications both in terms of theory and practice. First of all, the current study extends the existing literature by bringing new details concerning the entrepreneurial intentions of Russian university students. Specifically, the main scientific contribution of this research is analyzing the role of students' creativity in regard with their intentions to start a new business. Furthermore, the study contributes to the research field by analyzing the significance of surrounding factors including entrepreneurial self-efficacy and educational support in keeping with previous studies on the topic.

An important empirical contribution of the study arises from the analysis of entrepreneurial intentions of undergraduate students of different years of study. The research demonstrates the role of the university in the relationship between the creativity of young people and their entrepreneurial intentions. Universities may be interested in applying the results and recommendations to encourage students' creativity and invest in their future entrepreneurial career. The findings are expected to impact future investigation by providing scholars and practitioners with new pattern of creativity and entrepreneurial intentions' research.

The overall structure of the paper is represented by five sections. The first section is literature review. It consists of four subsections providing theoretical framework for key aspects of the research including entrepreneurial intentions, creativity, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and educational support focusing on interconnection of these concepts examined by previous studies. The second section specifies research question and objectives. The third section describes methodology of this research including hypotheses, research design and research methods. The fourth section presents the description and discussion of the results of the analysis. Finally, conclusion is dedicated to the contribution, primary limitations of this research and recommendations for future research.

The paper consists of 41 pages, excluding title page and appendices. The number of sources cited in the research is 73.

Literature review

Entrepreneurial intention.

Rapidly changing modern environment leads to continuous changes in behavioral patterns. Social conditions' volatility stimulates the rise of diversity in motivations which in turn contributes to the rise of entrepreneurial intentions [Teixeira et al., 2018]. Entrepreneurial intention is widely debated as a significant indicator of entrepreneurial actions frequently used by numerous scholars. The difference between individuals with entrepreneurial intentions and those who just have entrepreneurial plans can be detected [Thompson, 2009]. The difference lies in the fact that people with intentional behavior consciously take into consideration the possibility of starting a new business in future by themselves; furthermore, they do not reject this possibility later. It was also claimed that entrepreneurship is intentionally planned behavior, therefore the possibility of a person's choice of entrepreneurial career in future can be predicted by observing his or her entrepreneurial intentions [Krueger et al., 2000].

Thompson (2009) argued that there are various understandings of entrepreneurial intentions and numerous methods of its assessment, so the subjectivity of the notion makes it difficult to apply and operate. Based on the discussion and broad overview of existing concepts and measurement tools of individual entrepreneurial intent, a clear definition of entrepreneurial intention was derived and formulated as "a self-acknowledged conviction by a person that they intend to set up a new business venture and consciously plan to do so at some point in the future" [Thompson, 2009, p. 676]. There are also more simplified concepts created by other researches. For example, entrepreneurial intentions can be merely defined as intentions to start a business [Cieњlik & Van Stel, 2017].

To consider entrepreneurial intentions, the antecedents of intentions should have been also studied. Social psychologists offer conceptual frameworks for understanding intentions by building models explaining the processes of intentional behavior. There were two most influential models created: Shapero's model of Entrepreneurial Event (1975) and Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior (1991). Analogy can be drawn between comparable elements of these models.

Shapero's Entrepreneurial Event Model is a specific model of entrepreneurial intentions' formation process [Shapero, as cited by Krueger et al., 2000]. Antecedents of intentions recognized by this model are perceived desirability, perceived feasibility and propensity to act (Figure 1). Perceived desirability indicates to which extent entrepreneurial activity attracts a person, while entrepreneurial self-efficacy serves as a prerequisite of perceived feasibility (person's perception of his or her ability to act as an entrepreneur). Shapero also takes into account incidental life events that can have side or direct effect on person's entrepreneurial intentions.

Figure 1. Shapero's Entrepreneurial Event Model*

* Based on the source: Krueger Jr, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of business venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.

Another successful model is the Theory of Planned Behavior that identifies three main antecedents of intentional behavior [Ajzen, 1991]. First, it is attitude towards the behavior; second, there are subjective norms; the third antecedent is perceived behavioral control (Figure 2). In context of entrepreneurship, these factors are understood in the following way: entrepreneurial intentions are predetermined by the person's attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior, social beliefs and norms concerning entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial self-efficacy that indicates the person's self-perceived ability to be an entrepreneur [Yar Hamidi et al., 2008; Krueger et al., 2000].

Figure 2. Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior*

* Based on the source: Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Theory of Planned Behavior was tested empirically in university context [Autio et al., 2001]. The study was conducted in Finland, Sweden and the USA among almost three thousand and a half of university students through self-administered questionnaire. The results of testing the hypotheses showed that subjective norms have weak influence on entrepreneurial intentions of students. Perceived behavioral control has the strongest influence, while attitude towards entrepreneurial career is in the middle.

Bird's model of entrepreneurial intentionality (1988) also attracts attention in scientific community. Model of intentionality elucidates entrepreneurial intentions of individuals and advances entrepreneurial research by addressing a combination of personal and social contextual factors serving as prerequisites of entrepreneurial intention [Bird, 1988]. Bird's framework of contexts of entrepreneurial intentionality illustrates how external context (social, political, economical factors) and personal characteristics (including personal history and abilities) interact and affect rational and intuitive personal thinking that results in emergence of entrepreneurial intent (Figure 3). Boyd and Vozikis [1994] developed further the model of intentionality along by implementing the concept of self-efficacy. This contribution will be discussed below.

Figure 3. Bird's Model of Entrepreneurial Intentionality*

* Based on the source: Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of management Review, 13(3), 442-453.

There are various scales to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Thompson (2009) developed a highly reliable scale for practical usage called Individual Entrepreneurial Intent Scale (IEIS). It consists of 10 items that should be measured from `1' = "very untrue" to `6' = "very true". A six-item scale was created by Liсбn and Chen (2009) and items were measured with seven-point Likert scale with answers from "totally disagree" to "totally agree". Examples of items include: "I am ready to do anything to become an entrepreneur" or "I have very seriously thought of starting a firm". The same scale was put into practice in numerous recent surveys [Gelaidan & Abdullateef, 2017; Mustafa et al., 2016; Shahab et al., 2019]. Saeed et al. (2015) created three-item scale and applied five-point Likert scale from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" to measure two items, while the third one required "yes" or "no" answer ("Have you ever seriously considered becoming an entrepreneur?"). There are various methods designed to measure entrepreneurial, therewith the volume of the questionnaire intentions may also include only 1-2 questions or statements [Yar Hamidi et al., 2008].

Creativity and entrepreneurial intentions.

There have been relatively few studies explaining the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and creativity [Yar Hamidi et al., 2008]. Recently this field of research has attracted more scholars, therefore the number of studies examining the relationship between creativity and tendencies to start a business manipulated by different factors slightly increased.

Psychologists have long been arguing about the definition and assessment of creativity [Amabile, 1982]. One ultimate definition does not exist because creativity is regarded differently in various scientific areas depending on which problem is addressed. According to Sailer (2011), researches have agreed that creativity is a process of interactions between individual and surroundings, not the inherent feature of individual. One of the widely recognized definitions of creativity implies that creativity is the production of novel ideas in any field of human activity that are appropriate and can serve as a decision of corresponding problem [Amabile, 1997].

Concepts of creativity and entrepreneurship are closely interrelated. Henderson and Robertson (1999) suggested that the dependence of entrepreneurial spirit of young people on creativity is crucial for the working environment. Creativity is a source of opportunity recognition that involves receiving and processing information in new ways and results in producing or enhancing new goods or services [Smith et al., 2016]. Creative solutions are increasingly critical for organizations that seek to be innovative [Amabile et al., 1996]. In numerous research the concepts of innovation and creativity are applied inseparably. Schumpeter (1942) was the first to build interconnection between innovation and creativity [cited by Stojcic, 2018]. Since production became automized, creativity appears to be a distinctive business element that is related to innovation and competitiveness [Granot, 2011].

Entrepreneurial creativity is quite important for modern companies. Creativity is recognized as an essential asset in entrepreneurial business [Zhou, as cited in Chen et al., 2018], as creativity can be applied in such activities as finding creative solutions, designing creative business strategies and implementing creative changes in entrepreneurial process.

However, for the long time there were no much evidences of the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intentions. Taken together, recent studies on creativity support the notion of significant importance of creativity for business growth in modern environment, as innovation processes pushed forward by creative individuals have become a core competitive advantage for organizations that are knowledge-based. Shane and Nicoloau (2013) declared that the association has occurred because of the context in which entrepreneurship had taken place, and it has not been proved that creative people actually tend to start entrepreneurial career more often than others. In 2011, these authors conducted a survey with a sample of 3242 twins to examine the association between creative personality and intentions to start business under the role of genetic etiology. The results demonstrated that creative people identify business opportunities and start a business more frequently.

Up to now, several studies has addressed the influence of creativity on entrepreneurial intentions in consideration to various factors affecting the relationship. The research conducted by Bellт et al. (2018) confirmed the findings mentioned above. This paper is dedicated to the analysis of factors linking creativity and entrepreneurial intentions. The survey conducted with the sample of 507 students confirmed that the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intentions is positive. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social context mediate the relationship. This study made an important contribution to the research field of students' entrepreneurial intentions as it acknowledged the importance of intentions formulating in the period of youngsters' personal development.

Another study attempted to evaluate the role of self-perceived creativity as the antecedent of entrepreneurial intentions [Laguнa et al., 2019]. A cross-sectional study revealed the relationship between self-perceived creativity and entrepreneurial intentions mediated by family and university support. The study brings new theoretical details to the area of research by showing that university support has stronger mediating role than family support. The impact of subjective norms was also tested; however, the relationship appeared to be rather weak.

To date, the evidence from articles reviewed here suggests a critical role for creativity as an ascendant of entrepreneurial intentions and highlights the need for continuous research in the field of entrepreneurship.

Measurement of creativity has a long history. A lot of tests and experiments were developed to measure creativity, however participants' performance was measured according to the researcher's intuitive assessment, so the results were highly subjective [Amabile, 1982]. Gough developed Creative Personality Scale that consists of 30 adjectives: 18 indicative and 12 contraindicative. Respondents choose from the list those articles that can be used to describe their personality, and the final score between -18 and +12 indicates the respondents' creativity level [Gough, as cited in Bellт et al., 2018]. DiLiello and Houghton (2008) measured creativity (creative potential) with a scale that consists of three subscales: 4 items for creative self-efficacy (for example, "I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas"), 1 item for talent to do work well and 1 item for the ability to take risks while generating new ideas. Laguнa et al. (2019) applied the first subscale of 4 items to measure self-perceived creativity with five-point Likert scale (from "strongly disagree" to strongly agree").

Self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions.

This section is dedicated to the concept of entrepreneurial self-efficacy that was previously mentioned when discussing models of intentional behavior [Ajzen, 1991; Shapero, 1975]. Self-efficacy (or self-perceived behavioral control) serves as a strong and accurate predictor of entrepreneurial achievement [Ajzen, 1991]. Gist (1987) defines individual self-efficacy as person's beliefs in his or her capability to perform a task and claims that enhancing self-efficacy is beneficial in organizational context.

Extensive research conducted systematically under the direction of Bandura has expanded the limits of understanding of nature of self-efficacy. In his self-efficacy theory, Bandura (1978) highlights the difference between self-efficacy expectations and outcome expectations: outcome expectancy is affected by self-efficacy expectancy that comes from individual's estimation of his or her behavior that is necessary to achieve outcomes. Self-efficacy is cognitive concept, as well as expectancy theory is. Therefore, self-efficacy can be compared with expectancy theory: it is based on individuals' expectations that efforts lead to performance that leads to outcomes [Chen et al., 1998].

Perceived self-efficacy has an impact on the choice of behavioral settings and activities [Bandura, 1978]. Individuals' beliefs in their efficacy and the strength of self-efficacy expectations determine the choice, the amount of efforts made and the duration of time period of confronting obstacles, the amount of stress and so on [Bandura, 1978; Bandura, 1991; Bandura et al., 1980]. In general, individuals' performance is directly influenced by self-efficacy [Bandura, 1991].

Four methods of developing and strengthening self-efficacy of individuals were identified: (1) mastery experiences, (2) modeling, (3) social persuasion and (4) self-judgement of psychological states [Wood & Bandura, 1989]. Mastery experiences is the most effective way for a person to develop efficacy in his or her own capabilities since experience in overcoming barriers increases individuals' self-efficacy better than experience of easy success. Modeling relates to social comparison process: observing proficient models provides individuals with behavior strategies and enhances self-beliefs. Social persuasion includes encouragements that can increase individuals' self-efficacy, however there is always a risk of unrealistic persuasions that can harm self-beliefs. Finally, individuals' self-judgement of his or her own psychological states involves assessment of personal characteristics and capabilities and enhancing self-efficacy by reducing stress.

Boyd and Vozikis (1994) in their revised model of Bird's contexts of entrepreneurial intentionality underlines that self-efficacy is an essential concept for understanding and evaluating the process of formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Thereby, perceived self-efficacy was proposed to be included in the model as an outcome of intuitive thinking (Figure 4).

Another important function of self-efficacy is mediating of the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and the likelihood that intentions will finally result in entrepreneurial actions [Boyd & Vozikis, 1994].

Figure 4. Revised Bird's Model of Entrepreneurial Intentionality*

* Based on the source: Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 18(4), 63-77.

This theoretically sound approach was supported by later articles. It was empirically proven that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a critical precondition of entrepreneurial intent [Chen et al., 1998]. This concept was supported by Baum and Locke (2004) as they suggested that self-efficacy is an important factor of choosing a highly uncertain career of entrepreneur, because it indicates a feeling of capability. The detailed examination of entrepreneurial intentions in European countries by Teixeria et al. (2018) also reported that perceived capacity of individual has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intentions.

There are different approaches to the measurement of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Four phases of entrepreneurial activities were used by McGee et al. (2009) to create a scale to measure entrepreneurial self-efficacy. These phases are: (1) searching, (2) planning, (3) marshaling, (4a) implementing - people and (4b) implementing - finance. Bellт et al. (2018) applied items from three phases (searching, planning and marshaling) to measure self-efficacy of students on five-point Likert scale (from "not very sure" to "extremely sure"). Saeed et al. (2015) measured self-efficacy by using 26 items to measure respondents' perceptions of their skills level in various fields including marketing, finances and management.

Educational support and entrepreneurial intentions.

The consistency of higher education is an issue of current interest among researchers in the field of entrepreneurship. While the choice of career path is determined by different factors including individual and environmental or social, higher education endows educated individuals with required skills and knowledge that improve professional performance [Cieњlik & Van Stel, 2017]. The improvement of education including entrepreneurial educational programs helps in solving the problems of youth unemployment and brain drain since better knowledge about entrepreneurship can lead to higher entrepreneurial intentions of young people and boost the formation of medium-sized enterprises that will result in increase of number of self-employed individuals [Palaliж et al., 2017]. This is the evidence that educational support has a direct influence on economic situation of the country.

Educational support can be described as necessary knowledge, skills, internship and networking opportunities required to start a new business venture provided by university [Saeed et al., 2015]. It was argued that universities can enhance self-confidence of students: entrepreneurship education plays a role of a motivator that induces individuals to take up entrepreneurship and rises the level of self-confidence and perception of their own abilities [Gelaidan & Abdullateef, 2017]. By doing so, universities improve students' perceived self-efficacy and, therefore, increase the probability of their choice of entrepreneurial career. Educational institutions can also create favorable environment for entrepreneurial activities of students [Mustafa et al., 2016].

It was questioned whether the process of education has an impact on entrepreneurial intentions of students [Turker & Selcuk, 2009]. In the analysis based on the survey of 300 university students in Turkey it was clearly shown that the students' intentions to start a business are fostered by educational and structural support. University might encourage entrepreneurial intentions of young people by providing adequate knowledge and inspiration. The factor of relational support was also expected to emerge significant in the study. Surprisingly, the analysis indicated that there is no relationship between the choice of entrepreneurial career and support friends / family. Therefore, educational support has more substantial impact on entrepreneurial intentions that relational support.

These results fit the survey of Henderson and Robertson (1999) who have suggested university support to be a catalyst for entrepreneurial intentions. Numerous recent researchers also examined perceived university support as a prerequisite of entrepreneurial intentions [Autio et al., 2001; Gelaidan & Abdullateef, 2017; Mustafa et al., 2016; Oftedal et al., 2018; Palaliж et al., 2017; Saeed et al., 2015].

Mustafa et al. (2016) tested three hypotheses describing different aspects of educational support including students' perceptions of educational support, their perceptions of concept development support and perceptions of business development support. The results of this research also supported findings of Henderson and Robertson (1999) by providing evidence of strong positive influence of educational concept development (transforming students' ideas into concepts) on entrepreneurial intentions. Concerning studying environment, it was found out that university culture with objectionable attitude towards entrepreneurship greatly decreases entrepreneurial intentions of students, including both enthusiastic and passive individuals [Oftedal et al., 2018]. Consequently, recent research gives recommendations concerning educational support provided by universities focusing on the quality and quantity of entrepreneurial courses [Oftedal et al., 2018; Palaliж et al., 2017].

Going back to the Theory of Planned Behavior, educational support can be considered to be the antecedent of entrepreneurial intentions, hence educational environment of student is within the framework of Ajzen's theory and defines subjective norms [Autio et al., 2001].

During the period of active research of entrepreneurial intentions in university context, several questionnaires to measure educational support were developed. Turker and Selcuk (2009) created a five-item scale to measure educational support and used five-point Likert scale with answer options ranged from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". A scale of 13 items was composed by Saeed et al. (2015). It consists of three parts: 6 items to measure perceived educational support (for example, "My university offers elective courses on entrepreneurship"), 4 items for perceived concept developing support (for example, "My university motivates students to start a new business") and 3 items for business development support (for example, "My university use its reputation to support students that start a new business"). Items were measured using a five-point Likert scale from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". The same scale was applied by Mustafa et al. (2016) with modified answer scale: a seven-point Likert scale was used with answer options from "totally disagree" to "totally agree". Gelaidan and Abdullateef (2017) used four-item scale based on previous studies; as well as in previous research five-point Likert scale was taken to measure items (ftom "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree"). For example, "My university develops my entrepreneurial skills and abilities".

Statement of the research question

The current paper is focused on exploring the relationship between students' creativity and their entrepreneurial intentions and understanding the role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and educational support. As it follows from the studied literature, the field of research related to entrepreneurial intentionality is actively explored by scholars. Recent development of study of entrepreneurial intentions has broadened the horizons for complex research of antecedents of entrepreneurial behavior, relationships among entrepreneurial ideas and the consequences caused by the development of these ideas [Bird, 1988]. In the context of global economic development entrepreneurship plays stimulating role, so research is demanded for understanding the mechanisms of formation of people's intentions to become an entrepreneur.

The relationship between creativity and tendencies to start a business is explored by researchers as creativity is considered to be an essential factor of entrepreneurial success. This research is dedicated to the explaining this relationship in Russian context regarding undergraduate students. As it was previously mentioned, the research question of the study is formulated in the following way: "How does creativity of students relate to their entrepreneurial intentions?" The assigned tasks of the research should be necessarily solved to answer the research question posed.