Antecedents of Entrepreneurial Intention: Entrepreneurship Education as a Moderator and Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy as a Mediator

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) on entrepreneurial intention. A conceptual model is developed to examine the impact of EO on entrepreneurial intention mediated by entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) and moderated by entrepreneurial education (EE). Data collected from 390 respondents from two districts in the southern part of India (Tamil Nadu) were analysed to test the hypothesised relationships. First, the psychometric properties of the survey instrument were tested by partial least squares structural equation modelling, and then hypotheses were tested using PROCESS macros. The results indicate that (a) all three dimensions of EO—innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness—are significant predictors of ESE and (b) that ESE mediated the relationship between EO and entrepreneurial intention. This study also found that EE moderated the relationship between innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness and ESE. This research has several theoretical and practical implications for academics, government and non-government entrepreneurship-supporting organisations. This research provides detailed insights into the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention and guides academics and entrepreneurship training institutions in shaping individuals’ entrepreneurial careers.

Keywords

Entrepreneurial intention entrepreneurial self-efficacy entrepreneurship education proactiveness risk-taking

Introduction

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO), a three-dimensional construct consisting of three dimensions—risk taking, innovativeness and proactiveness—(Covin & Slevin, 1991; Miller, 1983) has received increasing attention from scholars worldwide over the last three decades (Bernoster et al., 2020; Biniari, 2012; Bolton & Lane, 2012; Clark et al., 2024; Covin & Wales, 2019; Garçon et al., 2022; Perez et al., 2024). There is consensus among scholars that entrepreneurial initiative of individuals, explained through the predisposition of innovativeness, risk-taking and proactivity (Bermejo-Olivas et al., 2024; Chahal & Baber, 2024; Kalitanyi & Bbenkele, 2019), plays a vital role in their intention to start new ventures and make decisions (Peng et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2021). Since the entrepreneurship intentions of individuals are explored in the early stages of education, a major part of the entrepreneurship literature focuses on educational institutions (Abidi et al., 2022; Hassan et al., 2021; Twum et al., 2021). Another important characteristic that plays a vital role in driving individuals towards entrepreneurship is the self-efficacy beliefs they possess (Bandura, 2001; McGee et al., 2009). Extant research has documented that self-efficacy (i.e., one’s own confidence in the capability to undertake any task) is an important psychological factor that influences the formation of entrepreneurial intention (Acharya & Berry, 2023; Sherkat & Chenari, 2022; Valencia-Arias et al., 2023). It is contended that individuals with high ‘self-efficacy’ tend to identify opportunities, take calculated risks and engage in innovation (Gómez-Jorge et al., 2025).

Literature on entrepreneurship education (EE) is exhaustive (Lanivich et al., 2024; Mozumdar et al., 2022; Sitaridis & Kitsios, 2024; Sreenivasan & Suresh, 2023; Thomassen et al., 2020; Yi & Duval-Couetil, 2022) in the sense that some studies have concentrated on the outcomes, such as entrepreneurial opportunities, and some scholars have focused on the effect of EE on entrepreneurial intentions (Duong et al., 2024; Enrique et al., 2024; Howard & Boudreaux, 2024; Kang & Ha, 2015; Matricano, 2024; Moya & Toledano, 2024; Passarelli & Bongiorno, 2025; Sharma et al., 2024). For example, several studies in the past have empirically found that EE boosts entrepreneurial opportunities (Corbett, 2007; Eckhardt & Shane, 2003; Gielnik et al., 2014; Haynie et al., 2009; Reynolds & Curtin, 2008). Further, there was mounting evidence that educational institutions enhance entrepreneurial intention (Åstebro et al., 2012; Audretsch, 2014; Bae et al., 2014; Krueger et al., 2000; Guerrero et al., 2020; Liao et al., 2022; Perkmann et al., 2013; Siegel & Wright, 2015; Souitaris et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2005).

The focus of this study is to investigate the relationship between EO and entrepreneurial intention through the lens of self-efficacy, in the context of a developing nation—India. In developing countries, entrepreneurship is considered a platform for creating new employment opportunities (e.g., Singh & Mehdi, 2022), and it is believed that entrepreneurial learning and education influence the career choices of students who graduated from various universities (Maheshwari & Kha, 2022). While these constructs—EO, EE and self-efficacy beliefs—were studied in isolation (Andersen et al., 2015; Lee & Kreiser, 2018), this study aims to integrate these into a comprehensive model to decipher dynamic interactions between the variables.

Rationale for the Present Study: Indian Context

Economic development, as a necessity for both developed and developing countries, encourages individuals in any given country to focus on fostering entrepreneurial behaviour, as it is a well-known fact that there is a positive relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth, and India is not an exception (Hamdan et al., 2020). Numerous studies on individuals’ entrepreneurial intentions have been conducted in advanced nations (Iakovleva et al., 2011; Olufunso, 2010), as well as in India (Bhinder & Kaur, 2025; Roy & Das, 2020; Sharma & Jain, 2019; Singh et al., 2023; Sun, 2023). For example, in a recent study conducted on 370 engineering students in the state of Karnataka, India, researchers found that all three dimensions of EO are positively associated with entrepreneurial intention (Pinto et al., 2024). In another study conducted on 410 handicraft artisans who are entrepreneurs, Yadav et al. (2024) documented that entrepreneurial leadership leads to performance, mediated by EO. Additionally, in research conducted on 227 students from Indian universities, it was revealed that entrepreneurship-oriented programmes had a significant impact on entrepreneurial intentions (Siddiqui et al., 2023). A literature review on entrepreneurship at the global level reveals that entrepreneurial intention is influenced by two factors: EE and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE), both of which play a crucial part in enhancing individuals’ entrepreneurial knowledge and skill set, increasing their confidence and likelihood of starting their own business (Atkinson, 2019). However, the entrepreneurial mindset, orientation and intention in developing countries (e.g., India) may be significantly different from that of individuals in a western context, thus calling for additional investigation. Acknowledging the importance of entrepreneurship in the creation of employment opportunities, various agencies and institutions in India bring awareness among students through EE. Studying, recognising and encouraging entrepreneurial intention are ways to address improving job possibilities. Thus, using EE, orientation and self-efficacy, this study aims to investigate the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. First, the study reveals the effect of EE on shaping self-efficacy and EO (innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness) among entrepreneurs, demonstrating their aspiration towards entrepreneurship careers. Second, the study emphasises the importance of ESE by contributing to the role of a motivational force between EO and intention. This study can provide a better understanding of the importance of EE and ESE in shaping individuals’ entrepreneurial intentions. The result of the investigation regarding the association between these antecedents and entrepreneurial intention will be helpful for the government to encourage educational practices and for educational institutions to teach the personality tendencies of individuals who want to pursue careers as entrepreneurs. This study attempts to answer the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1: How do various dimensions of EO (innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness) influence ESE?

RQ2: How does EE moderate the relationship between various dimensions of EO (innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness) and ESE?

RQ3: How does ESE influence entrepreneurial intention?

RQ4: Does ESE mediate the relationship between EO and entrepreneurial intention?

By answering these questions, this study makes four significant contributions to entrepreneurship literature. First, this research posits that three dimensions of EO (innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness) are significant precursors to entrepreneurship self-efficacy. Second, this study underscores the importance of EE in strengthening the positive relationship between the dimensions of EO on entrepreneurship self-efficacy. This study uncovers the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, which will be helpful for organisations and government in encouraging educational practices for inculcating the personality tendencies of individuals who want to pursue careers as entrepreneurs. Third, this study highlights the importance of ESE in influencing entrepreneurial intention. Fourth, the conceptual model developed in the context of a developing nation (India) extends the burgeoning literature on entrepreneurship theory and practice.

Literature Review and the Variables in the Study

The study variables in this research are: EO, consisting of three dimensions (innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness), EE, ESE and entrepreneurial intention (EI).

Entrepreneurial Orientation

EO is a multi-dimensional construct. Nearly four decades ago, Miller (1983) advocated that EO consists of innovativeness, proactivity and risk-taking. There has been unanimity among the researchers that entrepreneurial success hinges on EO and the ability of individuals to exhibit high levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001; Donbesuur et al., 2020). Some scholars added competitive aggressiveness and autonomy as two other dimensions (Jin et al., 2017), which we did not consider in this study. Ekpe and Mat (2012) investigated EO as a multi-dimensional construct and empirically found that among undergraduate students, self-efficacy and education strongly influenced entrepreneurial intention.

Innovativeness

Innovativeness, a critical component of entrepreneurship, is concerned with an individual’s ability to identify and act upon new ideas and behaviours (Van de Ven, 1992). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) argue that innovativeness is essential for promoting new ideas, products, services and new methods of doing things. Organisations pursue new technologies and new product designs in research and development departments through technological and product innovation (Lee, 1999). About entrepreneurship, innovativeness is essential for promoting new ventures (Kang, 2011; Yi et al., 2006). Entrepreneurs who are high on innovativeness are open to new ideas (Ali, 2019; Luo et al., 2018). Innovative individuals continually look for new challenges and methods to perform tasks (Nimrod & Kleiber, 2007). Further, individuals with high levels of innovativeness are willing to take risks, respond positively to new ideas, develop new ideas and accept challenges.

Risk-taking

Risk-taking is concerned with the ability and willingness of an individual to face challenging tasks and capture opportunities in an uncertain environment (Bin & Park, 2002). Risk-taking is the personality trait of some individuals who are willing to encounter unprecedented and uncertain situations (Jung, 2015). While low-risk entrepreneurs avoid risks and make meticulous calculations of various alternatives, high-risk-taking entrepreneurs make faster decisions and attempt to capture immediately available opportunities (Sexton & Bowman-Upton, 1986). Researchers argue that risk-taking will yield fruitful results when entrepreneurs are proactive in seizing opportunities, not just taking risks (Park, 2017). Sometimes past experiences, moods, inbuilt willpower and cognitive abilities to withstand pressure drive the risk-taking decisions (Charness & Gneezy, 2011; Figner & Weber, 2016; Yuen & Lee, 2002).

Proactiveness

Proactiveness is concerned with an individual’s ability to forecast the future before making strategic decisions (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Organisations engage in innovations, based on their future-oriented disposition, to capture opportunities stemming from an uncertain environment (Covin & Slevin, 1991). Proactive individuals tend to be the first movers and actively participate in market changes and are always proactive rather than reactive to their competitors’ moves (Kim, 1994). Proactiveness is a psychological behaviour of individuals, depending on both perception and cognition. Perception is related to adapting behaviour to deal with the physical environment, whereas cognition is concerned with emotional reactions to situations (Bar, 2009; Darnall et al., 2010). Some researchers contend that highly proactive individuals tend to exhibit high self-efficacy and risk-taking behaviour (Ohly et al., 2006).

Entrepreneurship Education

EE is defined as the development of attitudes, behaviours and capacities that can be applied during an individual’s career as an entrepreneur (Wilson, 2009). EE also refers to education for entrepreneurial attitudes and skills (Bae et al., 2014). It consists of any pedagogical programme or process of education for entrepreneurial attitudes and skills (Fayolle et al., 2006). EE programmes and the entrepreneurial support universities provide are effective ways of obtaining the requisite knowledge about entrepreneurship and motivating young people to seek an entrepreneurial career (Lin & Si, 2014; Yu et al., 2025). The impact of education and the university environment on the creation of prospective entrepreneurs, the relationship between university assistance and support and the set of new businesses have gained attention in academic circles (Primario et al., 2022; Trivedi, 2014).

Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy

ESE is an individual’s belief in their ability to successfully perform given tasks (Bandura, 2001; Cadenas et al., 2020; McGee et al., 2009). Early scholars have identified five dimensions of ESE: marketing, innovation, management, risk-taking and financial control (Cooper et al., 2016). Self-efficacy beliefs ‘affect whether individuals think in self-enhancing or self-debilitating ways, how well they motivate themselves and persevere in the face of difficulties, the quality of their emotional well-being and their vulnerability to stress and depression, and the choices they make at important decisional points’ (Bandura & Locke, 2003, p. 87). In a study conducted on 558 students from four schools in Jordan, scholars found that self-efficacy is a significant predictor of entrepreneurial intention, and entrepreneurial skills strengthened the positive effect (Abuzaid, 2024). The self-efficacy level influences motivation, effort, perseverance in the face of difficulty, emotional stability and stress levels (Bandura & Locke, 2003). High levels of self-efficacy increase an individual’s determination, leading to better performance. ESE helps entrepreneurs to remain resilient, quickly recover from failure, set challenging goals and display persistence, resulting in improved business performance yielding growth in the long-run operations (Trevelyan, 2011). Oathman and Hisam (2020) assert that self-efficacy is a vital component of entrepreneurial behaviour and a motivation to start a new business venture. It influences the direction that individuals take when engaging in entrepreneurial activities. A lack of self-efficacy reduces the individual’s intention of becoming an entrepreneur.

Entrepreneurial Intention

The establishment of any business starts with an idea, often called entrepreneurship intention (Morris, 1988). As thinking precedes action, EI is the logical starting point for beginning any new venture or business (Yoon, 2004). An individual’s effort and positive attitude towards business start-ups are critical elements in entrepreneurship (Krueger et al., 2000). Entrepreneurship is a planned behaviour of individuals, resulting from their EI. Their intentional behaviour depends on their desire and feasibility to become an entrepreneur. Such behaviour is essential for the generation of new businesses. If they have higher intentions, it will result in an act or performance (Mahfud et al., 2020). Oguntimehin and Olaniran (2017) contend that EI refers to an individual’s willingness to engage in entrepreneurial activities, be self-employed and build a start-up business. EI is a precursor to starting a new business to implement new ideas (Mohan, 2022; Polas et al., 2019).

Hypotheses Development

Innovativeness and ESE

Entrepreneurship transforms an innovative idea into a brand-new good, service or company to seize a market opportunity. As proponents of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), innovative individuals make things happen through their actions; their level of self-efficacy is very high. In a recent study, Rodrigues and Rebelo (2023) documented that the innovative behaviour of employees is closely related to ESE. Taking a cue from this, we argue that innovativeness is positively associated with ESE. Entrepreneurs tend to exhibit innovativeness and capture the opportunities in the environment, which make them successful, especially when they are cautious about the changing market needs. In high-technology industries, Markman et al. (2002) discovered that inventors with higher self-efficacy prefer to exploit their ideas by founding new enterprises. In contrast, innovators with lower self-efficacy prefer to work for established corporations. This finding suggests that perceived self-efficacy helps people explore new opportunities and take risks. People with high ESE and innovation levels can quickly adapt to societal and market changes when starting a new business (Andersen et al., 2015). Hasche and Linton (2018) have asserted that an individual’s innovative behaviour and ESE are positively related. Thus, based on available empirical evidence, the following hypothesis is advanced:

H₁: Innovativeness is positively related to ESE.

Risk-taking and ESE

Risk-taking as an intentional move is a control strategy that can be regarded as avoiding risk to achieve the desired goals rather than impeding efforts to optimise earnings (Jankensgard, 2019). Marlino and Wilson (2003) argued that people with a high risk-taking tendency possess a high level of self-efficacy and show willingness to engage in entrepreneurial activities. A risk-taker’s propensity increases the willingness of individuals to start new ventures and become successful when they have a high degree of self-efficacy (Kerr et al., 2019). Individuals with higher risk-taking tendencies also pursue risky careers that involve creating new opportunities (Forbes, 2005). Based on the above arguments, we hypothesise the following:

H₂: Risk-taking is positively related to ESE.

Proactiveness and ESE

Highly motivated people tend to have proactive personalities; as a result, they are comparatively unconstrained by external forces and are driven to change their environment (Stephan et al., 2016). Proactive nature is a proximal antecedent of self-belief and self-efficacy, both of which have been favourably associated with entrepreneurs (Wang et al., 2016). An empirical study of 275 people found that proactive entrepreneurs had substantially higher openness, centrality of work, self-reliance and ESE (Van Ness et al., 2020). According to Prabhu et al. (2012), proactive personality and ESE significantly impact EI. Given the importance of ESE, assisting proactive people in developing self-efficacy in entrepreneurship may result in more start-ups. When ambitious young men and women feel confident in their entrepreneurial ability, they may start their own firms. Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis:

H₃: Proactiveness is positively related to ESE.

EE as a Moderator

Recently, researchers reported that EE plays a vital role in simulating EI, especially in the context of developing nations (Perez et al., 2024). It is possible to target ESE by employing role models in addition to the standard teaching techniques used in most entrepreneurship training programmes, which include guest speakers and case studies. Through personal comparison, these assist people in making assessments of their inventiveness and creativity. In a survey with 3,024 undergraduates, Bularafa (2022) found that EE is essential for encouraging students’ inventiveness and fostering their EIs, which are necessary for launching new businesses. In a recent study conducted on 804 students from higher educational institutions in China, scholars found that EE has a significant impact on ESE (Wu et al., 2022). A successful strategy to gain the required knowledge about entrepreneurship, boost self-confidence and inspire young, innovative individuals to pursue an entrepreneurial career is possible only through EE programmes and the assistance institutions offer (Lin & Si, 2014). This evidence is utilised to create the following hypothesis:

H_1a: EE moderates the relationship between innovativeness and ESE such that the relationship between innovativeness and ESE becomes stronger (weaker) when EE is higher (lower).

People who exhibit characteristics such as the need for achievement, a propensity for taking risks and locus of control are more receptive to EE outcomes, such as increased entrepreneurship self-confidence and intention, than those who do not (Hansemark, 2003). According to Wardana et al. (2020), EE has the potential to increase an individual’s ESE, which, in turn, increases EI. This is because to be successful, it is essential for individuals to learn how, when and where to start new ventures. Education enables them to take calculated risks and understand the pros and cons of new ventures. Entrepreneurship is a strategic decision, and often the results could be disastrous if the new venture fails. Individuals who lack adequate EE may find it difficult to succeed in new businesses when compared to those who receive an adequate level of EE. Thus, EE helps people understand the risks involved in new ventures and learn the strategies of becoming successful. Available research reported that individuals who received EE are better equipped to take on the risks of starting their own business and becoming successful (Zhang et al., 2014). In their study of 441 undergraduate students, Vamvaka et al. (2020) concluded that EE programmes should not only include management courses similar to those offered by a business school that aim to increase competence in the form of business skills, but should also focus on fostering ESE and developing positive emotions towards entrepreneurship. Only they are more willing to take risks for uncertainties. The evidence shown above supports the formation of the following hypothesis:

H_2a: EE moderates the relationship between risk-taking and ESE such that the relationship between risk-taking and ESE becomes stronger (weaker) when the EE is higher (lower).

In higher educational institutions, faculty train the students to conduct feasibility studies, create business plans and engage in business simulations and case studies that enhance entrepreneurial skills. Thus, EE plays a significant role in increasing the self-efficacy of individuals (Wilson et al., 2007). In a study conducted among 1,423 undergraduate students from two developing nations (Colombia and Ecuador), researchers found that EE has a positive effect on proactiveness, innovativeness and risk-taking. Though the direct effects of EE were documented by earlier scholars, the moderating role of EE was not tested. We argue that EE helps individuals in strengthening the positive effect of risk-taking on ESE. According to Jaafar and Aziz (2008), entrepreneurship classes encourage people to establish their enterprises at some point in their careers. EE is more likely to strengthen the positive effect of proactiveness on ESE. Education enables individuals to understand the risks involved in new ventures and increases their ability to forecast the market. EE enhances entrepreneurial competencies among the students and helps them in identifying and exploring entrepreneurial opportunities (Ferreira et al., 2022; Hoang et al., 2020; Samo & Mahar, 2017). In many higher educational institutions, EE has received increasing importance because it provides a platform for students to learn the tricks of starting new ventures and how to make them successful. In the absence of prior studies on the moderating role of EE between EE and ESE, we offer the following exploratory hypothesis:

H_3a: EE moderates the relationship between proactiveness and ESE such that the relationship between proactiveness and ESE becomes stronger (weaker) when the EE is higher (lower) and vice versa.

ESE as a Mediator

Extant research in the literature reported that ESE is positively associated with EI and creativity (Ahmed et al., 2021; Chen & Urban, 2018). ESE is linked to delivering performance results about entrepreneurial behaviours and beliefs (Newman et al., 2019). ESE is positively associated with EI as individuals with high self-confidence are more likely to launch new ventures successfully (Nowinski et al., 2019). Several scholars have reported that ESE is positively associated with innovation, leadership, creativity, start-up procedures, product development, cooperation and EI (Barakat et al., 2014; Hamdani et al., 2023; Kickul et al., 2009). An individual’s EO (innovation, taking risks, being proactive), in addition to having a direct impact, may also have an indirect effect through ESE. Early scholars found that individuals with higher levels of ESE are more likely to succeed in decision-making regarding starting new ventures (Pihie & Bagheri, 2013).

While the direct effects of ESE on EI were well documented in the literature (Barakat et al., 2014; Newman et al., 2019), some scholars have also investigated the mediating role of ESE between emotional intelligence and cognitive flexibility and EI (Mishra & Singh, 2024). Taking a cue from this, we argue that ESE may be a potential mediator between EO (innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness). Based on direct effects and available scant research evidence, we offer the following exploratory mediation hypotheses:

H_4a–H_4c: ESE mediates the relationship between (a) innovativeness and EI (H_4a); (b) risk-taking and EI (H_4b); and (c) proactiveness and EI (H_4c).

ESE and EI

ESE is essential in entrepreneurial research, representing entrepreneurs’ confidence in executing entrepreneurial tasks (Miao et al., 2017). According to the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), individuals with high levels of self-efficacy are more inclined to engage in entrepreneurship. In a study conducted among Chinese students, Wu et al. (2022) documented that ESE is positively associated with EI. ESE impacts people’s capacity for learning, motivation and performance, since these individuals frequently seek to study and do things they believe they will succeed at (Lunenburg, 2011). Numerous empirical studies have shown that entrepreneurs have higher levels of self-efficacy than non-entrepreneurs; they have also shown a significant connection between EI and self-efficacy. ESE integrates EI into initiatives, which improves firm performance. Empirical evidence demonstrates the favourable association between ESE and firm performance (McGee et al., 2009). Forbes (2005) studied new business owners and discovered a link between ESE and recent business revenue performance. Based on these facts, we offer the following hypothesis:

H₅: ESE is positively related to EI.

The conceptual model is presented in Figure 1.

Method

Ethical Considerations

Before collecting data from respondents, we obtained all necessary approvals and clearances from the Ministry of Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME). We also ensured the participants’ rights, confidentiality and well-being throughout the research process. We obtained consent from the respondents and assured them of the prerogative to withdraw from participation whenever they wanted. We mentioned that data collection was purely an academic exercise and that the privacy of respondents would be protected.

Sample

The primary objective of the study is to explore the impact of EE and ESE on the antecedents of EI. We selected the registered entrepreneurs as respondents. We developed the structured survey instrument and collected data from the southern part of India (two districts in Tamil Nadu).

The study employed the proportionate stratified random sampling technique to choose the respondents. First, the total number of registered respondents was obtained from the MSME portal of India. To collect the target data, the researchers got in contact with entrepreneurship associations, entrepreneurship orientation and training programmes, and obtained their details from the Fliar Business Intelligence (BI) website and contacted them via email and phone calls.

Two districts were covered in 2 months. The surveys were collected from 390 respondents, which is more than the required sample size of 382 (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). We tested the non-response bias by comparing the first 75 respondents with the last 75 respondents and found no statistical differences between these two groups (Armstrong & Overton, 1977).

Demographic Profile

The respondents consisted of 250 (64.1%) males and 140 (35.9%) females. The demographic profile of respondents is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Profile.

Category	Profile	Total Number	Percentage
Gender	Male	250	64.1
	Female	140	35.9
Age	17–22	41	10.5
	23–28	135	34.6
	29–34	124	31.8
	35–40	67	17.2
	40 and above	23	5.9
Education qualification	10th–12th	29	7.4
	Vocational diploma	98	25.1
	Undergraduate (Bachelor’s)	132	33.8
	Postgraduate (Master’s)	110	28.2
	Others	21	5.4
Residential status	Urban	157	40.3
	Semi-urban	154	39.5
	Rural	79	20.3
Industry	Manufacturing	132	33.8
	Service	86	22.1
	Retail	121	31.0
	Others	51	13.1
Annual income (INR = Indian rupees; $ = US dollar)	Below INR 500,000 ($6,000)	110	28.2
	INR 500,000–1,000,000 ($6,000–12,000)	157	40.3
	INR 1,000,000–1,500,000 ($12,000–18,000)	101	25.9
	Above INR 1,500,000 ($18,000)	22	5.6
Method of business	Traditional (offline)	140	35.9
	Digital (online)	77	19.7
	Hybrid (offline and online)	173	44.4

Measures

The questionnaire used in this study consisted of 23 items adapted from well-established scales from previous studies. The indicators were adapted to suit the context and purpose. All constructs were measured on a Likert-type five-point scale (anchored as ‘1’ = strongly disagree; and ‘5’ = strongly agree).

EO consists of three dimensions, namely innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking. A total of 10 items were adapted from Bolton and Lane (2012) to measure EO.

Innovativeness was measured with four indicators. The sample items read as ‘Prefer unique, one-of-a-kind approach’ and ‘Try my own unique way’. The reliability coefficient Cronbach’s alpha for innovativeness was .69, and composite reliability (CR) was 0.81.

Risk-taking was measured with three indicators. The sample items of risk-taking were ‘Act boldly’ and ‘Take bold action by venturing into unknown’. The reliability coefficient Cronbach’s alpha for risk-taking was .64, and CR was 0.80.

Proactiveness was measured with three indicators. The sample items of proactiveness were ‘Plan ahead on projects’ and ‘Act in anticipation of future problems’. The reliability coefficient Cronbach’s alpha for proactiveness was .63, and CR was 0.80.

EI was measured with five items adapted from Liñán and Chen (2009). The sample items read as ‘Make every effort to start and run own firm’ and ‘Very serious thought of starting a firm’. The reliability coefficient Cronbach’s alpha for EI was .86, and CR was 0.90.

EE was measured by four items adapted from Davidson (1995). The sample item of EE was ‘I invest much time and energy in studying the latest developments in business management’ and ‘I have received some EE or Training’. The reliability coefficient Cronbach’s alpha for EE was .63, and CR was 0.78.

ESE was measured by four indicators adopted from the scales in the studies of Cooper and Lucas (2006) and Barakat et al. (2014). The sample item read as ‘I am able to choose suitable employees for my own business’ and ‘I can write a clear and complete business plan’. The reliability coefficient Cronbach’s alpha for ESE education was .75, and CR was 0.84.

Analysis and Findings

Measurement Model and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

As suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we checked the measurement model by performing CFA. Factor loadings of the majority of the indicators were over 0.7, and for some indicators, they ranged between 0.65 and 0.69. The Cronbach’s alpha of all variables exceeded the acceptable level of .6, providing evidence of construct reliability and validity. The results of CFA are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and measurement properties.

Variable	Alpha	Standardised Loadings (λyi)	Reliability (λ²yi)	Variance (Var(εi))	Variance-extracted Estimate (Σ(λ²yi)/[(λ²yi) + (Var(εi))])
Entrepreneurial orientation innovativeness (Bolton and Lane, 2012)	0.69				0.52
Prefer unique, one-of-a-kind approach		0.75	0.57	0.43
Favour experimentation and original approach		0.66	0.44	0.56
Try new and unusual activities		0.69	0.48	0.52
Try my own unique way		0.76	0.58	0.42
Risk-taking (Lane, 2012)	0.64				0.58
Act boldly		0.80	0.64	0.36
Invest time/money in something that yields a high return		0.78	0.60	0.40
Take bold action by venturing into the unknown		0.70	0.49	0.51
Proactiveness (Lane, 2012)	0.63				0.57
Plan on projects		0.79	0.62	0.38
Prefer to step up and get things going		0.75	0.56	0.44
Act in anticipation of future problems		0.73	0.53	0.47
Entrepreneurship education (Davidson, 1995)	0.63				0.53
I invest much time and energy in studying the latest developments in business management.		0.74	0.55	0.45
I have received some entrepreneurial education or Training (because of low factor loadings, this indicator is removed from the analysis).
I have a lot of knowledge about management (entrepreneurship).		0.80	0.63	0.37
I have many entrepreneurial experiences.		0.65	0.42	0.58
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Barakat et al., 2014)	0.75				0.58
I am able to choose suitable employees for my own business.		0.77	0.60	0.40
I am able to apply innovative ideas to inspire entrepreneurial partners.		0.70	0.48	0.52
I can write a clear and complete business plan.		0.77	0.60	0.40
I can make a clear plan for the future development direction of entrepreneurship.		0.79	0.63	0.37
Entrepreneurial intention (Liñán & Chen, 2009)	0.86				0.64
Make every effort to start and run own firm		0.78	0.61	0.39
Professional goal is to become an entrepreneur		0.76	0.57	0.43
Determined to create a firm		0.83	0.68	0.32
Ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur		0.82	0.67	0.33
Very serious thought of starting a firm		0.81	0.66	0.34

Descriptive Statistics (Means, Standard Deviations, Zero-correlations, Multicollinearity and Reliability)

The descriptive statistics were captured in Table 3.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics (Means, Standard Deviations, Zero-order Correlations, Reliability and Validity).

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	AVE Estimates
1. Innovativeness	3.99	0.55	0.72						.69	0.81	0.52
2. Risk-taking	3.96	0.57	0.63***	0.76					.64	0.80	0.58
3. Proactiveness	4.00	0.56	0.59***	0.61***	0.75				.63	0.80	0.57
4. Entrepreneurial education	3.69	0.60	0.30***	0.31***	0.37***	0.73			.63	0.78	0.53
5. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy	3.98	0.51	0.52***	0.49***	0.54***	0.38***	0.76		.75	0.84	0.58
6. Entrepreneurial Intention	4.08	0.61	0.57***	0.53***	0.67***	0.42***	0.57***	0.80	.86	0.90	0.64

Note: ***p < .01; elements in diagonal and bold are the square root of average variance extracted (AVE).

Before testing hypotheses, it is essential to perform a robustness check to see if there is any multicollinearity. A careful observation of correlations indicates that the correlations ranged between 0.67 (between proactiveness and EI) and 0.37 (between proactiveness and EE). If the correlations between the variables exceed 0.75, multicollinearity is said to be present (Montgomery et al., 2021). In this research, since correlations were lower than 0.75, multicollinearity is not a problem with the data. As an additional test, we observed the variance inflation factor (VIF) and found that the VIF values were less than 5, suggesting that the data are not infected by multicollinearity. The outer VIF values and inner VIF values are presented in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4.

Outer Variance Inflation Factor (VIF).

Indicator	VIF	Indicator	VIF
Innovativeness 1	1.451	EE 3	1.457
Innovativeness 2	1.208	EE 4	1.279
Innovativeness 3	1.322	ESE 1	1.488
Innovativeness 4	1.336	ESE 2	1.336
Risk-taking 1	1.288	ESE 3	1.462
Risk-taking 2	1.285	ESE 4	1.581
Risk-taking 3	1.193	Entrepreneurial intention 1	1.709
Proactiveness 1	1.266	Entrepreneurial intention 2	1.734
Proactiveness 2	1.275	Entrepreneurial intention 3	2.072
Proactiveness 3	1.187	Entrepreneurial intention 4	1.917
EE 1	1.295	Entrepreneurial intention 5	1.931
EE 2	1.268

Table 5.

Inner Variance Inflation Factor (VIF).

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Innovativeness					1.992
2. Risk-taking					1.998
3. Proactiveness					2.297
4. Entrepreneurial education					2.037
5. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy						1.000
6. Entrepreneurial intention

To check discriminant validity, the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) estimate should exceed the correlation between variables (Montgomery et al., 2021). The correlation between innovativeness and risk-taking was 0.63, which is less than the square root of AVEs of 0.72 and 0.76, respectively. Further, the square roots of AVEs of proactiveness and EE were 0.75 and 0.69, more than the correlation coefficient (0.37) between these variables. Since the correlation values between all the variables were less than the square root of AVEs, the constructs provide discriminant validity.

The reliability coefficients of all the constructs are over the acceptable level of 0.6 and less than the threshold level of 0.9 (Hair et al., 2019).

Testing H₁–H₃ and H₅

The effect of innovativeness on ESE was positive and significant (β = 0.219, p < .001), thus supporting H₁. H₂ proposes that risk-taking is positively related to ESE. The regression coefficient of risk-taking on ESE was positive and significant (β = 0.212, p < .001), thus H₂ was supported. The effect of proactiveness on ESE was positive and significant (β = 0.495, p < .001), thus H₃ was supported. H₅ proposes that the relationship between ESE and EI was positive and the regression coefficient was significant (β = 0.435, p < .001, thus H₅ was supported (Table 6).

Table 6.

Results of Hypotheses Testing.

	Hypothesis	β	t-statistic	p Values	Result
Direct hypotheses
Innovativeness → Entrepreneurial self-efficacy	H ₁	0.219	3.42	.001	Supported
Risk-taking → Entrepreneurial self-efficacy	H ₂	0.212	3.33	.001	Supported
Proactiveness → Entrepreneurial self-efficacy	H ₃	0.495	12.5	.000	Supported
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy → Entrepreneurial intention	H ₅	0.435	8.17	.000	Supported

Testing Moderation Hypotheses H_1a–H_3a

We used PROCESS (Hayes, 2018) for testing moderation hypotheses because many researchers considered this a better approach for testing moderation and mediation (Pan et al., 2021). The results of moderation are shown in Table 7.

Table 7.

Moderation Hypotheses (H_1a, H_1b and H_1c).

Moderation Hypotheses	Hypothesis	β	t-statistic	p Values	Result
Innovativeness × Entrepreneurial education → Entrepreneurial self-efficacy	H _1a	–0.174	04.01	.001	Supported
Risk-taking × Entrepreneurial education → Entrepreneurial self-efficacy	H _2a	–0.192	–4.45	.000	Supported
Proactiveness × Entrepreneurial education → Entrepreneurial self-efficacy	H _3a	–0.191	–4.77	.000	Supported

To test H_1a, H_2a and H_3a, we include EEs as a moderator between EO (innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness) and ESE. The beta coefficient of the interaction term: Innovativeness × EE was significant (β_{innovativeness × EE} = –0.174, p < .001), thus supporting H_1a. The regression coefficient of the multiplicative term: Proactiveness × EE was significant (β = –0.192, p < .001), thus supporting H_2a. The interaction term of risk-taking and EE was significant (β = –0.191, p < .001), thus supporting H_3a.

The moderation effects can be seen in Figures 2, 3 and 4.

As can be seen in Figure 2, at higher levels of EE, innovation results in higher levels of self-efficacy than at lower levels. Further, when innovation increases from ‘low’ to ‘high’, self-efficacy increases at the higher levels of EE than at lower levels of EE. Most importantly, there is an increase in self-efficacy even when EE is low (positive slope). Differences in the slopes of the curves render support to the moderating hypothesis (H_1a).

Figure 3 depicts the moderating effect of EE on the relationship between risk-taking and self-efficacy. Higher levels of EE are associated with higher levels of self-efficacy at both high and low levels of proactiveness. Differences in the slopes between the curves render support to the moderation H_2a.

Figure 4 shows the interaction effect of EE and proactiveness on self-efficacy. As can be seen, lower levels of education and lower levels of proactiveness are associated with lower levels of self-efficacy than higher levels of education and higher levels of proactiveness. The difference in slopes between the curves is visible, thus rendering support to the moderation H_3a.

Testing Mediation H_4a, H_4b and H_4c

To test the mediation hypothesis, the Hayes (2018) PROCESS model number 4 was used. The results of the mediation hypotheses are shown in Table 8.

Table 8.

Mediation Hypotheses (H_4a, H_4b and H_4c).

Mediation Hypotheses (Indirect Effect)	Hypothesis	Indirect Effect	s.e.	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI	Result
Innovativeness →Entrepreneurial self-efficacy →Entrepreneurial intention	H _4a	0.213	0.0473	0.1274	0.3123	Supported
Risk-taking →Entrepreneurial self-efficacy →Entrepreneurial intention	H _4b	0.208	0.0441	0.1285	0.3002	Supported
Proactiveness →Entrepreneurial self-efficacy →Entrepreneurial intention	H _4c	0.169	0.0372	0.1004	0.2446	Supported

Note: N = 390. Boot LLCI refers to the lower bound bootstrapping confidence intervals. Boot ULCL refers to the upper bound bootstrapping confidence intervals.

H_4a posits that ESE mediates the relationship between innovativeness and EI. To check the mediation hypothesis, it is essential to see the indirect effect of innovativeness on EI. The indirect effect was significant (β = 0.213), and the bootstrapping samples of 20,000 with 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (BCCI) [LLCI:ULCI] were [0.1274; 0.3123]. Since ‘zero’ was not contained in the BCCI intervals, the mediation hypothesis (H_4a) is supported.

H_4b proposes that ESE mediates the relationship between risk-taking and EI. The indirect effect (β = 0.208) and BCCI [LLCI:ULCI] [0.1285:0.3002] were significant, thus supporting H_4b.

The indirect effect of proactiveness on EI mediated through ESE was significant (β = 0.169) and BCCI [LLCI:ULCI] [0.1004:0.2446], thus supporting the mediation hypothesis (H_4c).

Predictive Values and Effect Size

We tested the predictive relevance of the sample by using the blindfolding technique, which allows us to omit a part of the data matrix and use the results for predicting the omitted part. Higher Q² values represent less deviation in the estimated values from actual values. It is recommended that predictive indices of 0.02 show a small effect, 0.15 show a medium effect and values of over 0.35 show a large effect (Hair et al., 2017). Q² value of ESE was 0.392, and EI was 0.383. Both variables reflected a large effect size. Q² and effect size are presented in Table 9.

Table 9.

R² and Adjusted R²; Q² and Effect Size.

Variables	R²	Adjusted R²	Q²	Effect Size
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy	0.450	0.440	0.392	Large
Entrepreneurial intention	0.192	0.190	0.383	Large

R² of Exogeneous Variables

It is very important to predict the accuracy of the model by calculating the R² value. The R² values of ESE and EI were 0.450 and 0.192. As suggested by Hair et al. (2017), R² values over 0.75 are considered ‘good’, 0.50 are moderate, and less than 0.25 are considered weak in predictive accuracy. In this study, R² values are less than 0.50, thus considered to be weak in predictive accuracy. R² values are presented in Table 9.

f² Effects

As suggested by Hair et al. (2016), the effect size is calculated by the following formula.

f^{2} = \frac{(R_{included}^{2} - R_{excluded}^{2})}{(1 - R_{included}^{2})}

The suggested values are 0.02 (small effect size), 0.15 (medium effect size) and 0.35 (large effect size). The f² values of innovativeness (0.027), risk-taking (0.011) and proactiveness (0.017) show a small effect size and EE (0.062) and ESE (0.237) reflect a medium effect size. The f² values are shown in Table 10.

Table 10.

f² Values.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Innovativeness					0.027
2. Risk-taking					0.011
3. Proactiveness					0.017
4. Entrepreneurial education					0.062
5. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy						0.237
6. Entrepreneurial intention

Discussion

The pivotal aim of the present research is to uncover the moderating effect of EE and the mediating effect of ESE in the relationship between EO and EI. A simple conceptual model was presented, and the hypothesised relationships were tested by collecting data from 390 entrepreneurs from the southern part of India (Tamil Nadu). The results validated the conceptual model (see Figure 5).

First, the results support the positive relationship between innovativeness and ESE (H₁), findings aligning with the previous studies in the literature (Andersen et al., 2015; Hasche & Linton, 2018; Markman et al., 2002). Several researchers in organisational behaviour have documented that innovative individuals exhibit high levels of self-efficacy (Rodrigues & Rebelo, 2023). Further, following social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), individuals attempting to reach higher goals tend to be innovative, and self-efficacy plays an important role in this process (Ng & Lucianetti, 2016; Ng & Wang, 2019). Second, the findings support that the risk-taking behaviour of entrepreneurs is positively associated with ESE (H₂), thus corroborating the results from previous studies (Jankensgard, 2019; Kerr et al., 2019). One of the key dimensions of entrepreneurship is risk-taking and accepting challenging tasks, which may have the likelihood of enhancing self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001). Third, proactiveness as a significant predictor of self-efficacy (H₃) has been supported in this study, which is line with the prior research (Prabhu et al., 2012; Stephan et al., 2016; Van Ness et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2016). Entrepreneurs predominantly rely on their proactive behaviour, which, in turn, enhances self-efficacy.

The fourth key finding of this research is the moderating effect of EE in the relationship between innovativeness and ESE (H_1a). Though not extensively studied, the available scant research supports the finding from this research (Bularafa, 2022; Lin & Si, 2014). Thus, EE strengthens the positive effect of innovativeness on self-efficacy. Fifth, EE acting as a moderator between risk-taking and self-efficacy (H_2a) also finds support in this research, which aligns with some of the available studies in the literature (Bularafa, 2022; Hansemark, 2003; Vamvaka et al., 2020; Wardana et al., 2020). EE enables the entrepreneurs to expand decision-making latitude and accept challenging tasks, thus enhancing self-efficacy. Sixth, this study found support for EE as a moderator in the relationship between proactiveness and self-efficacy (H_3a), aligning with past studies (Hoang et al., 2020; Jaafar & Aziz, 2008; Wilson et al., 2007).

The eighth finding is the mediating role of self-efficacy between EO (innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness) and EI (H_4a, H_4b and H_4c). Some of the earlier studies provide evidence in support of the results from the present study (Barakat et al., 2014; Chen & Urban, 2018; Nowinski et al., 2019). Though the direct effects of EO on EI are self-explanatory, indirect effects through self-efficacy are also possible, as documented in this research. Ninth, the direct effect of self-efficacy on EI (H₅) was also supported in this study, which corroborates the findings from the literature (Lunenburg, 2011; McGee et al., 2009; Miao et al., 2017; Pihie & Bagheri, 2013). Thus, the present study validated the conceptual model presented.

Theoretical Implications

The theoretical underpinnings for this study come from the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). The findings of this study have several contributions to entrepreneurial theory and development. First, the conceptual model developed and tested in this research adds to the theoretical frameworks related to entrepreneurship intention. It widens the academic scope and provides a broader perspective of the procedures involved in developing an entrepreneurial sense by incorporating EE as a moderator and ESE as a mediator. First, this study underscores the importance of individual orientation towards EI. It also found that orientation behaviour consists of innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness, a significant precursor of ESE. Second, the relationship was further strengthened by emphasising EE as a moderator between EO and self-efficacy. Third, including ESE as a mediating effect between orientation and intention highlights the importance of individuals’ self-beliefs in their ability to engage in entrepreneurial activity successfully. This underscores the importance of programmes and strategies to increase individuals’ self-confidence, competence and belief in their ability to overcome obstacles and pursue entrepreneurial aspirations. Overall, this study’s theoretical implications shed light on the dynamic interplay of antecedent circumstances, education, self-efficacy beliefs and EI.

Practical Implications

The findings from this research have several implications for individuals who aspire to become entrepreneurs. Further, the results also provide useful insights for policymakers, governments and educational institutions working in the domain of self-employment and entrepreneurship. First, this study found that the key drivers of ESE and intention are innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness. Second, the results suggest that ESE is an important antecedent to EI. Third, since EE plays an important role in strengthening the positive effect of EO on self-efficacy, it is essential for educational institutions to focus on EE. Fourth, as results suggest, to advance their entrepreneurial careers, individuals who want to become entrepreneurs must adopt these attributes. Academic institutions and organisations supporting entrepreneurship must inspire people to participate in real-world projects and create innovative venture plans to influence their careers in entrepreneurship. Academics and entrepreneurial training and development institutions should organise interactive sessions with new, young and eager entrepreneurs to encourage people’s natural inclination towards entrepreneurship.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study comes with limitations that must be addressed in future research. First, this study primarily focused on entrepreneurs in the context of a developing nation, India, and hence, the findings can be generalisable across other developing countries. Second, this study used a small sample, though a representative one, and therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously when applying the model in other countries. A bigger sample size would make the results generalisable across different states in India and other countries. The third potential limitation stems from the non-inclusion of other factors that influence EI. More precisely, only some of the antecedents of EI were researched in this study. However, this study provides valuable information to policymakers in organisations and governments. Fourth, this study only looked at three aspects of EO in entrepreneurs—innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness—and ignored two other dimensions (namely competitive aggressiveness and autonomy). The underlying reason for excluding these two dimensions was to make the model less complex. They should be incorporated in future studies to demonstrate their relationship with ESE. We also acknowledge that despite our efforts to use proportionate stratified random sampling, it is impossible to avoid selection bias. Therefore, the results need to be interpreted in light of the above-mentioned limitations.

This study provides several avenues for future research. First, the researchers may make a comparative study of the hypothesised relationships between developing and developed countries. Second, a more significant sample may help in increasing generalisability. Third, future studies may employ other mediating or moderating variables—entrepreneurial environment, leadership, and management styles—to see how they influence EI. Fourth, researchers may investigate the type of education (e.g., engineering, business, science) that helps enhance self-efficacy. Fifth, it will also be interesting to find any gender differences in explaining the hypothesised relationships in the conceptual model. Sixth, future researchers may conduct longitudinal studies to see the impact of EE on enhancing self-efficacy and EI.

Conclusion

Riding on the TPB, this research attempted to unpack the antecedents of EI. This study used a structured conceptual model to examine the antecedents and boundary conditions that enhance ESE and intention. The economic and industrial growth of a nation is significantly influenced by entrepreneurship. So, entrepreneurship promotion is required in both developed and developing countries. The results of this study underscore the importance of encouraging individuals’ aptitude for innovation and risk-taking on ESE, which is crucial for EI. The positive evidence of the effect of proactiveness on ESE, which, in turn, results in EI and EE in enhancing ESE, plays a crucial role in policy decisions of governments. This study further indicated that entrepreneurs with high self-efficacy could explore positive, intentional behaviour and were motivated to launch new ventures. The study recommends that higher educational institutions encourage EE that facilitates entrepreneurship and innovation.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Satyanarayana Parayitam

References

Abidi

, Nimer

, Bani-Mustafa

, & Toglaw

(2022). Relationship between faculty characteristics and their entrepreneurial orientation in higher education institutions in Kuwait. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 11(1), 1–22.

Abuzaid

A. N.

(2024). The moderating effect of entrepreneurial skills on the relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention of business schools students: Insight from Jordan. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 10(2), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/23939575231192795

Acharya

, & Berry

G. R.

(2023). Characteristics, traits, and attitudes in entrepreneurial decision-making: Current research and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 19(4), 1965–2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00912-y

Ahmed

, Islam

, & Usman

(2021). Predicting entrepreneurial intentions through self-efficacy, family support, and regret: A moderated mediation explanation, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies , 13(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-07-2019-0093

Ali

(2019). Personality traits, individual innovativeness and satisfaction with life. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge , 4(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.11.002

Anderson

J. C.

, & Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin , 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Andersen

, Ljungkvist

, & Svensson

(2015). Entrepreneurially oriented in what? A business model approach to entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , 22(3), 433–449.

Armstrong

J. S.

, & Overton

T. S.

(1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research , 14(3), 396–402.

Åstebro

, Bazzazian

, & Braguinsky

(2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy , 41(4), 663–677.

10.

Atkinson

(2019). New university, new possibilities: Higher education in Western Canada. On the Horizon , 27(2), 87–97.

11.

Audretsch

D. B.

(2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer , 39, 313–321.

12.

Bae

T. J.

, Qian

, Miao

, & Fiet

J. O.

(2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice , 38(2), 217–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12095

13.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology , 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

14.

Bandura

, & Locke

E. A.

(2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88(1), 87–99.

15.

Bar

(2009). The proactive brain: Memory for predictions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 364(1521), 1235–1243. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0310

16.

Barakat

, Boddington

, & Vyakarnam

(2014). Measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy to understand the impact of creative activities for learning innovation. The International Journal of Management Education , 12(3), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.05.007

17.

Bermejo-Olivas

, Soriano-Pinar

, & Pinillos

M. J.

(2024). A journey through the conceptual evolution of corporate entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation: A comparative approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 20(3), 2075–2113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00913-x

18.

Bernoster

, Mukerjee

, & Thurik

(2020). The role of affect in entrepreneurial orientation. Small Business Economics , 54(1), 235–256.

19.

Bhinder

H. S.

, & Kaur

(2025). Exploring the relationship between antecedents of entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial intention of university students pursuing technical education. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research , 15, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497-024-00415-2

20.

Bin

B. S.

, & Park

J. K.

(2002). An empirical study on the success factors of a small business starting-up. The Asia Pacific Journal of Small Business , 24(3), 135–158.

21.

Biniari

M. G.

(2012). The emotional embeddedness of corporate entrepreneurship: The case of envy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 36(1), 141–170.

22.

Bolton

D. L.

, & Lane

M. D.

(2012). Individual entrepreneurial orientation. Development of a measurement instrument. Education + Training , 54(2/3), 219–233.

23.

Bularafa

B. A.

(2022). Moderating role of entrepreneurship education on personality traits and entrepreneurial intention of undergraduate students. International Journal of Intellectual Discourse , 5(2), 2636–4832.

24.

Cadenas

G. A.

, Cantú

E. A.

, Lynn

, Spence

, & Ruth

(2020). A programmatic intervention to promote entrepreneurial self-efficacy, critical behavior, and technology readiness among underrepresented college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 116(A), Article 103350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103350

25.

Chahal

, & Baber

(2024). University or personal sustainability—What shapes sustainable entrepreneurship intentions of students? Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 10(2), 266–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/23939575241237940

26.

Charness

, & Gneezy

(2011). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 83(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007

27.

Chen

J. Y. J.

, & Urban

(2018). Behavioral and environmental influences on entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies , 10(5), 73–88.

28.

Clark

D. R.

, Pidduck

R. J.

, Lumpkin

G. T.

, & Covin

J. G.

(2024). Is it okay to study entrepreneurial orientation (EO) at the individual level? Yes! Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 48(1), 349–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587231178885

29.

Cooper

, & Lucas

W. A.

(2006). Developing self-efficacy for innovation and entrepreneurship: An educational approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education , 4, 141–162.

30.

Cooper

, Peake

, & Watson

(2016). Seizing opportunities: The moderating role of managerial characteristics on the relationship between opportunity-seeking and innovation efficacy in small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management , 54(4), 1038–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12228

31.

Corbett

A. C.

(2007). Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing , 22(1), 97–118.

32.

Covin

J. G.

, & Slevin

D. P.

(1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 16(1), 7–25.

33.

Covin

J. G.

, & Wales

W. J.

(2019). Crafting high-impact entrepreneurial orientation research: Some suggested guidelines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 43(1), 3–18.

34.

Darnall

, Henriques

, & Sadorsky

(2010). Adopting proactive environmental strategy: The influence of stakeholders and firm size. Journal of Management Studies , 47(6), 1072–1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00873.x

35.

Davidson

(1995). Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development , 7(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985629500000003

36.

Donbesuur

, Boso

, & Hultman

(2020). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on new venture performance: contingency roles of entrepreneurial actions. Journal of Business Research , 118, 150–161.

37.

Duong

C. D.

, Nguyen

T. T. T.

, Le

T. L.

, Ngo

T. V. N.

, Nguyen

C. D.

, & Nguyen

T. D.

(2024). A serial mediation model of entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intention: A social cognitive career theory approach. International Journal of Innovation Science , 16(1), 61–76.

38.

Eckhardt

J. T.

, & Shane

S. A.

(2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management , 29(3), 333–349.

39.

Ekpe

, & Mat

(2012). The moderating effect of social environment on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial intentions of female students at Nigerian universities. International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research , 1(4), 1–16.

40.

Enrique

, Martínez-Gregorio

, & Oliver

(2024). Subjective well-being in university students: Two psychosocial skills complementing entrepreneurial attitudes. Industry and Higher Education , 38(3), 272–283.

41.

Fayolle

, Gailly

, & Lassas-Clerc

(2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: A new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training , 30(9), 701–720. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590610715022

42.

Ferreira

A. S. M.

, Loiola

, Gondim

S. M. G.

, & Pereira

C. R.

(2022). Effects of entrepreneurial competence and planning guidance on the relation between university students’ attitude and entrepreneurial intention. The Journal of Entrepreneurship , 31(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/09713557211069261

43.

Figner

, & Weber

E.U.

(2016). Who takes risks when and why? Determinants of risk taking. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 20(4), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411415790

44.

Forbes

D. P.

(2005). The effects of strategic decision making on entrepreneurial self efficacy. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice , 29(5), 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00100.x

45.

Garçon

M. M.

, Nassif

V. M. J.

, & Lima

T. J. S. D.

(2022). Individual social entrepreneurial orientation in Brazil: Measurement and the predictive role of personal values and attitude toward social change. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies , 14(2), 340–360.

46.

Gielnik

M. M.

, Krämer

A. C.

, Kappel

, & Frese

(2014). Antecedents of business opportunity identification and innovation: Investigating the interplay of information processing and information acquisition. Applied Psychology , 63(2), 344–381.

47.

Gómez-Jorge

, Bermejo-Olivas

, Díaz-Garrido

, & Soriano-Pinar

(2025). Success in entrepreneurship: The impact of self-esteem and entrepreneurial orientation. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal , 21, 62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-025-01075-8

48.

Guerrero

, Urbano

, & Gajón

(2020). Entrepreneurial university ecosystems and graduates’ career patterns: Do entrepreneurship education programmes and university business incubators matter? Journal of Management Development , 39(5), 753–775.

49.

Hair

J. F.

, Black

W. C.

, Babin

B. J.

, & Anderson

R. E.

(2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

50.

Hair

J. F.

Jr , Hult

G. T. M.

, Ringle

, & Sarstedt

(2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) . Sage Publications.

51.

Hair

J. F.

, Hult

G. T. M.

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

52.

Hamdan

A. M.

, Khamis

, Al Hawaj

A. A.

, & Barone

(2020). The mediation role of public governance in the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth. International Journal of Managerial Finance , 16(3), 316–333.

53.

Hamdani

N. A.

, Ramadani

, Anggadwita

, Maulida

G. S.

, Zuferi

, & Maalaoui

(2023). Gender stereotype perception, perceived social support and self-efficacy in increasing women’s entrepreneurial intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , 29(6), 1290–1313. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2023-0157

54.

Hansemark

O. C.

(2003). Need for achievement, locus of control and the prediction of business start-ups: A longitudinal study. Journal of Economic Psychology , 24(3), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00188-5

55.

Hasche

, & Linton

(2018). The value of failed relationships for the development of a Medtech start-up. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship , 30(1), 97–119.

56.

Hassan

, Anwar

, Saleem

, Islam

K. B.

, & Hussain

S. A.

(2021). Individual entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of entrepreneurial motivations. Industry and Higher Education , 35(4), 403–418.

57.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

58.

Haynie

J. M.

, Shepherd

D. A.

, & McMullen

J. S.

(2009). An opportunity for me? The role of resources in opportunity evaluation decisions. Journal of Management Studies , 46(3), 337–361.

59.

Hoang

, Le

T. T. T.

, Tran

A. K. T.

, & Du

(2020). Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Vietnam: The mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning orientation. Education + Training , 63(1), 115–133.

60.

Howard

M. C.

, & Boudreaux

(2024). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of entrepreneurial personality. Entrepreneurship Research Journal , 14(1), 283–312. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2021-0322

61.

Iakovleva

, Kolvereid

, & Stephan

(2011). Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and developed countries. Education + Training , 53(5), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911111147686

62.

Jaafar

, & Aziz

A. R. A.

(2008). Entrepreneurship education in developing country. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology , 6(2), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/17260530810891306

63.

Jankensgard

(2019). A theory of enterprise risk management. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society , 19(3), 565–579. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-02-2018-0092

64.

Jin

, Madison

, Kraiczy

N. D.

, Kellermanns

F. W.

, Crook

T. R.

, & Xi

(2017). Entrepreneurial team composition characteristics and new venture performance: A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 41(5), 743–771.

65.

Jung

Y. M.

(2015). The effects of entrepreneurship on financial performance: Focused on the mediating role of human-oriented management [Doctor’s thesis, Graduate School of Inha University].

66.

Kalitanyi

, & Bbenkele

(2019). Measuring university students’ perceptions about the role of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions in Cape Town. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 5(2), 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/2393957519863900

67.

Kang

B.O.

(2011). A study on the influence of CEO’s entrepreneurship in SMEs on business performance: Franchise business (Doctor’s thesis) . Graduate School of Chung-Ang University.

68.

Kang

J. H.

, & Ha

K. S.

(2015). A study of effect of self-leadership by college student on recognition of opportunity on establishment of company and will of establishing company: Centered on mediated effect of entrepreneurship. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship , 10(4), 1–12.

69.

Kerr

S. P.

, Kerr

W. R.

, & Dalton

(2019). Risk attitudes and personality traits of entrepreneurs and venture team members. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 116(36), 17712–17716.

70.

Kickul

, Gundry

L. K.

, Barbosa

S. D.

, & Whitcanack

(2009). Intuition versus analysis? Testing differential models of cognitive style on entrepreneurial self efficacy and the new venture creation process. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice , 33(2), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00298.x

71.

Kim

J. G.

(1994). The relationship between entrepreneurship in management organizations and their influencing factors and performance [Doctor’s thesis, Graduate School of Pusan National University].

72.

Krejcie

R. V.

, & Morgan

D. W.

(1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308

73.

Krueger

N. F.

Jr , Reilly

M. D.

, & Carsrud

A. L.

(2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing , 15(5–6), 411–432.

74.

Lanivich

S. E.

, Moore

, & McIntyre

(2024). The effects of neurodiversity on cognitive attributes of entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , 30(4), 979–1000.

75.

Lee

C. W.

(1999). A study on the role and organizational performance of organizational entrepreneurship: Focusing on fundamental theory of resources [Doctor’s thesis, Graduate School of Seoul National University].

76.

Lee

, & Kreiser

P. M.

(2018). Entrepreneurial orientation and ambidexterity: Literature review, challenges, and agenda for future research. In

Kuratko

D. F.

, & Hoskinson

(Eds), The challenges of corporate entrepreneurship in the disruptive age (pp. 37–62). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1048-473620180000028002

77.

Liao

Y. K.

, Nguyen

V. H. A.

, & Caputo

(2022). Unveiling the role of entrepreneurial knowledge and cognition as antecedents of entrepreneurial intention: A meta-analytic study. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 18(4), 1623–1652.

78.

Lin

, & Si

(2014). Factors affecting peasant entrepreneurs’ intention in the Chinese context. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 10(4), 803–825.

79.

Liñán

, & Chen

Y. W.

(2009). Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 33(3), 593–617.

80.

Lumpkin

G. T.

, & Dess

G. G.

(1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance, Academy of Management Review , 21(1), 135–172.

81.

Lunenburg

F. C.

(2011). Goal-setting theory of motivation. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration , 15(1), 1–6.

82.

Luo

, Cao

, Yin

, Zhang

, & Wang

(2018). Relationship between extraversion and employees’ innovative behavior and moderating effect of organizational innovative climate. NeuroQuantology , 16(6), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2018.16.6.1604

83.

Maheshwari

, & Kha

K. L.

(2022). Investigating the relationship between educational support and entrepreneurial intention in Vietnam: The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the theory of planned behavior. The International Journal of Management Education , 20(2), 100553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100553

84.

Mahfud

, Triyono

M.B.

, Sudira

, & Mulyani

(2020). The influence of social capital and entrepreneurial attitude orientation on entrepreneurial intentions: The mediating role of psychological capital. European Research on Management and Business Economics , 26(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.12.005

85.

Markman

, Balkin

, & Baron

(2002). Inventors and new venture formation: The effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 27(2), 149–165.

86.

Marlino

, & Wilson

(2003). Teen girls on business: Are they being empowered? The C200 Business Leadership Index: Annual report on women’s clout in business . The Committee of 200, Boston and Chicago: Simmons School of Management.

87.

Matricano

(2024). Entrepreneurship trajectories: Investigating the development of dynamic capabilities and the trend of random inefficiency by designing country-specific prescriptive models. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management , 1–15.

88.

McGee

J. E.

, Peterson

, Mueller

S. L.

, & Sequeira

J. M.

(2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice , 33(4), 965–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00304.x

89.

Miao

, Qian

, & Ma

(2017). The Relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Small Business Management , 55(1), 87–107.

90.

Miller

(1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science , 29(7), 770–791.

91.

Mishra

, & Singh

(2024). Effect of emotional intelligence and cognitive flexibility on entrepreneurial intention: Mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies , 16(3), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-05-2022-0142

92.

Mohan

P. S.

(2022). An investigation into entrepreneurial intentions in Caribbean Small Island Developing States. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 11(1), 1–21.

93.

Montgomery

D. C.

, Peck

E. A.

, & Vining

G. G.

(2021). Introduction to linear regression analysis . John Wiley & Sons.

94.

Moya

, & Toledano

(2024). The space for religion and spirituality in business, management, and entrepreneurship education: Reflections on the main contributions and tentative directions. Journal of Business Ethics , 198, 155–175.

95.

Mozumdar

, Materia

V. C.

, Hagelaar

, Islam

M. A.

, van der Velde

, & Omta

S. W. F.

(Onno). (2022). Contextuality of entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: The case of women entrepreneurs in Bangladesh. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 8(1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/23939575211062433

96.

Newman

, Obschonka

, Schwarz

, Cohen

, & Nielsen

(2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 110, 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.012

97.

T. W. H.

, & Lucianetti

(2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social–cognitive theory perspective. The Journal of Applied Psychology , 101(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000029

98.

T. W. H.

, & Wang

(2019). An actor–partner interdependence model of employees’ and coworkers’ innovative behavior, psychological detachment, and strain reactions. Personnel Psychology , 72(3), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12317

99.

Nimrod

, & Kleiber

D. A.

(2007). Reconsidering change and continuity in later life: Toward an innovation theory of successful aging. International Journal of Aging and Human Development , 65(1), 1–22.

100.

Nowinski

, Haddoud

M. Y.

, Lanèariè

, Egerová

, & Czeglédi

(2019). The impact of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries. Studies in Higher Education , 44(2), 361–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1365359

101.

Oathman

, & Hisam

(2020). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention among polytechnic students involved and not involved in entrepreneurship education. Universal Journal of Educational Research , 8(10).

102.

Oguntimehin

Y. A.

, & Olaniran

O. O.

(2017). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and students’ entrepreneurial intentions in Ogun State-Owned Universities, Nigeria. British Journal of Education , 5(3), 9–20.

103.

Ohly

, Sonnentag

S. S.

, & Pluntke

(2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 27(3), 257–279.

104.

Olufunso

O. F.

(2010). Graduate entrepreneurial intention in South Africa: Motivation and obstacles. International Journal of Business and Management , 5(9), 87–98.

105.

Pan

, Verbeke

, & Yuan

(2021). CEO transformational leadership and corporate entrepreneurship in China. Management and Organization Review , 17(1), 45–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2020.59

106.

Park

(2017). A study on effect of entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial intention: Focusing on ICT majors. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 11(2), 157–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-08-2017-024

107.

Passarelli

, & Bongiorno

(2025). Is it the time to reshape entrepreneurship education? State-of-the-art and further perspectives. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal , 21, 61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-025-01071-y

108.

Peng

, Xiaofan

, & Horsey

E. M.

(2023). The necessity of others: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, TMT collective efficacy, CEO-TMT interface, and entrepreneurial orientation. Frontiers in Psychology , 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1095978

109.

Perez

J. P.

, Martins

, Mahauad

M. D.

, & Sarango-Lalangui

P. O.

(2024). A bridge between entrepreneurship education, program inspiration, and entrepreneurial intention: The role of individual entrepreneurial orientation. Evidence from Latin American emerging economies, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies , 16(2), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-04-2021-0137

110.

Perkmann

, Tartari

, McKelvey

, Autio

, Broström

, D’este

, Fini

, Geuna

, Grimaldi

, Hughes

, Krabel

, Kitson

, Llerena

, Lissoni

, Salter

, & Sobrero

(2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy , 42(2), 423–442.

111.

Pihie

Z. A. L.

, & Bagheri

(2013). Self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention: The mediation effect of self-regulation. Vocations and Learning , 6(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-013-9101-9

112.

Pinto

, Pallikkara

, Pinto

, & Hawaldar

I. T.

(2024). Unveiling the entrepreneurial mindset: Exploring orientation and intentions among students of prominent engineering disciplines. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 13, 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00390-8

113.

Polas

R. H.

, Raju

, & Imtiaz

(2019). Demographic factors influence on the tendency to become entrepreneur: Estimating the antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurial tendency. International Journal of Management , 8(1), 48–60.

114.

Prabhu

V. P.

, McGuire

S. J.

, Drost

E. A.

, & Kwong

K. K.

(2012). Proactive personality and entrepreneurial intent: Is entrepreneurial self-efficacy a mediator or moderator? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research , 18(5), 559–586.

115.

Primario

, Rippa

, & Secundo

(2022). Rethinking entrepreneurial education: The role of digital technologies to assess entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention of STEM students. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 71, 2829–2842. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3199709

116.

Reynolds

P. D.

, & Curtin

R. T.

(2008). Business creation in the United States: Panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics II initial assessment. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship , 4(3), 155–307.

117.

Rodrigues

, & Rebelo

(2023). Can employees capitalize upon their role breadth self-efficacy and innovative work behaviour to enhance their prospects of promotion? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 32(4), 562–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2023.2198707

118.

Roy

, & Das

(2020). A critical comparison of factors affecting science and technology students’ entrepreneurial intention: A tale of two genders. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance , 20, 49–77.

119.

Samo

A. H.

, & Mahar

A. H.

(2017). Moderating role of entrepreneurial learning on antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions. International Journal of Advanced Research , 5(5), 674–681. https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/4164

120.

Sexton

D. L.

, & Bowman-Upton

N. B.

(1986). Validation of personality index: Comparative psychological characteristics analysis of female entrepreneurs, managers, entrepreneurship students and business students. In Ronstadt

, Hornaday

, Peterson

, & Vesper

(Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship research . Babson College.

121.

Sharma

, & Jain

S. K.

(2019). Extending habitus to employment preferences: Identifying social-actors influencing employment choices including self-employment among youth in J&K (India). Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 6(2), 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/2393957519876811

122.

Sharma

G. D.

, Kraus

, Liguori

, Bamel

U. K.

, & Chopra

(2024). Entrepreneurial challenges of COVID-19: Re-thinking entrepreneurship after the crisis. Journal of Small Business Management , 62(2), 824–846.

123.

Shen

, Wang

, & Hua

(2021). Entrepreneurial learning, self-efficacy, and firm performance: Exploring moderating effect of entrepreneurial orientation. Frontiers in Psychology , 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731628

124.

Sherkat

, & Chenari

(2022). Assessing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in the universities of Tehran province based on an entrepreneurial intention model. Studies in Higher Education , 47(1), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1732906

125.

Siddiqui

, Mumtaz

, & Ahmad

(2023). The impact of entrepreneurship orientation on student entrepreneurial intentions in higher education. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research , 13, 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497-023-00371-3

126.

Siegel

D. S.

, & Wright

(2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management , 26(4), 582–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12116

127.

Singh

L. B.

, & Mehdi

S. A

(2022). Entrepreneurial orientation & entrepreneurial intention: Role of openness to experience as a moderator, International Journal of Management Education , 20(3), 100691.

128.

Singh

, Sood

, & Sharma

(2023). Nexus between entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial motivation, and entrepreneurial intention: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research , 13, 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497-023-00362-4

129.

Sitaridis

, & Kitsios

(2024). Digital entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , 30(2/3), 277–304.

130.

Souitaris

, Zerbinati

, & Al-Laham

(2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing , 22(4), 566–591.

131.

Sreenivasan

, & Suresh

(2023). Twenty years of entrepreneurship education: A bibliometric analysis. Entrepreneurship Education , 6(1), 45–68.

132.

Stephan

, Strauss

, Wach

, & Gorgievski

(2016). How entrepreneurs influence employees’ job satisfaction: The double-edged sword of proactivity. Academy of Management Proceedings , 2016(1), 11882.

133.

Sun

(2023). Do entrepreneurship education activities have an impact on entrepreneurial behavior? An application of behavioral entrepreneurial intention. Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 30, 115855–115869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30015-8

134.

Thomassen

M. L.

, Middleton

, Ramsgaard

, Neergaard

M. B. H.

, & Warren

(2020). Conceptualizing context in entrepreneurship education: A literature review. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , 26(5), 863–886.

135.

Trevelyan

(2011). Self-efficacy and effort in new venture development. Journal of Management & Organization , 17(1), 2–16.

136.

Trivedi

R. H.

(2014). Are we committed to teach entrepreneurship in business school? An empirical analysis of lecturers in India, Singapore and Malaysia. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy , 8(1), 71–81.

137.

Twum

K. K.

, Kwakwa

P. A.

, Ofori

, & Nkukpornu

(2021). The relationship between individual entrepreneurial orientation, network ties, and entrepreneurial intention of undergraduate students: Implications on entrepreneurial education. Entrepreneurship Education , 4(1), 39–66.

138.

Valencia-Arias

, Berrío-Calle

J. E.

, & Arango-Botero

(2023). Intención emprendedora en jóvenes universitarios. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación Superior , 14(39), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.20072872e.2023.39.1528

139.

Vamvaka

, Stoforos

, Palaskas

, & Botsaris

(2020). Attitude toward entrepreneurship, perceived behavioral control, and entrepreneurial intention: Dimensionality, structural relationships, and gender differences. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 9(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-0112-0

140.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal , 13(1), 169–188.

141.

Van Ness

R. K.

, Seifert

C. F.

, Marler

J. H.

, Wales

W. J.

, & Hughes

M. E.

(2020). Proactive entrepreneurs: Who are they and how are they different? The Journal of Entrepreneurship , 29(1) 148–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355719893504

142.

Wang

J. H.

, Chang

C. C.

, Yao

S. N.

, & Liang

(2016). The contribution of self-efficacy to the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intention. Higher Education , 72(2), 209–224.

143.

Wardana

L. W.

, Narmaditya

B. S.

, Wibowo

, Mahendra

A. M.

, Wibowo

N. A.

, Harwida

, & Rohman

A. N.

(2020). The impact of entrepreneurship education and students’ entrepreneurial mindset: The mediating role of attitude and self-efficacy. Heliyon , 6(9), e04922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04922

144.

Wilson

(2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: World Economic Forum Global Education Initiative . World Economic Forum.

145.

Wilson

, Kickul

, & Marlino

(2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 31(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00179.x

146.

, Jiang

, Wang

, Yu

, Wang

, & Pan

(2022). Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions of college students: The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the moderating role of entrepreneurial competition experience. Frontiers in Psychology , 12, 727826. https://doi.org/110.3389/fpsyg.2021.727826

147.

Yadav

U. S.

, Vyas

, Ghosal

Kanchan I.

, & Yadav

A. K.

(2024). Impact of entrepreneurial leadership, social media, digital technology, entrepreneurial orientation and innovation on business performance in the handicraft sector: Talent management as mediating construct. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 13, 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00434-z

148.

, & Duval-Couetil

(2022). Standards for evaluating impact in entrepreneurship education research: Using a descriptive validity framework to enhance methodological rigor and transparency. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 46(6), 1685–1716. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211018184

149.

M. Y.

, Fiedler

K. D.

, & Park

J. S.

(2006). Understanding the role of individual innovativeness in the acceptance of it-based innovations: Comparative analyses of models and measures. Decision Sciences , 37(3), 393–426.

150.

Yoon

B. S.

(2004). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: Individual characteristics and environmental factors. Korean Academic and Industrial Society of Business Administration , 17(2), 89–110.

151.

, Zheng

& He

(2025). Integrating entrepreneurial education into STEM education. Research in Science Education , 55, 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10193-2

152.

Yuen

K. S. L.

, & Lee

T. M. C.

(2002). Could mood state affect risk-taking decisions? Journal of Affective Disorders , 75(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00022-8

153.

Zhang

Y. Y.

, Duysters

G. G.

, & Cloodt

M. M.

(2014). The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal , 10, 623–641.

154.

Zhao

, Seibert

S. E.

, & Hills

G. E.

(2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90(6), 1265.

Antecedents of Entrepreneurial Intention: Entrepreneurship Education as a Moderator and Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy as a Mediator

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Rationale for the Present Study: Indian Context

Literature Review and the Variables in the Study

Entrepreneurial Orientation

Innovativeness

Risk-taking

Proactiveness

Entrepreneurship Education

Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy

Entrepreneurial Intention

Hypotheses Development

Innovativeness and ESE

Risk-taking and ESE

Proactiveness and ESE

EE as a Moderator

ESE as a Mediator

ESE and EI

Method

Ethical Considerations

Sample

Demographic Profile

Demographic Profile.

Measures

Analysis and Findings

Measurement Model and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and measurement properties.

Descriptive Statistics (Means, Standard Deviations, Zero-correlations, Multicollinearity and Reliability)

Descriptive Statistics (Means, Standard Deviations, Zero-order Correlations, Reliability and Validity).

Outer Variance Inflation Factor (VIF).

Inner Variance Inflation Factor (VIF).

Testing H1–H3 and H5

Results of Hypotheses Testing.

Testing Moderation Hypotheses H1a–H3a

Moderation Hypotheses (H1a, H1b and H1c).

Testing Mediation H4a, H4b and H4c

Mediation Hypotheses (H4a, H4b and H4c).

Predictive Values and Effect Size

R² and Adjusted R²; Q² and Effect Size.

R2 of Exogeneous Variables

f2 Effects

f2 Values.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References

Testing H₁–H₃ and H₅

Testing Moderation Hypotheses H_1a–H_3a

Moderation Hypotheses (H_1a, H_1b and H_1c).

Testing Mediation H_4a, H_4b and H_4c

Mediation Hypotheses (H_4a, H_4b and H_4c).

R² of Exogeneous Variables

f² Effects

f² Values.