Nexus between entrepreneurship education,motivations,and intention among Indian university students: The role of psychological and contextual factors

Abstract

This study assesses the impact of different psychological and contextual factors on entrepreneurial motivations and the role of entrepreneurial motivations in determining the entrepreneurial intention of students at Indian universities. The paper also explores whether gender acts as a moderator in the entrepreneurial motivation–intention relationship. Cross-sectional data were collected by administering a questionnaire to 329 students who had received entrepreneurship education during their course program. A confirmatory factor analysis model was run to ensure the model’s fitness, reliability, and validity, while structural equation modelling was used to test the hypotheses. The study validates the following key findings. First, the psychological factors of perceived cultural support and entrepreneurship education foster entrepreneurial motivations, which help determine students’ entrepreneurial intention, whereas fear of failure negatively affects students’ entrepreneurial motivations. Second, the contextual factors of government support policies and access to entrepreneurial finance do not influence entrepreneurial motivations. Third, entrepreneurial motivations significantly enhance the entrepreneurial intention of students. Fourth, gender negatively moderates the entrepreneurial motivation–intention relationship. The study contributes to the literature on the entrepreneurial motivation–intention relationship using psychological and contextual factors and also explores the interaction effect of gender on that relationship.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship education entrepreneurial motivations entrepreneurial intention psychological factors contextual factors gender moderation

Increased globalization, workforce diversity, and rapid changes in technology have led to the transformation of work environments and traditional organizational structures, resulting in a change in the narrative of how individuals perceive their careers (Sullivan and Baruch, 2009). This changing narrative has tended to favor entrepreneurship over other career options (Edelman et al., 2016). Hence, entrepreneurship has attracted the attention of the younger generation and has become one of the most discussed career options (Edelman et al., 2016). Governments and universities have increased their focus on supporting entrepreneurial activities (Agarwal et al., 2020; Fretschner and Weber, 2013). Researchers have also been exploring student entrepreneurship, often in terms of the formation of entrepreneurial intentions (Anwar et al., 2021a, 2021b; Criaco et al., 2017; Souitaris et al., 2007; Zellweger et al., 2011). However, studies like those by Goethner et al. (2012), Kautonen et al. (2015), Joensuu-Salo et al. (2015), and Rauch and Hulsink (2015) have found that only a few individuals are able to transform these intentions into actual behavior. Hence, there is a growing need to understand the factors that lead to entrepreneurial intentions and the potential of these factors in transforming intentions into behavior.

Entrepreneurs are regarded as enablers of economic and social change due to their dynamic and innovative approaches in addressing economic and social challenges (Shaw and Carter, 2007). They are also affected by the prevailing business environment in their country (Welter, 2011; Meoli et al., 2020). A country like India, which is facing colossal employability crises, is now encouraging its youth to become self-reliant and to promote an entrepreneurial culture by seeking a career in entrepreneurship. In this regard, India has recently launched a program called “Atamanirbar Bharat” with the slogan “vocal for local.” According to the GEM Report for 2019–2020, 33.3% of India’s adult population have developed the intention to undertake or have thought of undertaking an entrepreneurial activity (Bosma et al., 2020); however, only 15% were able to transform these intentions into actual behavior by undertaking an entrepreneurial activity (Bosma et al., 2020). Despite initiatives like Atmanirbhar Bharat and scoring well above the global average in all the GEM data parameters, India still lags behind in retaining its adult population’s confidence. Ajzen et al. (2009) found that intention and actual behavior are highly correlated with one another, as intention is the best predictor of actual behavior (Sheeran and Webb (2016). Therefore, the transformation of intentions into actual behavior depends on how strong and stable the intentions are (Liñán and Rodriguez-Cohard, 2015; Meoli et al., 2020), and these are affected by the underlying motivations while undertaking an entrepreneurial activity (Chen et al., 2017; Mahto and McDowell, 2018; Meoli et al., 2020; Solesvik, 2013). Other studies have found that the intention and behavior are highly correlated. Additionally, psychological and contextual factors play a pivotal role in fostering the motivations (Kah et al., 2021; Wu and Mao, 2020) that guide an individual toward an entrepreneurial activity (Hassan et al., 2021; Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018).

Furthermore, researchers have noted that there is no particular agreed theory on entrepreneurship explaining the intention of an individual to undertake an entrepreneurial activity (Shook et al., 2003). The two main conceptual frameworks that have been predominantly used to model the precursors and predictors of entrepreneurial intention are the Entrepreneurial Event Model of Shapero and Sokol (1982) and the Theory of Planned Behavior” of Ajzen (1991). However, the results obtained from empirical studies have highlighted a gap between these models and the practicalities of entrepreneurship (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018) as various other psychological and contextual factors—including entrepreneurial motivations, fear of failure, perceived cultural support, perceived government support, access to entrepreneurial finance and entrepreneurship education—also play a key role in determining the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual (Sahoo and Panda, 2019; Shinnar et al., 2012; Tsai et al., 2016; Tung et al., 2020; Urban and Ratsimanetrimanana, 2019). Welter (2011, p. 165) also highlight the importance of context in entrepreneurship: “Context is important for understanding when, how, and why entrepreneurship happens and who becomes involved.” Therefore, we build on these factors as the precursors of entrepreneurial intention using individual-level data collected through questionnaires, and provide a theoretical framework that allows us to examine the strength of psychological and contextual factors in fostering entrepreneurial motivations and developing the intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity.

The theoretical framework developed in this study considers broader psychological and contextual variables and explains their strength in forming entrepreneurial intentions among university students. We tested our framework using data collected through questionnaires from commerce and management background students who had received entrepreneurship education during their respective courses. The data were collected from three universities located in three different regions of India: the University of Kashmir, Srinagar (Northern region), Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (Central region) and Jamia Hamdard University Kannur campus (Southern region).

Researchers consider that entrepreneurial motivation is an underexplored area of the entrepreneurship field (Carsrud and Brännback, 2011)—in particular, the motivation–intention link (Solesvik, 2013). In this context, the current paper significantly contributes to the study of the entrepreneurial motivation–intention relationship. First, the study expands and enriches the focus on different psychological and contextual factors that foster entrepreneurial motivations among university students (Kah et al., 2021; Wu and Mao, 2020). Second, entrepreneurial motivations, which spark the intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity, play a vital role in the venture creation process (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018; Hassan et al., 2021; Meoli et al., 2020). Therefore, the study allows us to explore the influence of psychological and contextual variables in shaping these motivations and leading to the subsequent formation of entrepreneurial intention among students. Third, by framing (see Figure 1) and testing our model moderated by gender as suggested by Arshad et al., (2020), the study provides a better insight into the gender bias that hinders a motivated university student from undertaking an entrepreneurial activity (Hassan et al., 2020). Accordingly, we explore the following three research questions:

• RQ1: What is the relationship between entrepreneurship education, perceived cultural support, government support policies, entrepreneurial finance, fear of failure and the entrepreneurial motivations of university students?

• RQ2: What is the relationship between the entrepreneurial motivations and the entrepreneurial intention of university students?

• RQ3: What is the moderating role of gender in the entrepreneurial motivation–entrepreneurial intention relationship?

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model.

Theoretical background and hypotheses development

Theoretical background

Entrepreneurial intention can be defined as the proclaimed conviction of an individual to undertake an entrepreneurial activity (Biraglia and Kadile, 2017; Thompson, 2009). It has also been defined as the “the target behaviors of starting a business” Krueger et al. (2000, 420). Therefore, intention acts as a key factor in the venture creation process (Tomy and Pardede 2020), as entrepreneurial intention is recognized as the best predictor of individual entrepreneurial behavior (Armitage and Conner, 2001; Liñán and Chen, 2009). A study by Haynie et al. (2010) has recognized that the conviction behind an entrepreneurial activity originates from the individual’s entrepreneurial motivations, and these motivations act as the leveraging factor in the whole entrepreneurial process (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2017). Entrepreneurial motivation can be defined as the drive or psychological reason behind undertaking an activity (Schacter et al., 2011). Researchers have recognized motivation as a fundamental factor in the venture creation process, having the adequate explanatory power of determining the intention of an individual to undertake an entrepreneurial activity (Chen et al., 2017; Mahto and McDowell, 2018). According to a study by Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo (2017), the business creation decision is taken on two levels: the rational level and the motivational level. The rational level is based on the objective reasons for taking such a decision, originating in the environmental setting which either hinders or reinforces this behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Bandura, 1977). The motivational level relates to the subjective reasons emerging from the expectations of the decision-maker (i.e., their motivations) (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018).

Most of the literature on entrepreneurial intention is based on Shapero and Sokol’s Entrepreneurial Event model (1982) (Fitzsimmons and Douglas, 2011) or Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (1991) (Izquierdo and Buelens, 2011), or on a combination of both models (Krueger et al., 2000). However, the results of empirical studies have shown a gap between the reality of entrepreneurship in different contexts and these dominant theoretical models (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018). Researchers have suggested psychological–economic methods, which offer an alternative to the existing models for explaining the entrepreneurial phenomenon and the factors determining the intention of an individual to undertake an entrepreneurial activity (Athayade, 2009; Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018; Lee et al., 2011). Hence, our study takes into consideration these suggestions by incorporating different psychological, contextual variables in the theoretical model and examining their strength in determining the entrepreneurial intention of students.

Hypothesis development

Entrepreneurial motivations and entrepreneurial intention: The psychological purpose or cause of an action has been defined as motivation (Schacter et al., 2011). Theories based on entrepreneurial motivation have been classified into two groups: incentive theories and drive theories (Carsrud and Brännback, 2011). The drive theories focus on the inner need of an individual (e.g., autonomy or need for achievement) that helps to reduce the tension by motivating the individual to undertake an entrepreneurial activity (Fayolle et al., 2014; Solesvik, 2013). The incentive-based theories on the other hand propose that external rewards (e.g., prestige, income, or flexibility) act as the motivator for an individual to undertake an activity) (Fayolle et al., 2014; Fayolle and Liñán, 2014). Shane et al. (2003) categorized these motivations into general (the need for achievement, vision, locus of control, passion, desire for independence and drive) and task-specific (goal setting and self-efficacy).

Previously, the economic motive was considered the reason behind the undertaking of an entrepreneurial activity (Carsrud and Brännback, 2009). However, recently the narrative has changed from economic to other socially driven motives, particularly with regard to social entrepreneurship (Fayolle et al., 2014), suggesting that these act as the primary motivators for social entrepreneurial activity (Fayolle et al., 2014).

When connecting the drive theories of motivation to entrepreneurship, it can be concluded that the internal tension of an individual instigates the higher intention of undertaking a new venture (Fayolle et al., 2014). This is the result of motivation affecting the psychological mindset of the individual with regard to undertaking an entrepreneurial activity (Solesvik, 2013). The intention has been defined as the initiative influenced by a group of motivations (Schlepphorst et al., 2020). Therefore, individual motivations act as the antecedent for the development of entrepreneurial intention (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018; Solesvik, 2013). Earlier studies have shown that entrepreneurial motivations significantly predict entrepreneurial intention (Antonioli et al., 2016; Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2017; Hassan et al., 2021; Lang and Liu, 2019; Solesvik, 2013; Nabi and Liñán, 2013). Based on the literature, we propose our hypothesis as follows:

Entrepreneurial motivations significantly enhance the entrepreneurial intention of an individual.

Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial motivations: Entrepreneurship education can be defined as “any pedagogical program or a process of education for entrepreneurial attitudes and skills” (Fayolle et al., 2006) which helps an individual in identifying commercially suitable business opportunities and imparts the knowledge, awareness and self-efficacy to act on them (Jones and English, 2004). Entrepreneurship education plays a major role in developing students’ entrepreneurial ability and knowledge about entrepreneurship (Shi et al., 2012). An entrepreneur has been described as an individual who possesses attributes like a tolerance of ambiguity, a need for achievement, risk-taking and self-control (Green et al., 1996; Koh, 1996; McClelland, 1961). As noted above, these motivational attributes have been categorized into two groups by Shane et al. (2003): general (need for achievement, vision, locus of control, passion, desire for independence and drive) and task-specific (goal setting and self-efficacy). Entrepreneurship education helps to nurture these attributes, which enhance the likelihood of performing an entrepreneurial act (Lindberg et al., 2017). Solesvik (2013) has shown that individuals who have undergone a program of entrepreneurship training and education are likely to have higher motivation and are more likely to take up entrepreneurship as their career choice (Hassan et al., 2020; Anwar et al., 2020). However, researchers’ opinions vary regarding the entrepreneurship education–entrepreneurial motivations relationship. Studies such as those by Jakubiak and Buchta (2016), Farhangmehr et al. (2016), and Khalili et al. (2014) have found that entrepreneurship education shapes the entrepreneurial competencies of students and fosters their motivations to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. However, Athayde (2009) and Oosterbeek et al. (2010) have shown different results, confirming that entrepreneurship education does not influence entrepreneurial motivations significantly. Thus, the question arises as to whether or not entrepreneurship education can enhance the entrepreneurial motivations of an individual. Based on the literature, we formulate our hypothesis as follows:

Entrepreneurship education significantly enhances the entrepreneurial motivations of an individual.

Perceived cultural support and entrepreneurial motivations: Culture has been defined as an integration of beliefs, expected behaviors and shared values (Hayton et al., 2002). In the context of entrepreneurship, it is related to taking responsibility, valuing entrepreneurial traits, seeking a business opportunity, entrepreneurial fear of risk aversion, and capability beliefs (Stephan, 2009). Culture can be more or less supportive to individual’s entrepreneurial activity and career in entrepreneurship (Kibler et al., 2014). In a supportive entrepreneurial culture, the entrepreneurial activity of an individual is considered to be desirable and appropriate (Liñán et al., 2020), which affects their entrepreneurial behavior (Thornton et al., 2011; Hayton and Cacciotti 2013). Cultural norms are society-driven values that formulate the degree to which society contemplates the desirability of entrepreneurial behaviors (Hechavarria and Reynolds, 2009). Cultural norms related to the valuing of entrepreneurship vary (Zanakis et al., 2012) and affect the cognition and behavior of graduate and undergraduate students (Yao et al., 2016). Culture can foster motivations by nurturing the personal attributes of an individual for the performance of a particular behavior (Mueller and Dato-on, 2013). Hofstede (1984) found that cultural factors play a vital role in guiding individual-level motives. Liñán and Santos (2007), Hechavarria and Reynolds (2009), Obschonka et al. (2012) and Wu and Mao (2020) also found that the social system can develop entrepreneurial motivations among urban students which encourage them to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. Numerous studies have explored the impact of cultural norms on entrepreneurial intention (Liñán et al., 2011; Solesvik et al., 2014; Shinnar et al., 2012), but very little literature is available that has explored the impact of cultural norms on entrepreneurial motivations (Valliere, 2014). Hence, this study will add to that scarce literature and we propose our hypothesis as follows:

Perceived cultural support positively influences the entrepreneurial motivations of an individual.

Perceived government support and entrepreneurial motivations: Government support can be described as the preferential measures offered by a government to entrepreneurs, as in the facilitation of approval in business processes, entrepreneurial institutions optimization and preferential taxation (Garcia-Cabrera et al., 2018; Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994; Nam and Hwansoo, 2019). Government support (including government policies and procedures) inevitably plays a role in promoting a culture of entrepreneurship (Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994), especially in a developing country like India. Government support also affects the market mechanism and can help to ensure the smooth functioning of this mechanism by removing bottlenecks, hindrances and policy rigidities that may impede an individual while undertaking an entrepreneurial activity (Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994): rigid rules and procedural requirements may discourage individuals from entrepreneurial endeavors (Anwar and Saleem, 2019a, 2019b; Dana, 1990; Young and Welsch, 1993). Government support, as part of the socio-economic environment, also acts as an entrepreneurial motivation enhancer (Suzuki et al., 2002; Yao et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2019). Zhao et al. (2019) found that government support which facilitates a favorable environment for entrepreneurship plays a significant role in enhancing entrepreneurial motivations among college students. Yao et al. (2016) and Garcia-Cabrera et al. (2018) produced similar results, showing that government policy support boosts the entrepreneurial motivation of individuals by offering them a sense of protection. However, other studies, like that by Wu and Mao (2020), have found inconsistent results, suggesting an insignificant impact of government support on the entrepreneurial motivations of students. Given this inconsistency in results, further investigation is needed to understand the relationship between government support and entrepreneurial motivations. Based on this proposition, we formulate our hypothesis as follows:

Perceived government support significantly enhances the entrepreneurial motivations of an individual.

Access to entrepreneurial finance and entrepreneurial motivations: Access to entrepreneurial finance can be defined as the easy and adequate access to different funding options, which can be in the form of debt, equity or funds from private lenders and friends (Gimmon and Levie, 2010; Kristiansen and Indarti, 2004; Matshekga and Urban, 2013; Urban and Ratsimanetrimanana, 2019). Entrepreneurial finance can have multiple sources—venture capital funding, bank loans, personal resources, and seed funding (Farooq et al., 2018; Kristiansen and Indarti, 2004). Studies such as those by Sandhu et al. (2011), Covin and Lumpkin (2011) and Indarti et al. (2010) have shown that access to entrepreneurial finance fosters an individual’s motivation to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. In general, accessibility to entrepreneurial finance remains one of the main obstacles hindering individuals from choosing entrepreneurship as a career option ( Welter, 2011; Yao et al., 2016) and the inaccessibility of entrepreneurial finance has been found to discourage students from undertaking an entrepreneurial activity (Smith and Martin, 2011; Smith et al., 2020). Along the same lines, Garcia-Cabrera et al. (2018), Gathungu and Baariu (2018), and Wu and Mao (2020) found a significant positive impact of entrepreneurial finance on the entrepreneurial motivations of students. However, a study by Pruett (2012) in the USA found a non-significant relationship between access to entrepreneurial finance and entrepreneurial motivations. For a greater understanding of the relationship between the two, we further investigate this relationship and formulate our hypothesis as follows:

Access to entrepreneurial finance significantly enhances the entrepreneurial motivations of an individual.

Fear of failure and entrepreneurial motivations: Fear of failure in entrepreneurship has been defined as the “negative affective reaction based in cognitive appraisals of the potential for failure in the uncertain and ambiguous performative context of entrepreneurship” (Cacciotti et al., 2020 p. 4). Previous researchers have mainly examined fear of failure as a psychological construct that acts as a constraint to undertaking an entrepreneurial activity (Asiedu and Nduro, 2015; Bosma et al., 2007; Chua and Bedford, 2015; Hatala, 2005; Henderson and Robertson, 1999). However, other studies (Mitchell, 1996; Mitchell and Shepherd, 2011; Morgan and Sisak, 2016; Ray, 1994) suggest that fear of failure can both inhibit and motivate individuals’ cognitive behavior. Fear of failure plays a considerable role in determining the entrepreneurial motivations of an individual (Cacciotti et al., 2016) as it affects the cognitive behavior of an individual (Shinnar et al., 2012). Some studies of fear of failure suggest negative effects on an individual’s motivation toward entrepreneurial behavior (Autio and Pathak, 2010; Brixi et al., 2012; Chua and Bedford, 2015; Hessels et al., 2011; Vaillant and Lafuente, 2007; Wennberg et al., 2013). Based on the role played by the construct fear of failure as a constraint to entrepreneurial motivation (Cacciotti et al., 2016; Wennberg et al., 2013), we propose our hypothesis as follows:

Fear of failure has a negative influence on the entrepreneurial motivations of an individual.

Moderating role of gender: Gender differences in society have been much studied in entrepreneurship research (Arshad et al., 2020). Recent advances have explored gender as a moderator, examining its effect on the relationships of entrepreneurial intention with its precursors (Arshad et al., 2020; Hassan et al., 2020; Lerner and Malach-Pines, 2011). Gender appears to impact entrepreneurial intention, as motivations to start an enterprise and gender are indirectly associated (Cerqueti et al., 2020). Almobaireek and Manolova, (2013); Humbert and Drew, (2010) found a difference in entrepreneurial motivations between men and women, suggesting that men are driven mainly by financial motivations while women are mostly necessity-driven. Previous studies have shown that entrepreneurial intention varies according to gender (Phipps and Prieto, 2015; Santos et al., 2016), with men tending to show higher intention toward undertaking an entrepreneurial activity than women (Hassan et al., 2020; Anwar and Saleem, 2019). Thus, based on this notion of gender differences in entrepreneurial motivations (Almobaireek and Manolova, 2013) and entrepreneurial intention (Santos et al., 2016), we propose our hypothesis as follows:

Gender moderates the relationship between entrepreneurial motivations and entrepreneurial intention in such a way that the relationship is stronger for males than for females.

Research design and methods

In this study, the authors have endeavored to measure the influence of entrepreneurship education, perceived cultural support, government support policies, access to entrepreneurial finance and fear of failure on the entrepreneurial motivations of university students studying business and management courses and, in turn, they also measure the influence of entrepreneurial motivation on students’ entrepreneurial intention while moderating this relationship by gender. The study employs a cross-sectional design and uses a convenience sampling method for data collection. The data were collected from 329 university students from business and management backgrounds.

Participants and data collection

The data were collected from 329 students of three universities in different regions of India: the University of Kashmir, Srinagar (northern region), Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (central region) and Jamia Hamdard University Kannur Campus (southern region). The target population was students studying business and management courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Students were asked to complete the survey online through Google Forms, and convenience sampling was employed to collect the data. Convenience sampling has been widely applied in entrepreneurial intention studies and has produced consistent and robust results (Anwar et al., 2021b; Anwar and Saleem, 2018; Bazan et al., 2020; Hassan et al., 2020; Martins and Perez, 2020; Roy et al., 2017). About 450 students were contacted (150 from each university) during February 2021, and 354 students completed the questionnaire. The data were subsequently screened and cleaned, leaving a final sample of 329 responses (Central University of Kashmir = 109, Aligarh Muslim University = 117, and Jamia Hamdard University Kannur campus = 103), consisting of 171 males and 158 females.

Survey instrument

For the development of the survey instrument, the authors borrowed published and validated scales from different sources. For measuring entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurship education, the study borrows the scales developed by Linan and Chen (2009). For entrepreneurial motivations, it uses the scale from Solesvik (2013). The authors adopted the scale for government support policies from Gnyawali and Fogel (1994). Scales to measure perceived cultural norms and fear of failure were taken from Linan et al. (2020) and Cacciotti et al. (2020), while access to finance was measured with the scale developed by Matshekga and Urban (2013) and used by the GEM National Expert Survey (NES). The questionnaire was divided into two sections, with the second capturing demographic details (age, gender, entrepreneurial inclination, and parental occupation) and the first measuring seven variables comprising a total of 33 observed items.

Data screening

Before proceeding with any statistical analysis, the data were cleaned and screened for missing values, outliers and unengaged responses, and any potential common method bias. No missing values were found since the data were collected using an online platform, and all the questionnaire items were marked mandatory: therefore, no respondent could submit the survey while leaving any question unanswered. However, 13 respondents were found to have completed the survey without being engaged; hence, these responses were deleted from the dataset. In addition to removing unengaged responses, the authors also examined for outliers in the dataset using Cook’s distance method (Stevens, 2012). It was found that the Cook’s statistics were above the threshold of 1 for 12 responses, thus representing the outliers in the data, and these responses were also removed. As noted already, the study was left with a final sample size of 329 responses.

Common method bias

In order to remove any common method bias, the study followed the remedies suggested by Podsakoff and Organ (1986). While developing the survey instrument, the language for the observed items was made comprehensive and straightforward, statements were single-faceted, and double-barrelled statements were avoided. A brief introduction of each construct was also given before its measurement items so that psychological separation could come into effect when the respondents switched from one construct to another and thus enabled them to respond accordingly. Despite adopting the above-mentioned qualitative remedial measures to curb the influence of common method bias, the authors also applied Harman’s one-factor test to ensure statistically that the data were free from common method biases. All 33 items were put in one single factor, applying principal component analysis, to test whether or not they explained the majority of the variance (50%). The results shown in Table 1 report that the 33 observed items could explain 33.86% variance under one single factor which is well below the threshold of 50%, confirming that the data were free from common method bias (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).

Table 1.

Total variance explained (Harman’s single factor test).

Component	Extraction sums of squared loadings
	Total	% of variance	Cumulative %
1	10.497	33.863	33.863

Note. Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax.

Subsequently, the study tested the model fitness, reliability and validity of the data; for this purpose, as noted in the next section, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied using AMOS (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Moreover, the hypotheses of the study were tested using structural equation modeling (SEM).

Results

Measurement model: Fit indices, reliability, and validity

The authors conceptualized the study model by incorporating seven constructs: entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial motivations, entrepreneurship education, perceived cultural support, government support policies, access to entrepreneurial finance and fear of failure. To ensure model fitness (fit indices), reliability, and validity of the data (convergence and divergence), CFA was applied with the help of AMOS v21. Table 2 reports the fit indices for the measurement model and SEM model, and it was found that all the fit indices for both models fell into the “excellent” category compared to the recommended thresholds for each fit index.

Table 2.

CFA and SEM model fit indices.

Model	CMIN/DF	GFI	CFI	NFI	TLI	RMSEA
CFA model	1.904	0.926	0.959	0.948	0.951	0.043
SEM model	1.921	0.922	0.951	0.940	0.947	0.047
Recommended value	Acceptable 1–4	>0.90	>0.90	>0.90	>0.90	<0.07
	Wheaton et al., (1977)	Shevlin and Miles (1998)	Shevlin and Miles (1998)	Hu and Bentler (1999)	Hu and Bentler (1999)	MacCallum et al. (1996)

The recommended thresholds for the criteria of convergent and divergent were also satisfactorily met by the study measurement model. For convergence, it was ensured that individual and average factor loadings from observed variables to their respective latent variables were above 0.70 (see Table 3) and the average variance extracted (AVE) shown in Table 3 for each latent construct is not below 0.50 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2006), thus meeting the criteria.

Table 3.

CFA loadings, AVE, CR and Cronbach’s alpha.

Variable name	Average CFA loading	AVE	CR	Cronbach’s alpha
Entrepreneurial intention	0.843	0.711	0.824	0.828
I am eager to have my own business.
My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur.
I will make every effort to start and run my own business.
I am determined to start a business in the future.
I have the firm intention to start my own business someday.
Entrepreneurial motivations	0.838	0.703	0.822	0.824
I consider investing in my own small or medium-sized enterprise and its management a desirable career choice.
I will start my own business because I want to be free and independent.
I will start my own business because I have good ideas and want to realize them.
I will start my own business to be better off financially.
I will start my own business because I want to be successful.
Entrepreneurship education	0.715	0.512	0.839	0.887
Knowledge about the entrepreneurial environment.
Ability to recognise entrepreneurial opportunities.
The necessary abilities to be an entrepreneur.
Knowledge about the entrepreneurial process from “ideation to venture creation.”
Exposure to government support policies and schemes for entrepreneurs.
Perceived cultural support	0.774	0.599	0.882	0.892
The predominant culture in my country supports/values individual success obtained through personal effort.
The predominant culture in my country emphasizes self-sufficiency, autonomy and personal initiative.
The culture in my country stimulates the assumption of business risk.
The predominant culture in my country stimulates creativity and innovation.
The predominant culture in my country emphasizes that the individual is responsible for managing their life.
Government support policies	0.863	0.569	0.725	0.935
Registration and approval procedures are simple and convenient in India.
Government offers entrepreneurial counselling services for college students in India.
In India there are well-developed institutions governing entrepreneurial behaviors.
Access to entrepreneurial finance	0.764	0.584	0.875	0.881
In my country there is sufficient debt and equity funding available for new and growing firms.
In my country there are sufficient government subsidies available for new and growing firms.
In my country there is sufficient funding available from informal investors (family, friends and colleagues) who are private individuals (other than founders) for new and growing firms.
In my country there is sufficient funding available from venture capitalists and professional business angles for new and growing firms.
In my country there is sufficient funding available through private lenders funding (crowd funding) available for new and growing firms.
Fear of failure	0.796	0.633	0.896	0.903
I am afraid that I won’t be able to get the required funding for the business I intend to start.
I am afraid that no one will be interested in the product/service I intend to produce.
I am afraid that my intended business idea won’t be valuable.
I am afraid that I won’t be able to manage the business effectively.
I am afraid of losing all I will be investing in the business/business activities.

The divergent validity of the latent constructs was also tested, comparing correlations of a latent variable with its squared root of AVE. A construct is sufficiently divergent if its correlations with other latent variables are not greater than its squared root of AVE (Chin et al., 1997). The results shown in Table 4 confirm that each latent construct is sufficiently divergent from the other latent constructs as the squared roots of AVE are greater than the correlations. Correlations among the latent constructs also serve as preliminary support for the hypotheses testing and confirm whether or not the correlations are in the hypothesized direction. Table 4 also presents descriptive statistics—mean, standard deviation and skewness (for normality assumption). It was found that the skewness statistics for each construct were within the range of −1 to +1, confirming that they tended to be normally distributed (Kline, 1998).

Table 4.

Correlations, divergent validity, and descriptive statistics.

Variable name	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Entrepreneurial intention	0.843
Entrepreneurial motivations	0.707^a	0.838
Entrepreneurship education	0.409^a	0.490^a	0.715
Perceived cultural support	0.341^a	0.453^a	0.488^a	0.774
Government support policies	0.263^a	0.350^a	0.401^a	0.610^a	0.863
Access to entrepreneurial finance	0.269^a	0.329^a	0.422^a	0.630^a	0.636^a	0.764
Fear of failure	−0.46^a	−0.44^a	−0.334^a	0.207^a	0.172^a	0.302^a	0.796
Mean	5.333	5.446	5.203	4.894	4.609	4.639	4.026
SD	1.664	1.497	1.185	1.274	1.281	1.328	1.645
Skewness	−0.980	−0.927	−0.364	−0.361	−0.217	−0.252	−0.030

Note. Squared root of AVE is shown in bold on the diagonals, and it should be greater than off-diagonal values for divergent validity.

^a Correlations are significant at the 0.01 level.

Hypothesis testing (direct effects)

This paper proposes six hypotheses for the direct effects. The influence of entrepreneurial motivations on entrepreneurial intention (H1) was tested initially. Subsequently, the influence on entrepreneurial motivations of entrepreneurship education (H2), perceived cultural support (H3), government support policies (H4), access to entrepreneurial finance (H5), and fear of failure (H6) were tested. The results shown in Table 5 confirm that entrepreneurial motivations significantly enhance the entrepreneurial intention of university students (B = 0.702), with an explanatory power (R²) of 68.90%. Thus, H1 is supported. The results also indicate that entrepreneurship education and perceived cultural support positively influence entrepreneurial motivations, with standardized coefficients of 0.351 and 0.270, respectively, thus supporting H2 and H3. Government support policies (B = 0.075) and access to entrepreneurial finance (B = 0.042) were not found to significantly influence entrepreneurial motivations. Hence, H4 and H5 were not supported. Lastly, fear of failure was found to negatively affect entrepreneurial motivations with a standardized coefficient of −0.170; thus, H6 is supported. A variance (R²) of 45.50% in entrepreneurial motivations was explained by these five variables (see Figure 2).

Table 5.

Standardized direct effects and moderation effect.

Dependent variable		Independent variable	Std estimate
Standardized direct effects
Entrepreneurial intention	<---	Entrepreneurial motivations	0.702^**
Entrepreneurial motivations	<---	Entrepreneurship education	0.351^**
Entrepreneurial motivations	<---	Perceived cultural support	0.270^**
Entrepreneurial motivations	<---	Government support policies	0.075^NS
Entrepreneurial motivations	<---	Access to entrepreneurial finance	0.042^NS
Entrepreneurial motivations	<---	Fear of failure	−0.170^**
Moderation effect (interaction effect)
Entrepreneurial intention	<---	Entrepreneurial motivations*Gender	−0.118^*

Note. ** Paths are significant at the 1% level (p < .01). * Moderation effect is significant at the 5% level (p < .05) with 5000 bootstrap resamples.

Figure 2.

Tested model. Note: ** Paths significant at the 1% level (p < .01). * Paths significant at the 5% level (p < .05).

Moderation analysis (interaction effect)

The study also considered the moderating effect of gender on the entrepreneurial motivation–intention relationship in that males may exhibit a stronger association between their motivations and intention than females (hypothesis H7). The interaction effect was measured using model 1 in PROCESS Macro for SPSS v3.0 with 5000 bootstrap resamples and centered means (Hayes, 2017). The results in Table 5 indicate that gender negatively moderates the entrepreneurial motivation–intention relationship (with a standardized coefficient of −0.118) in such a way that it is stronger for males than for females, thus supporting H7.

Discussion

Our study shows how different psychological and contextual factors foster the entrepreneurial motivations of an individual, which in turn lead to the development of entrepreneurial intention. The findings indicate that in addition to the theoretical antecedents of dominant intention-based models like the Entrepreneurial Event Model (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), other psychological and contextual factors also play a vital part in determining entrepreneurial intention among students. This is consistent with the results of earlier studies (Al-Kwifi et al., 2020; Kristiansen and Indarti, 2004; Liñán et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2019).

The results for the first hypothesis showed that entrepreneurship education plays a significant role in fostering the students’ entrepreneurial motivations, with a weight of 0.351. These results conform with those of earlier studies (Farhangmehr et al., 2016; Hassan et al., 2021; Jakubiak and Buchta 2016), denoting a strong correlation between the two and suggesting that the entrepreneurship education students are receiving in Indian universities can nurture their motivations to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. Therefore, it can be said that classroom-based entrepreneurship education (in the form of teaching theory-based entrepreneurial concepts, industry-based case studies and success stories of entrepreneurs) can enhance students’ entrepreneurial motivations and instigates them to pursue a career in entrepreneurship.

The second hypothesis, concerning the relation between perceived cultural support and entrepreneurial motivations, also shows a significant positive relationship with a weight of 0.270. The results for this hypothesis indicate that a supportive entrepreneurial culture acts as a motivation enhancer. This finding is consistent with existing studies such as those by Hofstede (1984) and Obschonka et al. (2012). Culture is predominant in influencing an individual’s behavior in choosing a particular career option. Thus, we can say that students in India perceive that favorable cultural support prevails in the country, and this support instigates their motivations to choose entrepreneurship as a career.

The third proposed relationship was between perceived government support policies and entrepreneurial motivations. The results showed an insignificant relationship, which is consistent with recent research results (Wu and Mao, 2020), but inconsistent with some earlier studies that find a significant positive impact on motivation enhancement (Garcia-Cabrera et al., 2018; Yao et al., 2016). This study’s finding suggests that students perceive very little support from the government, which is consequently a non-significant factor in driving their entrepreneurial motivations and the decision to undertake a new venture. Hence, the government should create support to help and encourage potential entrepreneurs and should inform universities about any relevant government schemes and policies regarding entrepreneurship.

In emerging economies like India, any individual who wants to pursue a venturing idea has to ask, “Where will I get the necessary funding?” and “Is there easy access to finance?” If there is easy availability of and access to finance, then individuals will be highly motivated (Garcia-Cabrera et al., 2018; Gathungu and Baariu, 2018; Kristiansen and Indarti, 2004; Welter, 2011) to pursue their ideas by undertaking an entrepreneurial activity (Farooq et al., 2018; Sandhu et al., 2011). However, the results for the fourth hypothesis showed a non-significant impact of access to entrepreneurial finance on students’ entrepreneurial motivations. This finding is inconsistent with the results of earlier studies (Eggers et al., 2013; Garcia-Cabrera et al., 2018; Wu and Mao, 2020; Yao et al., 2016) and indicates that access to entrepreneurial finance does not constitute any enhancement of an individual’s entrepreneurial motivations. One possible reason for this non-significant impact could be the unavailability of finance, or the difficulty of obtaining finance if it is available, for new graduates in developing countries like India.

Fear of failure showed a significant negative impact on individuals’ entrepreneurial motivations, which is consistent with the results of previous studies (Brixi et al., 2012; Cacciotti et al., 2016; Hessels et al., 2011; Wennberg et al., 2013). These results suggest that Indian university students have a fear of failure which could affect their entrepreneurial motivations and act as a constraint to undertaking a new venture. Thus, the less there is fear of failure among young people, the stronger will be their motivations to carry forward their ideas for venture creation.

The underlying motive behind undertaking an entrepreneurial activity glues an individual to the idea of venture creation and plays a significant role in determining entrepreneurial intention. In this study, the relationship between entrepreneurial motivations and entrepreneurial intention is found to be positively significant, with a strong weight of 0.609. This finding is consistent with earlier studies that show a significant positive relationship between the two (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2017; Fayolle et al., 2014; Hassan et al., 2021; Schlepphorst et al., 2020; Solesvik, 2013), indicating that students with certain underlying motives, like independence, financial help and career desires, are more likely to start their own venture (Hassan et al., 2021). Hence, the government should reach out to university campuses and introduce awareness programs regarding their schemes and policies for individuals who want to choose entrepreneurship as a career. This will help to increase students’ confidence and will also create a favorable climate for entrepreneurs in the country, leading to the promotion of an entrepreneurial culture.

The finding for our final hypothesis, examining the moderating effect of gender on the entrepreneurial motivation–intention relationship, conforms with previous studies (Almobaireek and Manolova, 2013; Arshad et al., 2020; Humbert and Drew, 2010). This result indicates that the influence of entrepreneurial motivations on entrepreneurial intention is stronger for men, who are more likely to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. Women exhibit a weaker relationship between entrepreneurial motivations and intention, suggesting that they are less likely to start a venture than their male counterparts. One reason for this phenomenon could relate to a difference of approach between men and women: typically men are opportunity-driven while women are necessity-driven. If it is the case that there is a tendency in women to act only when necessary, they should be encouraged to reposition their entrepreneurial motivations through education that enhances their inducements for achievement (Cerqueti et al., 2020).

Implications

This study shows that entrepreneurship education and cultural support can act as vital antecedents in the venture creation process by enhancing entrepreneurial motivations. These findings have implications for Indian universities and the Indian government. The universities need to review the current curriculum by increasing student–entrepreneur interaction and focusing more on problem-solving and ideation processes rather than just imparting theoretical knowledge. The Indian government should also reach out to the universities by starting entrepreneurship awareness camps, diffusing information about the different funding avenues available for aspiring entrepreneurs and relevant government initiatives. This will foster the motivations of potential entrepreneurs, develop the entrepreneurial ecosystem, and help to create an entrepreneurial culture in the country. It is important that the government should spend more on educating young people by providing the necessary classroom entrepreneurship education and by creating awareness about its various schemes in support of entrepreneurship rather than simply creating them: the findings show that education can be an important tool to in motivating young people to embark on an entrepreneurial career.

Studies have also shown that fear of failure negatively impacts an individual’s motivation to become an entrepreneur. This is one of the main obstacles in the venture creation process. Indian universities need to focus on this aspect by providing clear insights for students into the venture creation process and by boosting their self-confidence through student–entrepreneur interaction and the sharing of entrepreneurial success stories. University-level entrepreneurship education can instill the confidence to overcome fear of failure by adopting real-life problem-solving methods (Hassan et al., 2021).

The findings of this study contradict the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report (GEM) 2020 (Bosma et al., 2020) with regard to various parameters. For example, the GEM India Entrepreneurial Framework conditions have shown that India scores well above the global average for parameters like government support policies and access to finance (Bosma et al., 2020). However, the findings of this study suggest otherwise. This contradiction could be because the GEM collects National Expert Survey (NES) data on these framework parameters from subject experts, policy-makers, etc., who are concerned with policy-making. In contrast, our study collected data from university students who are the potential beneficiaries of government policies and aspiring to become entrepreneurs. Hence, there is a need for policy-makers to focus on the ground-level situation and to ensure the appropriate implementation of policies and their accessibility to stakeholders.

Based on the suggestions of Humbert and Drew, (2010) and Arshad et al., (2020) to explore the entrepreneurial motivation–intention relationship from psychological, contextual and economic perspectives, with gender as a moderator, this study also adds to the literature on entrepreneurial motivation–intention relationship by considering the moderating effect of gender.

Limitations

The study has certain limitations. First, it is focused only on commerce and management students who have received entrepreneurship education. Future studies may focus on students from other disciplines to enable comparative analysis. Second, it examines students from Indian universities, making the findings mainly generalizable to other emerging economies. Further similar studies could be carried out in developed economies, which would help to validate the framework in similar economies. Third, only psychological and contextual variables have been used to predict entrepreneurial intention, which might not be sufficient. Future studies might add other cognitive, social and intellectual capital variables, which could strengthen the framework and help in better predicting entrepreneurial intention. Fourth, the study is based on a relatively small sample size of 329 respondents from only three universities, thus leaving scope for similar studies with a larger sample size from other universities and regions of the country. Finally, our study used cross-sectional data in predicting entrepreneurial motivations. The intention of students may not necessarily lead to actual behavior. Longitudinal empirical evidence would provide a better insight as the intention may change over time (Ephrem et al., 2019).

Conclusion

This study adds to the literature on the entrepreneurial motivation–entrepreneurial intention relationship. The results provide insights concerning the role of different psychological and contextual factors in fostering entrepreneurial motivations and their role in the entrepreneurial process. Entrepreneurship education influences entrepreneurial motivations positively, leading to the development of entrepreneurial intention. Perceived cultural support acts as a confidence builder by validating the underlying motives behind undertaking a new venture, paving the way for stronger entrepreneurial intention. Fear of failure hinders the entrepreneurial process by negatively influencing entrepreneurial motivations. Entrepreneurial motivations, highly correlated with entrepreneurial intention, are one of the significant precursors to entrepreneurial intention. The findings also show that gender negatively moderated the entrepreneurial motivation–entrepreneurial intention relationship. However, the influence of perceived government support and access to entrepreneurial finance were found insignificant in enhancing the entrepreneurial motivations of students, indicating that these factors do not play a significant role in determining the entrepreneurial intention of Indian university students.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Aamir Hassan

Imran Anwar

References

Agarwal

Lenka

Singh

, et al. (2020) A qualitative approach towards crucial factors for sustainable development of women social entrepreneurship: Indian cases. Journal of Cleaner Production 274: 123135.

Ajzen

(1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.

Ajzen

Csasch

Flood

(2009) From intentions to behavior: implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39(6): 1356–1372.

Al-Kwifi

Tien Khoa

Ongsakul

, et al. (2020) Determinants of female entrepreneurship success across Saudi Arabia. Journal of Transnational Management 25(1): 3–29.

Almobaireek

Manolova

(2013) Entrepreneurial motivations among female university youth in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Business Economics and Management 14(Suppl. 1): S56–S75. doi: 10.3846/16111699.2012.711364.

Anderson

Gerbing

(1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411.

Antonioli

Nicolli

Ramaciotti

, et al. (2016) The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on academics’ entrepreneurial intention. Administrative Sciences 6(4): 15.

Anwar

Saleem

(2019) Exploring entrepreneurial characteristics among university students: an evidence from India. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 13(3): 281–295. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-07-2018-0044.

Anwar

Jamal

Saleem

, et al. (2021a) Traits and entrepreneurial intention: testing the mediating role of entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy. Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development 13(1): 40–59. doi: 10.1504/JIBED.2021.10034433.

10.

Anwar

Saleem

(2018) Effect of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intention of Indian students. International Journal of Research 5(12): 2306–2316 (Online Url: https://journals.pen2print.org/index.php/ijr/article/view/14109).

11.

Anwar

Saleem

(2019) Entrepreneurial intention among female university students: A step towards economic inclusion through venture creation. In: Mrinal

Bhattacharya

(eds) Strategies and Dimensions for Women Empowerment, Australia: Central West Publishing, 331–342.

12.

Anwar

Saleem

Islam

, et al. (2020) Entrepreneurial intention among female university students: examining the moderating role of entrepreneurial education. Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development 12(4): 217–234. doi: 10.1504/JIBED.2020.110254.

13.

Anwar

Thoudam

Saleem

(2021b) Role of entrepreneurial education in shaping entrepreneurial intention among university students: testing the hypotheses using mediation and moderation approach. Journal of Education for Business, 1–13.

14.

Armitage

Conner

(2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta‐analytic review. The British Journal of Social Psychology 40(4): 471–499.

15.

Arshad

Farooq

Atif

, et al. (2020) A motivational theory perspective on entrepreneurial intentions: a gender comparative study. Gender in Management 36(2): 221–240. doi: 10.1108/GM-12-2019-0253.

16.

Asiedu

Nduro

(2015) Polytechnic students' entrepreneurial knowledge, preferences and perceived barriers to start-up business. Eur J Bus Manag 7(21): 20–28.

17.

Athayde

(2009) Measuring enterprise potential in young people. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(2): 481–500.

18.

Autio

Pathak

(2010) Entrepreneur’s exit experience and growth aspirations. Front Entrep Res 30(2): 1–15.

19.

Bagozzi

(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1): 74–94.

20.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84: 191–215.

21.

Barba-Sánchez

Atienza-Sahuquillo

(2017) Entrepreneurial motivation and self-employment: evidence from expectancy theory. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 13(4): 1097–1115.

22.

Barba-Sánchez

Atienza-Sahuquillo

(2018) Entrepreneurial intention among engineering students: the role of entrepreneurship education. European Research on Management and Business Economics 24(1): 53–61.

23.

Bazan

Gaultois

Shaikh

, et al. (2020) Effect of the university on the social entrepreneurial intention of students. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship 23(1): 3–24. doi: 10.1108/NEJE-05-2019-0026.

24.

Biraglia

Kadile

(2017) The role of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions: Insights from American homebrewers. Journal of Small Business Management 55(1): 170–188.

25.

Bosma

Hill

Ionescu-Somers

, et al. (2020) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019/2020 Global Report. Report, London Business School, London: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.

26.

Bosma

Jones

Autio

, et al. (2007) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2007 Executive Report. London: London Business School.

27.

Brixi

Stenberg

Stuber

(2012) The selectiveness of the entrepreneurial process. J Small Bus Manag 50: 105–131.

28.

Cacciotti

Hayton

Mitchell

, et al. (2020) Entrepreneurial fear of failure: scale development and validation. Journal of Business Venturing 35(5): 106041.

29.

Cacciotti

Hayton

Mitchell

, et al. (2011) A reconceptualization of fear of failure in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 31(3): 302–325.

30.

Carsrud

Brännback

(2011) Entrepreneurial motivations: what do we still need to know?. Journal of Small Business Management 49(1): 9–26.

31.

Carsrud

Brännback

(eds.) (2009) Understanding the entrepreneurial mind. New York: Springer.

32.

Cerqueti

Lucarelli

Marinelli

, et al. (2020) Teams in new ventures: gender, human capital and motivation. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 12(2): 145–171. doi: 10.1108/IJGE-07-2019-0115.

33.

Chen

Chang

Wang

, et al. (2017). Understanding creative entrepreneurs’ intention to quit: the role of entrepreneurial motivation, creativity, and opportunity. Entrepreneurship Research Journal 7(3): 1–15.

34.

Chin

Gopal

Salisbury

(1997). Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: the development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Information Systems Research 8(4): 342–367.

35.

Chua

Bedford

(2015) A qualitative exploration of fear of failure and entrepreneurial intent in Singapore. J Career Dev 9: 1–16.

36.

Covin

Lumpkin

(2011) Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: reflections on a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35(5): 855–872.

37.

Criaco

Sieger

Wennberg

, et al. (2017) Parents’ performance in entrepreneurship as a “double-edged sword” for the intergenerational transmissionof entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 49: 841–864.

38.

Dana

(1990) Saint Martin/Sint Maarten: a case study of the effects of culture on economic development. Journal of Small Business Management 28(4): 91–98.

39.

Edelman

Manolova

Shirokova

, et al. (2016) The impact of family support on young entrepreneurs’ start-up activities. J Bus Ventur 31: 428–448.

40.

Eggers

Sascha

Hughes

, et al. (2013) Implications of customer and entrepreneurial orientations for SME growth. Management Decision 51(3): 524–546.

41.

Ephrem

Namatovu

Basalirwa

(2019) Perceived social norms, psychological capital and entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students in Bukavu. Education + Training 61(7–8): 963–983. DOI: 10.1108/ET-10-2018-0212.

42.

Farhangmehr

Gonçalves

Sarmento

(2016) Predicting entrepreneurial motivation among university students: the role of entrepreneurship education. Education + Training 58(7/8): 861–881. doi: 10.1108/ET-01-2016-0019.

43.

Farooq

Salam

Rehman

, et al. (2018) Impact of support from social network on entrepreneurial intention of fresh business graduates: a structural equation modelling approach. Education + Training 60(4): 335–353.

44.

Fayolle

Gailly

Lassas‐Clerc

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

45.

Fayolle

Liñán

(2014) The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Research 67(5): 663–666.

46.

Fayolle

Liñán

Moriano

(2014) Beyond entrepreneurial intentions: values and motivations in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 10(4): 679–689.

47.

Fitzsimmons

Douglas

(2011) Interaction between feasibility and desirability in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing 26(4): 431–440.

48.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50.

49.

Fretschner

Weber

(2013) Measuring and understanding the effects of entrepreneurial awareness education. Journal of Small Business Management 51(3): 410–428.

50.

Garcia-Cabrera

Garcia-Soto

Dias-Furtado

(2018) The individual’s perception of institutional environments and entrepreneurial motivation in developing economies: evidence from Cape Verde. S Afr J Econ Manag Sci 21: 1–18. DOI: 10.4102/sajems.v21i1.2377.

51.

Gathungu

Baariu

(2018) Competitive strategies entrepreneurial orientation, external environment and performance of small and medium enterprises in the manufacturing sector in Nairobi City County, Kenya. J Arts Hum 7: 22–33. DOI: 10.18533/journal.v7i9.1440.

52.

Gimmon

Levie

(2010) Founder's human capital, external investment, and the survival of new high-technology ventures. Research Policy 39(9): 1214–1226.

53.

Gnyawali

Fogel

(1994) Environments for entrepreneurship development: key dimensions and research implications. Entrep Theory Pract 18: 43–62. DOI: 10.1177/104225879401800403.

54.

Goethner

Martin Obschonka

Silbereisen

, et al. (2012) Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship. Econ Psychol Determ 33: 628–641.

55.

Green

David

Dent

, et al. (1996) The Russian entrepreneur: a study of psychological characteristics. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 2(1): 49–58.

56.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. (2006) Multivariate Data analysis. 6th edition. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

57.

Hassan

Saleem

Anwar

, et al. (2020) Entrepreneurial intention of Indian university students: the role of opportunity recognition and entrepreneurship education. Education + Training 62(7/8): 843–861. doi: 10.1108/ET-02-2020-0033.

58.

Hassan

Anwar

Saleem

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

59.

Hatala

(2005) Identifying barriers to self-employment: the development and validation of the barriers to entrepreneurship success tool. Perform Improv Q 18: 50–70.

60.

Hayes

(2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process analysis: A Regression-Based approach. New York: Guilford Publications.

61.

Haynie

Shepherd

Mosakowski

, et al. (2010) A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing 25(2): 217–222.

62.

Hayton

Cacciotti

(2013) Is there an entrepreneurial culture? A review of empirical research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 25(9–10): 708–731.

63.

Hayton

George

Zahara

(2002) National culture and entrepreneurship: a review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26: 33–52.

64.

Hechavarria

Reynolds

(2009) Cultural norms & business start-up: the impact of national values on opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 5: 417–437. doi: 10.1007/s11365-009-0115-6.

65.

Henderson

Robertson

(1999) Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career. Educ Train 41: 236–245.

66.

Hessels

Grilo

Thurik

, et al. (2011) Entrepreneurial exit and entrepreneurial engagement. J Evol Econ 21: 447–471.

67.

Hofstede

(1984) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

68.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.

69.

Humbert

Drew

(2010) Gender, entrepreneurship and motivational factors in an Irish context. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 2(2): 173–196. doi: 10.1108/17566261011051026.

70.

Indarti

Rostiani

Nastiti

(2010) Underlying factors of entrepreneurial intentions among Asian students. The South East Asian Journal of Management 4(2): 143–160.

71.

Izquierdo

Buelens

(2011) Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions: the influence of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and attitudes. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 13(1): 75–91.

72.

Jakubiak

Buchta

(2016) Determinants of entrepreneurial attitudes in relation to students of economics and non-economics. Studia I Materiały 21(1): 17–30.

73.

Joensuu-Salo

Varamäki

Viljamaa

(2015) Beyond intentions – what makes a student start a firm?. Educ + Train 57: 853–873.

74.

Jones

English

(2004) A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Education+ training 46(8/9): 416–423.

75.

Kah

O’Brien

Kok

, et al. (2021) Entrepreneurial motivations, opportunities, and challenges: an international perspective. Journal of African Business 1–21. doi: 10.1080/15228916.2020.1838835.

76.

Kautonen

van Gelderen

Fink

(2015) Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrep Theory Pract 39: 655–674.

77.

Khalili

Tojari

Rezaei

(2014) The impact of entrepreneurship training course on the development of entrepreneurial features. European of Academic Research 2(9): 11942–11953.

78.

Kibler

Kautonen

Fink

(2014) Regional social legitimacy of entrepreneurship: implications for entrepreneurial intention and start-up behaviour. Regional Studies 48(6): 995–1015.

79.

Kline

(1998) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford publications.

80.

Koh

(1996) Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: a study of Hong Kong MBA students. Journal of Managerial Psychology 11(3): 12–25.

81.

Kristiansen

Indarti

(2004) Entrepreneurial intention among Indonesian and Norwegian students. Journal of Enterprising Culture 12: 55–78.

82.

Krueger

Reilly

Carsrud

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

83.

Lang

Liu

(2019) The entrepreneurial motivations, cognitive factors, and barriers to become a fashion entrepreneur: a direction to curriculum development for fashion entrepreneurship education. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 12(2): 235–246.

84.

Lee

Wong

Foo

, et al. (2011) Entrepreneurial intentions: the influence of organizational and individual factors. Journal of Business Venturing 26(1): 124–136.

85.

Lerner

Malach-Pines

(2011) Gender and culture in family business: a ten-nation study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 11(2): 113–131.

86.

Liñán

Santos

(2007) Does social capital affect entrepreneurial intentions?. International Advances in Economic Research 13: 443–453.

87.

Liñán

Rodríguez‐Cohard

(2015) Assessing the stability of graduates’ entrepreneurial intention and exploring its predictive capacity. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración 28(1): 77–98. doi: 10.1108/ARLA-06-2013-0071.

88.

Liñán

Chen

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

89.

Liñán

Jaén

Martin

(2020) Does entrepreneurship fit her? Women entrepreneurs, gender-role orientation, and entrepreneurial culture. Small Business Economics 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s11187-020-00433-w.

90.

Liñán

Urbano

Guerrero

(2011) Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 23(3–4): 187–215.

91.

Lindberg

Bohman

Hulten

, et al. (2017) Enhancing students’ entrepreneurialmindset: a Swedish experience. Education + Training 59(7/8): 768–779. doi: 10.1108/ET-09-2016-0140.

92.

MacCallum

Browne

Sugawara

(1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods 1(2): 130.

93.

Mahto

McDowell

(2018) Entrepreneurial motivation: a non-entrepreneur’s journey to become an entrepreneur. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 14(3): 513–526.

94.

Martins

Perez

(2020) Testing mediating effects of individual entrepreneurial orientation on the relation between close environmental factors and entrepreneurial intention. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26(4): 771–791. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-08-2019-0505.

95.

Matshekga

Urban

(2013) The importance of the human capital attributes when accessing financial resources. Journal of Contemporary Management 10(1): 259–278.

96.

McClelland

(1961) Entrepreneurial behavior. In: McClelland

(ed) The achieving society. D Van Nostrand Company, 205–258. DOI: 10.1037/14359-006.

97.

Meoli

Fini

Sobrero

, et al. (2020) How entrepreneurial intentions influence entrepreneurial career choices: The moderating influence of social context. Journal of Business Venturing 35(3): 105982.

98.

Mitchell

Shepherd

(2011) Afraid of opportunity: the effects of fear of failure on entrepreneurial decisions. Front Entrep Res 31(1): 1–12.

99.

Mitchell

(1996) Oral history and expert scripts: demystifying the entrepreneurial experience. J Manag Hist 2(3): 50–67.

100.

Morgan

Sisak

(2016) Aspiring to succeed: a model of entrepreneurship and fear of failure. J Bus Ventur 31: 1–21.

101.

Mueller

Dato-on

(2013) A cross cultural study of gender-role orientation and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 9(1): 1–20.

102.

Nabi

Liñán

(2013) Considering business start-up in recession time: the role of risk perception and economic context in shaping the entrepreneurial intent. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 19(6): 633–655. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-10-2012-0107.

103.

Nam

Hwansoo

(2019) A study on the perception of entrepreneurial environment and the attitude of entrepreneurs by Asian countries: comparative analysis of China. Japan, Korea, and Singapore. J Entrep Ventur Stud 22: 51–63.

104.

Obschonka

Goethner

Silbereisen

, et al. (2012) Social identity and the transition to entrepreneurship: the role of group identification with workplace peers. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80(1): 137–147.

105.

Oosterbeek

VanPraag

Ijsselstein

(2010) The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European economic review 54(3): 442–454.

106.

Phipps

Prieto

(2015) Women versus men in entrepreneurship: a comparison of the sexes on creativity, political skill, and entrepreneurial intentions. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 21(1): 32–43.

107.

Podsakoff

Organ

(1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12(4): 531–544.

108.

Pruett

(2012) Entrepreneurship education: workshops and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Education for Business 87(2): 94–101.

109.

Rauch

Hulsink

(2015) Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies: an investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior. Acad Manag Learn Educ 214: 187–204.

110.

Ray

(1994) The role of risk-taking in Singapore. J Bus Ventur 9: 157–177.

111.

Roy

Akhtar

Das

(2017) Entrepreneurial intention among science and technology students in India: extending the theory of planned behaviour. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 13(4): 1013–1041.

112.

Sahoo

Panda

(2019) Exploring entrepreneurial orientation and intentions among technical university students: role of contextual antecedents. Education+ Training 61(6): 718–736.

113.

Sandhu

Sidique

Riaz

(2011) Entrepreneurship barriers and entrepreneurial inclination among Malaysian postgraduate students. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 17(4): 428–449.

114.

Santos

Roomi

Liñán

(2016) About gender differences and the social environment in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management 54(1): 49–66.

115.

Schacter

Gilbert

Wegner

, et al. (2011) Psychology: European edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

116.

Schlepphorst

Koetter

Werner

, et al. (2020) International assignments of employees and entrepreneurial intentions: the mediating role of human capital, social capital and career prospects. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26(6): 1259–1279. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-11-2019-0637.

117.

Shane

Locke

Collins

(2003) Entrepreneurial motivation. Human resource Management Review 13(2): 257–279.

118.

Shapero

Sokol

(1982) The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In: Kent

Sexton

Vesper

(eds.) Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 72–90.

119.

Shaw

Carter

(2007) Social entrepreneurship: theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 14(3): 418–434. doi:10.1108/14626000710773529.

120.

Shevlin

Miles

(1998) Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 25(1): 85–90.

121.

Shi

Chen

Gifford

, et al. (2012) Fashion entrepreneurship education in the UK and China. Education+ Training 54(4): 291–305.

122.

Shinnar

Giacomin

Janssen

(2012) Entrepreneurial perceptions and intentions: the role of gender and culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36(3): 465–493.

123.

Sheeran

Webb

(2016) The intention-behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 10(9): 503–518.

124.

Shook

Priem

McGee

(2003) Venture creation and the enterprising individual: a review and synthesis. Journal of Management 29(3): 379–399.

125.

Smith

Martin

(2011) Graduate entrepreneurs: intentions, barriers and solutions. Edited by Harry Matlay. Education + Training 53(8/9): 722–740.

126.

Smith

Hamilton

Fabian

(2020) Entrepreneurial drivers, barriers and enablers of computing students: gendered perspectives from an Australian and UK university. Studies in Higher Education 45(9): 1892–1905.

127.

Solesvik

(2013) Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: investigating the role of education major. Education + Training 55(3): 253–271. DOI: 10.1108/00400911311309314.

128.

Solesvik

Westhead

Matlay

(2014) Cultural factors and entrepreneurial intention: the role of entrepreneurship education. Education+ Training 56(8/9): 680–696.

129.

Souitaris

Zerbinati

Al-Laham

(2007) Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. J Bus Ventur 22: 566–591.

130.

Stephan

(2009) Development and first validation of the culture of entrepreneurship (C-ENT) scale. In: paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, 7–11 August.

131.

Stevens

(2012) Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.

132.

Sullivan

Baruch

(2009) Advances in career theory and research: a critical review and agenda for future exploration. J Manage 35: 1542–1571.

133.

Suzuki

Kim

Bae

(2002) Entrepreneurship in Japan and Silicon Valley: a comparative study. Technovation 22(10): 595–606.

134.

Thompson

(2009) Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(3): 669–694.

135.

Thornton

Ribeiro-Soriano

Urbano

(2011) Sociocultural factors and entrepreneurial activity. International Small Business Journal 29(2): 105–118.

136.

Tomy

Pardede

(2020) An entrepreneurial intention model focussing on higher education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26(7): 1423–1447.

137.

Tsai

Chang

Peng

(2016) Refining the linkage between perceived capability and entrepreneurial intention: roles of perceived opportunity, fear of failure, and gender. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12(4): 1127–1145.

138.

Tung

Hung

Phuong

NTC

, et al. (2020) Enterprise development from students: the case of universities in Vietnam and the Philippines. The International Journal of Management Education 18(1): 100333.

139.

Urban

Ratsimanetrimanana

(2019) Access to finance and entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 13(4): 455–471.

140.

Vaillant

Lafuente

(2007) Do different institutional frameworks condition the influence of local fear of failure and entrepreneurial examples over entrepreneurial activity?. Entrep Reg Dev 19: 313–337.

141.

Valliere

(2014) Culture, values and entrepreneurial motivation in Bhutan. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 8(2): 126–146.

142.

Welter

(2011) Contextualizing entrepreneurship-conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35(1): 165–184. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x

143.

Wennberg

Pathak

Autio

(2013) How culture moulds the effects of self-efficacy and fear of failure on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 25(9–10): 756–780.

144.

Wheaton

Muthen

Alwin

Summers

(1977) Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological methodology 8: 84–136. doi: 10.2307/270754.

145.

Mao

(2020) Business environment and entrepreneurial motivations of urban students. Front Psychol 11: 1483. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01483

146.

Yao

Long

(2016) University students’ entrepreneurial tendency in China Effect of students’ perceived entrepreneurial Environment. J Entrep Emerg Econ 8: 60–81. DOI: 10.1108/JEEE-03-2015-0021.

147.

Young

Welsch

(1993) Major elements in entrepreneurial development in central Mexico. Journal of Small Business Management 31(4): 80–85.

148.

Zanakis

Renko

Bullough

(2012) Nascent entrepreneurs and the transition to entrepreneurship: why do people start new businesses?. Journal of Development Entrepreneurship 17(1): 1–25.

149.

Zellweger

Sieger

Halter

(2011) Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family business background. J Bus Ventur 26: 521–536.

150.

Zhang

Wei

Sun

, et al. (2019) How entrepreneurial learning impacts one’s intention towards entrepreneurship: A planned behavior approach. Chinese Management Studies 13(1): 146–170.

151.

Zhao

Zhou

Linm

(2019) Influence of environmental perception on college students’ entrepreneurial intention and gender differences. J Hum Agricult Univ 1: 89–96. DOI: 10.13331/j.cnki.jhau(ss)0.2019.01.013.