Exploring the Influence of Proactive Personality on Entrepreneurial Intention: The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Attitude and Moderating Effect of Perceived Educational Support Among University Students

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to examine the link between proactive personality (PP) and entrepreneurial intention (EI) and to investigate the mediating role of entrepreneurial attitude (EA) and the moderating role of perceived educational support (PES). A total of 764 university students were recruited using a stratified cluster sampling from two Chinese universities. Participants completed a battery of self-reported online questionnaires, including the proactive personality scale, entrepreneurial attitude scale, perceived educational support scale, and entrepreneurial intention scale. Descriptive and correlation analysis was conducted by SPSS 21.0. SPSS macro program PROCESS (Model 4) was used to test the mediating effect and PROCESS (Model 7) to verify the moderated mediation effect. The results showed that PP had a positive effect on EI (B = 0.842, SE = 0.042, p < .001). EA exerted a partial mediating effect between PP and EI (the indirect effect was 0.633, which accounted for 75.27% of the total effect). Moderated mediation analysis suggested that PES moderated the indirect effect of PP on students’ EI via their EA. The present study is the first attempt to provide a single model to decipher the interlink of PP, EA, PES, and EI simultaneously. The findings could contribute to the current literature on entrepreneurship by focusing on “how” and “when” university students’ PP may enhance their EIs. More specifically, the mediating role of EA, the stronger effect of EA, and the moderating role of PES in predicting university students’ EIs were reported.

Keywords

entrepreneurship proactive personality entrepreneurial intention entrepreneurial attitude perceived educational support

Introduction

Entrepreneurship plays a vital role in bringing technological innovation, alleviating employment pressure, and promoting sustainable economic development (Kickul & Gundry, 2002; Wiramihardja et al., 2022). Currently, as the most potential entrepreneurial group, university students are the important talent pools of future entrepreneurs (Al-Qadasi et al., 2023; An & Xu, 2021; Guerrero et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2019). As an important predictor of entrepreneurial behavior, entrepreneurial intention (EI) has received significant research attention (Esfandiar et al., 2017; Krueger, 2007; Raza et al., 2018; Sampedro et al., 2014). Prior studies have revealed personality traits such as entrepreneurial self-efficacy, risk aversion, and need for achievement, are important determinants of EI (Karabulut, 2016; Paul et al., 2017; W. Qazi et al., 2021; W. Wu et al., 2019). Among the personality traits, the effect of proactive personality (PP) should be noted. In the business domain, numerous existing empirical studies have reported that PP has a significantly positive effect on firm-level innovativeness, performance, and self-employment (Mueller et al., 2017; Paul et al., 2017; Wolfe & Patel, 2016). Recently, a few studies also noted the positive effect of PP on EI among university students in the educational research context (Butz et al., 2018; Hossain & Asheq, 2020; Kumar & Shukla, 2019). However, some research questioned the positive effect of PP on EI (Chipeta & Surujlal, 2017; Obschonka et al., 2018). For instance, using a sample of 294 students in South Africa, Chipeta and Surujlal (2017) found that PP could not positively predict social entrepreneurial intentions. Recently, some scholars also suggested that more empirical studies are required to further clarify the potential mediating and/or moderation mechanism PP and EI among university students (Hu et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2022). Thus, the effect of PP on EI is still not clear, requiring further empirical examinations.

Furthermore, based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), three antecedent variables, namely entrepreneurial attitude (EA), subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, are vital in developing EI. Especially, the mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy has been documented by many prior studies (Ferreira-Neto et al., 2023; Hsu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020; Maheshwari & Kha, 2022). To today, however, little research has examined the interaction effect between personality traits and EA on EI within the framework of TPB. Additionally, perceived educational support (PES) relates to the students’ perception of the entrepreneurial support given by their universities, such as creative ideas, the necessary knowledge, and skills required for entrepreneurial activities (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010; Shi et al., 2019). Some current studies have reported the effect of PES on EI (Lu et al., 2021; Tian et al., 2022). However, the effect of PES on EA has yielded mixed results in current studies. Some previous research has found a positive and significant effect on EA (Anjum et al., 2023; Liao et al., 2022), while others have shown no or only marginal effect of PES on EA (Chen et al., 2013; X. Liu et al., 2019; Maheshwari & Kha, 2022; Trivedi, 2016;). These inconsistent results require further clarification and examination. In particular, the moderating role of PES in the association between personality traits and EA has not been widely explored.

Thus, previous scholars have investigated the effects of PP, EA, and PES on EI respectively. To our best knowledge, no studies investigated the joint effects of PP, EA, and PES on EI in a single model simultaneously. However, there is a lack of research that investigates the joint effects of PP, EA, and PES on EI in a single model. To address this research gap, this study aims to propose a moderated mediation model to examine the internal mechanism between PP and EI among university students. Specifically, this study seeks to answer two research questions. Firstly, what are the internal mechanisms between PP and university students’ EIs? Secondly, do proactive university students who receive different levels of PES exhibit varying levels of EA? By answering these questions, this study can contribute to the theoretical and practical aspects of entrepreneurship literature. First, in response to the calls made by Shiri et al. (2017) and Munir et al. (2019) for more studies to examine the generalizability of the TPB model in developing nations, this study provides insights into the role of PP in fostering EI through the EA component of TPB, using a sample of university students from China. Secondly, our study investigates whether PES amplifies the effect of PP on students’ EA. The results of this study can inform educators and policymakers in evaluating the effectiveness of current measures of entrepreneurial educational support.

The organization of this study is as follows: the second section provides a literature review, discussing the theoretical background and proposing the research model based on previous studies. The third section outlines the methodology, including the data collection procedure, measures of the main variables, demographics of the samples, and the statistical techniques used in this study. The fourth section presents the data analysis and results. In this section, the proposed hypotheses are tested, and discussions of the results are provided. The last section includes the conclusions of the study, as well as the theoretical contributions, practical implications, limitations, and future recommendations.

Literature Review

Theoretical Background

The present study is grounded in two theories: the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) and Kristof-Brown et al.’s (2005) person-environment fit (PE fit) theory. The TPB model has been widely applied in various fields to understand intentional behavior, such as the purchase intention of consumers and intensive Facebook usage (Ali et al., 2017; Raza et al., 2019, 2020). In the context of entrepreneurship, as per TPB, three antecedent variables, namely entrepreneurial attitude (EA), subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, play an important role in developing EI. Previous studies have shown that these components of TPB can directly influence EI and also mediate the relationship between personality traits, environmental factors, and EI (Ana et al., 2019; Gelderen et al., 2008; Sampene et al., 2023). Therefore, there may be an interaction effect between proactive personality (PP) and EA on EI within the framework of TPB. Additionally, the study explores the question of why some university students may have high levels of EA. Kristof-Brown et al.’s (2005) PE fit theory offers a possible explanation. According to PE fit theory, attitudinal outcomes are influenced by individuals’ evaluations of their personal needs and the extent to which the external environment meets those needs. When the external environment satisfies an individual’s psychological needs, the positive relationship between the environment and the individual’s attitudes is expected to be stronger. By drawing on TPB and PE fit theory, the present study constructs a moderated mediation model to examine how PP influences university students’ EI and the mechanisms through which this influence occurs.

Hypotheses Development

Proactive Personality (PP) and Entrepreneurial Intention (EI)

As a personal trait, proactive personality (PP) refers to “a dispositional construct that identifies differences among people in the extent to which they take action to influence their environment” (Bateman & Grant, 1993, p. 103). Rather than passively adapting to the current conditions, individuals with a strong PP tend to actively challenge the status quo, improving or creating an entirely new environment (Crant, 1995; Zampetakis, 2008). In the organizational context, PP has been found to have positive effects on career success, creativity, job search and performance, and strategic orientation (Brown et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2009; Seibert et al., 2001). Given that entrepreneurship is an innovative activity that heavily relies on individual initiative, PP has long been recognized as an important predictor of EI in the business field (Mathieu & St-Jean, 2013; Neneh, 2019; Paul & Shrivatava, 2016). For instance, the study of 190 managers from India and Japan by Paul and Shrivatava (2016) indicated that a country’s culture and an individual’s PP are the most important antecedents of EI. More recently, according to a study conducted by Nungsari et al. (2023) among 295 Malaysian youths, PP not only was a vital mediator in how an internal locus of control and self-esteem impact EI but was found to compensate for the disadvantage of parental financial support in forming EI among low-income youth.

In the educational research field, similar empirical research results reported that university students with higher levels of PP were better at discovering and capturing opportunities, which ultimately assisted them in developing EIs (Hossain & Asheq, 2020; Luo et al., 2022). For instance, in a sample of 484 management students in India, according to Kumar and Shukla (2019), PP was found to influence EI significantly, and self-efficacy partially mediated the relationship. In a sample of 222 at an African university, Baluku et al. (2020) found that both psychological capital and PP were precursors in predicting students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Similarly, using data from 346 Chinese university students, Li et al. (2020) reported that PP had significantly improved EI and further moderated the relationship between EI and entrepreneurial behavior. More recently, in their study among 300 Chinese college students, Luo et al. (2022) claimed that PP significantly impacted EI, with social capital and human capital exerting a chain mediation effect between PP and EI. Thus, this study proposes the first following hypothesis:

H1: PP has a significant and positive impact on EIs among university students.

Mediating Role of EA Between PP and EI

Entrepreneurial attitude (EA) refers to an individual’s views and preferences for entrepreneurship, reflecting one’s overall evaluation of performing the entrepreneurial behavior and the extent of its attractiveness (Botsaris & Vamvaka, 2016; Mahmood et al., 2020; Phan et al., 2002), including emotional and cognitive components. According to the rational choice theory, individuals are more likely to pursue entrepreneurial activities if they believe that the expected benefits of entrepreneurship outweigh those of other career choices (Yu & Lu, 2023). A more positive attitude toward entrepreneurship is associated with higher levels of entrepreneurial intention (EI). For instance, in a sample of 4,548 Austrian college students, the research of Maresch et al. (2016) found EA was positively correlated with EI (r = 0.517). Similarly, using a sample of 215 polytechnic students in Indonesia, a study conducted by Mahfud et al. (2020) also found that EA could directly impact startup intention. That is to say, EA and EI have a constructive relationship, whereby one with an inspiring EA tends to take entrepreneurship as their professional choice (Ibrahim et al., 2017).

Additionally, attitude is not as stable as personality traits, it can be changed with the interaction between the individual and the environment. Many factors, including personality, education, and prior experience, could influence attitude toward entrepreneurship (Botsaris & Vamvaka, 2016; Mahmood et al., 2020). Being proactive goes beyond anticipating changes and passively waiting for opportunities. Proactive individuals actively take initiatives, readily identify opportunities, and persistently pursue them until they achieve their goals (De Pillis & Reardon, 2007; Karabulut, 2016; Li et al., 2020; Mathieu & St-Jean, 2013; Voda & Florea, 2019). In this sense, PP may indirectly affect EI through its impact on EA. Individuals with high levels of PP are more likely to exhibit high levels of EA, which, in turn, signifies their intention to be involved in entrepreneurship.

Furthermore, previous studies have also reported the mediating roles of the components of TPB between personality traits and EI (Anwar et al., 2019; Munir et al., 2019). For instance, in a sample of 663 students in India, Anwar et al. (2019) observed that both entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy could have a mediating role in entrepreneurial traits and entrepreneurial intention. Similarly, according to X. Wu and Tian (2022) among 424 vocational college Students, the entrepreneurial attitude was a significant mediator of emotional competency and EI. More recently, in their study among 377 business students in Pakistan, Anjum et al. (2023) indicated that attitude toward entrepreneurship had a mediating role between entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial passion, and EI. The survey of 391 students from Malaysia by Wiramihardja et al. (2022) found that attitude toward entrepreneurship mediated the effect in the link between the need for achievement and EI. Based on above studies, we propose the second hypothesis:

H2: University students’ EA mediates the relationship between PP and EIs.

Moderating Role of PES Between PP and EA

Entrepreneurship is a highly resource-dependent activity, and the availability of resources and access to support play significant roles in enhancing entrepreneurship. Various types of perceived entrepreneurial support, such as family support, social support, policy support, institutional support, and university support, have been found to have effects on entrepreneurial intention (EI) and entrepreneurial behaviors (Acuña-Duran et al., 2021; Anjum et al., 2023; Z. Qazi et al., 2022; Walter et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2023; Yi, 2021). Perceived educational support (PES) specifically relates to equipping students with creative ideas, necessary knowledge, and skills required for entrepreneurial activities (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010; Shi et al., 2019). Prior studies have consistently reported the positive impact of PES on university students’ EIs. For instance, according to the study of Lu et al. (2021) among 13,954 college graduates in China, although university entrepreneurship support didn’t have a strong impact on EI, it could enhance students’ EIs through EA, subjective norms, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Liao et al. (2022) proved that entrepreneurial educational support has a positive effect on the nascent entrepreneurial intention, with entrepreneurial self-efficacy and opportunity recognition partially mediating the relationship. Similarly, the study of Maheshwari and Kha (2022) among 401 university students in Vietnam indicated that educational support could have a significant effect on EI through the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

According to the person-environment fit theory developed by Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), attitudinal outcomes are influenced by an individual’s evaluations of their personal needs and the extent to which the external environment meets those needs. When the environment provides opportunities for fulfilling an individual’s psychological needs, the positive relationship between the environment and the individual’s attitudes is expected to be stronger. In the context of perceived educational support (PES), it can foster a positive entrepreneurial attitude (EA) among university students by emphasizing the benefits of entrepreneurship and reducing students’ aversion to entrepreneurial risks. A meta-analytic review conducted by Bae et al. (2014) found that PES had a direct impact on EA and skills. Bazan et al. (2019) also found that students with high levels of PES tended to exhibit high levels of creativity, independence, positive attitudes, and risk-taking capabilities. Therefore, PES is significantly related to EA, and this association is further influenced by personal characteristics.

Furthermore, the moderating role of PES or other types of entrepreneurial support in the field of entrepreneurship has also been reported by some previous studies. According to Entrialgo and Iglesias (2016), entrepreneurship education had a significant moderating role in predicting the antecedents of EI, especially strengthening the link between subjective norms and entrepreneurial attitudes. In their study among 1,540 college students in China, He et al. (2021) indicated that perceived social support moderated the association between PP and college students’ career decision-making difficulties. In a sample of 395 business students in Pakistan, Anjum et al. (2021) found perception of university support had a moderating effect between entrepreneurial passion and EI. Based on the above studies, this study proposes the third hypothesis:

H3. PES moderated the indirect effect of PP on students’ EI via their EA. Namely, University students’ PES moderated the first half of the mediating effect of EA, and the link between PP and EA would be stronger for students who had higher levels of PES.

Research Model

Overall, as per the TPB and PE fit theory, the aim of the present study is to enhance our extant knowledge of the association between PP and EI among university students. Taking the above analysis together, the present study proposes a moderated mediation conceptual model, which runs as follows in Figure 1:

Figure 1.

The hypothetical model.

Methodology

Data Collection Procedure

The present study was conducted with the approval of the Ethics Committee at the author’s University. The study employed a stratified cluster sampling method and a questionnaire survey was conducted at two universities in China, one in Henan Province and the other in Jilin Province, between April 15 and June 20, 2022. Ten classes of university students who were enrolled in entrepreneurial courses were randomly selected to participate in the survey. The survey was administered at the end of the class, and informed consent was obtained from the participants. The participants were assured of the anonymity of the survey and that the data would be used only for scientific research purposes. The questionnaires were distributed to the participants via WeChat, and the survey took approximately 10 min to complete. After removing 58 questionnaires with very short response times (less than 120 s), a final sample of 764 participants was obtained. According to Anderson and Gerbing (1984), a sample size of 150 is considered sufficient for factor analysis. Therefore, the sample size of the present study (764) is more than adequate for conducting statistical estimations.

Measures

To measure PP, the shortened version of Bateman and Grant’s (1993) Proactive Personality Scale was used. This scale consisted of five items, and respondents were asked to rate their agreement on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicated higher levels of proactive personality. The EA was measured with Liñán and Chen’s (2009) cross-cultural 5-item scale. Respondents were asked to rate their preference toward entrepreneur as an options, ranging from 1 (total disagreement) to 5 (total agreement), with high scores indicating a high preference for entrepreneurs. To measure students’ perceived educational support, Turker and Selcuk’s (2009) entrepreneurial support model was used. Respondents reported the extent to which they got creative ideas, the necessary knowledge, and entrepreneurial skills and abilities from their universities. This 3-item scale uses a 5-point response, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with high scores indicating high levels of PES. EI was measured with Liñán and Chen’s (2009) 6-item scale. Respondents reported how interested they are in creating a firm and becoming an entrepreneur as their professional goals. This scale uses a 5-point response, ranging from 1 (no interest at all) to 5 (a great deal of interest).

In addition, gender and family entrepreneurial background (whether the respondent’s father or mother owns a business) were included as control variables in the study, based on prior studies in the field of entrepreneurial intention (Wilson et al., 2007).

Demographics

The demographic details were also reported in the questionnaire. Out of 764 participants, 576 (75.4%) were females, whereas 188 (24.6%) were male. In terms of grade, 306 were freshmen (40.1%), 304 were sophomores (39.8%), and 154 were juniors (39.8%). As regards parents’ entrepreneurial experience, 259 participants’ parents had entrepreneurial experience (33.9%), and 505 participants’ parents didn’t have entrepreneurial experience (66.1%).

Statistical Technique

Descriptive and correlation analysis was conducted by SPSS 21.0. According to Hayes et al. (2017), the SPSS macro program PROCESS (Model 4) was used to test the mediating effect and PROCESS (Model 7) to verify the moderated mediation effect. The bootstrapping method with 5,000 resamples was conducted to test the significance of the effects. It produced 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs). If the 95% CIs do exclude 0, the effect is considered statistically significant.

Data Analysis and Results

Common Method Bias (CMB) Test

According to Podsakoff and Organ (1986), the multi-factor CFA and single-factor CFA were conducted to compare the model fit. The results are shown in Table 1. The multi-factor model fitted well, with its x² being much lower than the single-factor model (p < .001), suggesting the two models were significantly different. Thus, the CMB was not serious in this study.

Table 1.

Model Comparison.

Model	x ²	df	Δx²	Δdf	p
Single-factor model	5,415.541	252	4,046.566	6	.000
Multi-factor model	1,368.975	246	4,046.566	6	.000

Measurement Model

In the present study, the reliability and validity of the main variables were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Table 2 presents the factor loadings (FL), composite reliabilities (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and Cronbach’s α for all the latent variables. First, the individual item reliability was assessed by examining the factor loadings. The majority of the factor loadings were greater than 0.7, indicating good reliability. However, the proactive personality scale had factor loadings ranging from 0.667 to 0.828, which were slightly lower than the 0.7 threshold. According to Ramayah et al. (2018), items with factor loadings of 0.5 or 0.6 can still be considered acceptable as long as they contribute to an AVE score of greater than 0.5. Second, the construct reliability was assessed using CR. As shown in Table 2, the CR values for all the constructs ranged from 0.892 to 0.951, exceeding the minimum threshold of 0.7. This indicates the good reliability of the measurement model. Third, convergent validity was assessed using the AVE. The AVE values for all constructs ranged from 0.593 to 0.763, which were higher than the 0.5 threshold. This suggests satisfactory convergent validity. The Cronbach’s α values for PP, EA, PES, and EI scales were .935, .923, .853, and .951, respectively. All of these values were greater than 0.7, indicating satisfactory reliability. Overall, the results of the CFA indicate good reliability and validity of the measurement model.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Measurement Model.

Scale	No. of Items	FL	CR	AVE	Alpha (α)
Proactive personality	10	0.667–0.829	0.936	0.593	.935
Entrepreneurial attitude	5	0.751–0.880	0.923	0.705	.923
Perceived educational support	3	0.732–0.920	0.892	0.736	.853
Entrepreneurial intention	6	0.784–0.916	0.951	0.763	.951

Note. FL = standardized factor loading; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

This research used formal test data to CFA using the maximum likelihood method to test whether the measurement model, composed of PP, EA, PES, and EI, has a good model fit. The selected absolute, incremental, and parsimonious model-fit indices were used (McDonald & Ho, 2002). The results of fit indicators were as follows: x² = 1,368.975, df = 246, p < .001, x²/df (below 8) = 5.565, RMR (less than 0.05) = 0.033, SRMR (less than 0.08) = 0.053, CFI (greater that 0.90 or 0.80) = 0.931, GFI (greater than 0.90 or 0.80) = 0.848, NFI (greater than 0.90 or 0.80) = 0.917, TLI (greater than 0.90 or 0.80) = 0.922, IFI (greater than 0.90 or 0.80) = 0.931, RFI (greater than 0.90 or 0.80) = 0.907, and RMSEA (less than 0.08) = 0.077. The results indicated that the measurement model had an acceptable model fit.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analyses

Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation coefficients for the main variables were explored. The results were shown in Table 3. As expected, the correlations among the main variables were all positive and significant. That said, PP was positively associated with PES, EA, and EI; EA was positively correlated with PES and EI; PES was positively correlated with EI.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis.

Variable	M	SD	PP	PES	EA	EI
PP	3.835	.551	1
PES	3.781	.737	.533***	1
EA	3.602	.719	.597***	.486***	1
EI	3.436	.789	.600***	.472***	.846***	1

Note. n = 764. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; PP = proactive personality; PES = perceived educational support; EA = entrepreneurial attitude; EI = entrepreneurial intention.

***p < .001

Test of Mediation

To test hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2, the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 4) was conducted. After controlling for covariates, the regression results were shown in Table 4. As shown, a significant total effect of PP on EI (B = 0.842, SE = 0.042, p < .001, 95% CI [0.749, 0.931]) was found. Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that EA might mediate the association between PP and EI. As shown, PP was positively linked with EA (B = 0.766, SE = 0.038, p < .001, 95% CI [0.678, 0.851]), which, in turn, was positively related to EI (B = 0.827, SE = 0.026, p < .001, 95% CI [0.765, 0.891]). The direct association between PP and EI remained positive and significant (B = 0.208, SE = 0.02, p < .001, 95% CI [0.124, 0.296]). Taken together, the results meant that EA partially mediated the association between PP and EI [indirect effect = 0.633]. The mediation effect could account for 75.27% of the total effect of PP on EI. Thus, hypothesis 2 was also supported.

Table 4.

The Mediation of EA.

Variable	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	EI			EA			EI
	B	SE	95% CI	B	SE	95% CI	B	SE	95% CI
Gender	0.154**	0.053	(0.050, 0.257)	0.122*	0.048	(0.028, 0.214)	0.053	0.035	(−0.015, 0.119)
PEE	0.093	0.048	(−0.003, 0.191)	0.076	0.044	(−0.012, 0.160)	0.030	0.032	(−0.034, 0.090)
PP	0.842***	0.042	(0.749, 0.931)	0.766***	0.038	(0.678, 0.851)	0.208***	0.034	(0.124, 0.296)
EA							0.827***	0.026	(0.765, 0.891)
R ²	.370			.365			.731
F	148.492***			145.467***			514.545***

Note. n = 764. B = unstandardized coefficients; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; PEE = parents’ entrepreneurial experience; PP = proactive personality; EA = entrepreneurial attitude; EI = entrepreneurial intention.

*p < 0.05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Testing for Moderated Mediation

Model 7 in SPSS macro PROCESS was further applied to examine the moderating role of PES in the proposed model. After controlling for covariates, the regression results were displayed in Table 5. PP had a significant positive predictive effect on EI (B = 0.208, SE = 0.034, p < .01, 95% CI [0.126, 0.295]); PP had a significant positive predictive effect on EA (B = 0.596, SE = 0.043, p < .001, 95% CI [0.473, 0.712]); EA had a significant positive predictive effect on EI (B = 0.827, SE = 0.026, p < .001, 95% CI [0.762, 0.890]); and the interaction term of PP with PES had a significant predictive effect on EA (B = 0.087, SE = 0.033, p < .001, 95% CI [0.012, 0.217]). These results suggested that there was a moderated mediation model, and PES plays a moderating role in the association between PP and EA, supporting hypothesis 3.

Table 5.

Testing the Moderated Mediation Model.

Variable	Model 1			Model 2
	EA			EI
	B	SE	Boot 95% CI	B	SE	Boot 95% CI
Gender	0.147**	0.047	(0.054, 0.237)	0.053	0.035	(−0.013, 0.119 )
PEE	0.067	0.043	(−0.016, 0.154)	0.030	0.032	(−0.030, 0.091)
PP	0.596***	0.043	(0.473, 0.712)	0.208***	0.034	(0.126, 0.295)
PES	0.236***	0.032	(0.138, 0.327)
PP x PES	0.087**	0.033	(0.012, 0.217)
EA				0.827***	0.026	(0.762, 0.890)
R²	.412			.731
F	106.097***			514.545***

Note. n = 764. B = unstandardized coefficients; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; PEE = parents’ entrepreneurial experience; PP = proactive personality; PES = perceived educational support; EA = entrepreneurial attitude; EI = entrepreneurial intention.

**p < .01. ***p < .001

To further examine the moderating effect of PES, the simple slope test was performed. The results of the moderating effect for two groups, that is, high PES and low PES, were displayed in Figure 2. The results indicated that the predictive effect of PP on EA was stronger in the students with high levels of PES (b_simple = 0.660, t = 13.302, p < .001) than in those with low levels of PES (b_simple = 0.532, t = 10.656, p < .001). This suggests that high levels of PES were more likely to amplify the positive effect of PP on EA among university students.

Figure 2.

The moderated effect of PES in the relationship between PP and EA.

In summary, the results demonstrate that PES moderates the relationship between PP and EA. Specifically, high levels of PES strengthen the positive effect of PP on EA among university students, indicating that PES plays a significant role in enhancing the association between individual characteristics and entrepreneurial attitudes.

Discussion

The results of the present study contribute to the existing literature on the factors influencing entrepreneurial intention (EI) among university students. The main findings can be summarized as follows:

First, according to H1, the findings show that university students’ PP has a significant and positive influence on their EIs, which is similar to the previous studies (He et al., 2021; Hossain & Asheq, 2020). The different types of prediction effect of personality traits, such as the need for achievement, locus of control, empathy, innovativeness, were displayed in on EI has been reported by many previous studies (Al-Qadasi et al., 2023; Mathieu & St-Jean, 2013; Tan et al., 2021). Specifically, the present study highlights the stronger effect of PP on EI among Chinese university students, consistent with the arguments of Crant (1996) and Fuller et al. (2018) who emphasized the importance of PP as a strong predictor of EI. The unstandardized coefficient effect of university students’ PP on their EIs was found to be 0.842 (SE = 0.042, p < .001).

Among many factors of personality traits influencing university students’ EIs, the positive effect of PP could not be ignored, as venturing into start-ups is a challenging and risky task that requires being proactive in constructive reforms, creative problem-solving, and producing favorable changes (Joensuu-Salo et al., 2015; Kickul & Gundry, 2002; Kumar & Shukla, 2019). The message is that as a positive personality trait, individuals who have an enhanced level of PP are more willing to take the initiative, identify and exploit opportunities in the changing markets, and persistently pursue their goals until they are achieved (Voda & Florea, 2019). By contrast, individuals with lower levels of PP may passively adapt to their environment. Therefore, as university students’ PP increases, their EI is likely to improve. Overall, the findings of this study shed light on the significance of PP as a predictor of EI among university students, highlighting the importance of fostering proactive behaviors and traits in entrepreneurship education and support programs.

Second, according to H2, the results indicate that EA exerts a mediating effect between PP and EI. This finding aligns with the theoretical framework of TPB, which suggests that the distal variable (e.g., PP) could have a mediating effect on EI through EA, subjective norm, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Anwar et al., 2019; Gelderen et al., 2008; Li et al., 2020). Prior studies have reported the mediating role of EA in various relationships, such as between emotional competency and EI (X. Wu & Tian, 2022), entrepreneurship education and EI (Anjum et al., 2023), and need for achievement and EI (Wiramihardja et al., 2022). Consistent with these findings, the present study further confirms the mediating role of EA between PP and EI. Specifically, university students’ PP not only directly influences their EI but also indirectly affects their EI through EA. Individuals with proactive behavior are typically flexible in their role orientations and exhibit a positive attitude toward entrepreneurship, making them more likely to become entrepreneurs.

Indeed, it is important to consider the relative influence of different factors on university students’ EIs. Prior research has examined various factors, including personality traits and components of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), to determine their impact on EIs (Maheshwari, 2021; Munir et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2019). In their study among 1,600 youths, Nguyen et al. (2019) found that as compared to perceived behavioral control, experiences with entrepreneurship, and creativity, attitude toward entrepreneurship had the highest influence on EI. According to a study of Maheshwari (2021) among Vietnamese university students, as compared to personality traits and individual factors, such as the need for power, risk propensity, and self-efficacy, the TPB components had a higher effect on university students’ EIs. Consistent with these findings, the present study demonstrates that EA plays a crucial mediating role between PP and EI. The mediation effect of EA accounted for 75.27% of the total effect, indicating the higher influence of EA on EI. That said, although proactivity and EA were the two most important antecedents of university students’ EIs, EA was the determining factor. Thus, the actual realization of PP will depend on the extent to which a person has enough positive attitude and preferences for entrepreneurship to start a business.

Third, according to H3, university students’ PES has a moderating effect between PP and EA. That is, the association between PP and EA would be stronger for individuals who have high levels of PES. Prior studies reported the moderating effect of PES between subjective norms and entrepreneurial attitudes (Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2016), the moderating effect of perceived social support between PP and career decision-making difficulties (He et al., 2021), and the moderating effect of perceived university support between entrepreneurial passion and EI (Anjum et al., 2021). In line with those findings, the present study further found the moderating effect of PES between PP and EA. That said, the effect of PP on EA could be strengthened by PES. Individuals with a PP would indicate higher levels of EA if they have received educational support from their universities. University students’ PP may have differential effects on EA component of TPB motivational outcomes, which might depend on the degree of their perceived support from education. Obviously, this result fits the expectations of PE fit (Feola et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2021; Maheshwari & Kha, 2022). According to this, individual attitudes could be altered and shaped via the interaction with the personal factors and the environment factors. Thus, PES is expected to relate to more favorable EA for students with a high PP.

Regarding the effect of PES on EI, however, prior studies reported conflicting results. For instance, in the study of Trivedi (2016) and Bazan et al. (2019), university environment and educational support did not significantly affect or negatively influence students’ EA. Why that is the case, it’s hard to say. The different conceptions and measurements of PES could be a potential reason (Moriano et al., 2012; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003). As others might expect, the effects of PES are not the same for every country. At least in developing countries, such as China, education can support and foster student entrepreneurship in many ways, such as resource acquisition knowledge, skills of opportunity recognition, equipping students with ideas and motivating venture creation, and providing techniques of market analysis (An & Xu, 2021; Liao et al., 2022; M. Liu et al., 2022). All of those mean a positive university environment and educational support play a vital part in shaping university students’ mentality and desires, university students who have high levels of active educational support are more inclined to have favorable attitudes toward entrepreneurship, which in turn enhance their EIs.

Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

Conclusion

As the most potentially entrepreneurial group, the factors influencing university students’ EIs have gained much attention. Although the effect of PP on university students’ EIs has been reported by numerous current studies, few studies have explored the internal mechanism. To cope with this literature gap, this study primarily focuses on the mechanisms through which PP might impact EI among university students. As the per theory of planned behavior and person-environment fit theory, present study aims to examine the link between PP and EI and to investigate the mediating role of entrepreneurial attitude (EA) and the moderating role of perceived educational support (PES). Using a sample of 764 Chinese university students who received entrepreneurial courses via the stratified cluster sampling, the results indicated that PP had a positive effect on EI, EA exerted a partial mediating effect between PP and EI, and PES moderated the indirect effect of PP on students’ EI via their EA. Specifically, the mediating effect of EA in the association between PP and EI was stronger among university students who had higher levels of PES. Thus, to improve university students’ EIs, educators should help students develop proactive personalities and positive EA by designing a learning environment that is conducive and positively challenging. Policymakers should also continuously evaluate students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship education support and its effect on students’ EA.

Theoretical Contribution

Although prior empirical research has reported the effect of PP on EI, it is more important to understand the internal mechanism through which the PP-EI relationship occurs to better understand the factors influencing EI. By integrating the TPB with PE fit theory, using a sample of 764 Chinese university students, this empirical research explored how PP improves EI through the EA component of TPB and whether PES enhances the positive effects of PP on EA. To our knowledge, the present study is the first attempt to provide a single model to decipher the interlink of PP, EA, PES, and EI simultaneously. It could contribute to the current literature by focusing on “how” and “when” university students’ PP may enhance their EIs. More specifically, the mediating role of EA, the stronger effect of EA, and the moderating role of PES in predicting university students’ EIs were reported. Thus, this study enriches our knowledge about the effect of PP on EI in the field of higher education.

Practical Implications

The present study also provides some practical implications. First, educators can help university students develop proactive personalities and active consciousness through entrepreneurial instruction, such as carrying out psychological quality training classes. Second, since EA plays a mediating effect in the association between PP and EI, universities should provide a conducive and challenging learning environment, increasing students’ confidence and positive EA, thus boosting their EI. Third, PES exerts a moderating effect in the link between PP and EA, thus educators and policymakers should continuously assess university students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship education support and its effect on university students’ EA. Favorable and friendly entrepreneurial support such as professional counseling

Limitations and Future Recommendations

Like other studies, this research has some limitations. First, since the present research used a cross-sectional design and only focused on university students in China, no causality should be made. To get a more sound and general result, future research should expand the scope of samples to other cultures and countries where University students are part of entrepreneurship programs. Second, this study only examined EA as a mediating variable between PP and EI. It still needs further exploration of whether other components of TPB have a mediating effect on EI and whether and how PES moderates the mediating effect. Third, like other studies, the present only focused on intentions rather than actual behavior per se. Thus, future research could adopt longitudinal studies to understand whether and how EIs turn into behavior.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The local ethics committee (The Ethics Committee of the Zhoukou Normal University) ruled that no formal ethics approval was required in this particular case because this research because (a) the data is completely anonymous with no personal information being collected; (b) the data is not considered to be sensitive or confidential in nature; (c) the issues being researched are not likely to upset or disturb participants; (d) vulnerable or dependant groups are not included; and (e) there is no risk of possible disclosures or reporting obligations. This study has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent for participation was obtained from respondents who participated in the survey. For the respondents who participated in the survey were asked to read the ethical statement posted at the top of the form (There is no compensation for responding, nor is there any known risk. In order to ensure that all information will remain confidential, please do not include your name. Participation is strictly voluntary and you may refuse to participate at any time) and proceed only if they agree. No data was collected from anyone under 18 years old.

ORCID iD

Hong-xia Chen

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are submitted with the Manuscript (additional supporting file).

References

Acuña-Duran

Pradenas-Wilson

Oyanedel

J. C.

Jalon-Gardella

(2021). Entrepreneurial intention and perceived social support from academics-scientists at chilean universities. Frontier in Psychology, 12, 682632.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Ali

Raza

S. A.

Puah

C.-H.

Karim

M. Z. A.

(2017). Islamic home financing in Pakistan: A SEM-based approach using modified TPB model. Housing Studies, 32(8), 1156–1177.

Al-Qadasi

Zhang

Al-Awlaqi

M. A.

Alshebami

A. S.

Aamer

(2023). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention of university students in Yemen: The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1111934.

(2021). Cultivation of entrepreneurial talents through virtual entrepreneurship practice in higher education institutions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 690692.

Ana

L. G.

Inmaculada

Gabriela

Juan

(2019). University environment and entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of the components of the theory of planned behaviour. International Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 137–167.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155–173.

Anjum

Amoozegar

Farrukh

Heidler

(2023). Entrepreneurial intentions among business students: The mediating role of attitude and the moderating role of university support. Education + Training, 65(4), 587–606.

Anjum

Heidler

Amoozegar

Anees

R. T.

(2021). The impact of entrepreneurial passion on the entrepreneurial intention; Moderating impact of perception of university support. Administrative Sciences, 11, 45.

10.

Anwar

Jamal

M. T.

Saleem

Thoudam

(2019).Traits and entrepreneurial intention: Testing the mediating role of entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy. Journal of International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, 13(1), 40–60.

11.

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.

12.

Baluku

M. M.

Kikooma

J. F.

Otto

König

C. J.

Bajwa

(2020). Positive psychological attributes and entrepreneurial intention and action: The moderating role of perceived family support. Frontier in Psychology, 11, 546745.

13.

Bateman

T. S.

Grant

J. M.

(1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.

14.

Bazan

Shaikh

Frederick

Amjad

Yap

Finn

Rayner

(2019). Effect of memorial university’s environment & support system in shaping entrepreneurial intention of students. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(1), 1–35.

15.

Botsaris

Vamvaka

(2016). Attitude toward entrepreneurship: Structure, prediction from behavioral beliefs, and relation to entrepreneurial intention. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7, 433–460.

16.

Brown

D. J.

Cober

R. T.

Kane

Levy

P. E.

Shalhoop

(2006). Proactive personality and the successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 717–726.

17.

Butz

N. T.

Hanson

Schultz

P. L.

Warzynski

M. M.

(2018). Beyond the Big Five: Does grit influence the entrepreneurial intent of university students in the US? Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 8(1), 1–16.

18.

Chen

Hsiao

Chang

Chou

Chen

Shen

(2013). Can the entrepreneurship course improve the entrepreneurial intentions of students? The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(3), 557–569.

19.

Chipeta

E. M.

Surujlal

(2017). Influence of attitude, risk taking propensity and proactive personality on social entrepreneurship intentions. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 15(2), 27–36.

20.

Crant

M. J.

(1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 532–537.

21.

Crant

M. J.

(1996).The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 42–49.

22.

De Pillis

Reardon

K. K.

(2007). The influence of personality traits and persuasive messages on entrepreneurial intention: A cross-cultural comparison. Career Development International, 12(4), 382–396.

23.

Entrialgo

Iglesias

(2016). The moderating role of entrepreneurship education on the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12, 1209–1232.

24.

Esfandiar

Sharifi-Tehrani

Pratt

Altinay

(2017). Understanding entrepreneurial intentions: A developed integrated structural model approach. Journal of Business Research, 94, 172–182.

25.

Feola

Vesci

Botti

Parente

(2019). The determinants of entrepreneurial intention of young researchers: Combining the theory of planned behavior with the triple helix model. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(4), 1424–1443.

26.

Ferreira-Neto

M. N.

de Carvalho Castro

J. L.

de Sousa-Filho

J. M.

de Souza Lessa

(2023). The role of self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion, and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions. Frontier in Psychology, 14, 1134618.

27.

Fuller

Liu

Bajaba

Marler

L. E.

Pratt

(2018). Examining how the personality, self-efficacy, and anticipatory cognitions of potential entrepreneurs shape their entrepreneurial intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 125, 120–125.

28.

Gelderen

M. V.

Brand

Praag

M. V.

Bodewes

Poutsma

Gils

A. V.

(2008). Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of planned behavior. Career Development International, 13(6), 538–559.

29.

Guerrero

Urbano

Cunningham

J. A.

Gajon

(2018). Determinants of graduates’ start-ups creation across a multi-campus entrepreneurial university: The case of monterrey institute of technology and higher education. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 150–178.

30.

Hayes

A. F.

Montoya

A. K.

Rockwood

N. J.

(2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25(1), 76–81.

31.

Z. F.

Zhou

Rao

Z. M.

Yang

(2021). The effect of proactive personality on college students’ career decision-making difficulties: Moderating and mediating effects. Journal of Adult Development, 28, 116–125.

32.

Hossain

M. U.

Asheq

A. A.

(2020). Do leadership orientation and proactive personality influence social entrepreneurial intention? International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 19(2), 109–125.

33.

Hsu

D. K.

Burmeister-Lamp

Simmons

S. A.

Foo

M. D.

Hong

M. C.

Pipes

J. D.

(2019). “I know I can, but I don’t fit”: Perceived fit, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 311–326.

34.

Wang

Zhang

Bin

(2018). Creativity, proactive personality, and entrepreneurial intention: The role of entrepreneurial alertness. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 951.

35.

Ibrahim

O. A.

Devesh

Ubaidullah

(2017). Implication of attitude of graduate students in Oman towards entrepreneurship: An empirical study. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 7, 8.

36.

Joensuu-Salo

Varamaki

Viljamaa

(2015). Beyond intentions-What makes a student start a firm? Education + Training, 57(8/9), 853–873.

37.

Karabulut

A. T.

(2016). Personality traits on entrepreneurial intention. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 12–21.

38.

Kickul

Gundry

(2002). Prospecting for strategic advantage: The proactive entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(2), 85–97.

39.

Kim

T. Y.

Hon

A. H. Y.

Crant

J. M.

(2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 93–103.

40.

Kraaijenbrink

Bos

Groen

(2010). What do students think of the entrepreneurial support given by their universities? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 9(1), 110–125.

41.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Johnson

E. C.

(2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, persongroup, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.

42.

Krueger

N. F.

Jr. (2007). What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 123–138.

43.

Kumar

Shukla

(2019). Creativity, proactive personality and entrepreneurial intentions: Examining the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Global Business Review, 23(1), 1–18.

44.

Murad

Shahzad

Khan

M. A. S.

Ashraf

S. F.

Dogbe

C. S. K.

(2020). Entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial behavior: Role of entrepreneurial alertness, entrepreneurial self-Efficacy and proactive personality. Frontier in Psychology, 11, 1611.

45.

Liao

Javed

Sun

Abbas

(2022). Influence of entrepreneurship support programs on nascent entrepreneurial intention among university students in China. Frontier in Psychology, 13, 955591.

46.

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.

47.

Liu

Gorgievski

J. M.

Paas

(2022). Perceived university support and entrepreneurial intentions: Do different students benefit differently? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 73, 101150.

48.

Liu

Lin

Zhao

(2019). Research on the effects of entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 869.

49.

Song

Pan

(2021). How university entrepreneurship support affects college students’ entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical analysis from China. Sustainability, 13, 3224.

50.

Luo

Y.-F.

Huang

Gao

(2022). Relationship between proactive personality and entrepreneurial intentions in college students: Mediation effects of social capital and human capital. Frontier in Psychology, 13, 861447.

51.

Maheshwari

(2021). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions the most for university students in Vietnam: Educational support, personality traits or TPB components? Education + Training, 63(7/8), 1138–1153.

52.

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, 100553.

53.

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.

54.

Mahmood

T. M. A. T.

Al Mamun

Ibrahim

M. D.

(2020). Attitude towards entrepreneurship: A study among Asnaf Millennials in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 2–14.

55.

Maresch

Harms

Kailer

Wimmer-Wurm

(2016). The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 172–179.

56.

Mathieu

St-Jean

. (2013). Entrepreneurial personality: The role of narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 527–531.

57.

McDonald

R. P.

M. H. R.

(2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82.

58.

Moriano

J. A.

Gorgievski

Laguna

Stephan

Zarafshani

(2012). A crosscultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Career Development, 39(2), 162–185.

59.

Mueller

B. A.

Wolfe

M. T.

Syed

(2017). Passion and grit: An exploration of the pathways leading to venture success. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(3), 260–279.

60.

Munir

Cai

J. F.

Ramzan

(2019). Personality traits and theory of planned behavior comparison of entrepreneurial intentions between an emerging economy and a developing country. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(3), 554–580.

61.

Neneh

B. N.

(2019). From entrepreneurial alertness to entrepreneurial behavior: The role of trait competitiveness and proactive personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 273–279.

62.

Nguyen

Dang

Nguyen

(2019). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions among youths in Vietnam. Children and Youth Services Review, 99, 186–193.

63.

Nungsari

Ngu

Chin

J. W.

Flanders

(2023). The formation of youth entrepreneurial intention in an emerging economy: The interaction between psychological traits and socioeconomic factors. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 15(2), 333–359.

64.

Obschonka

Hahn

Bajwa

(2018). Personal agency in newly arrived refugees: The role of personality, entrepreneurial cognitions and intentions, and career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 105, 173–184.

65.

Paul

Hermel

Srivatava

(2017). Entrepreneurial intentions-theory and evidence from Asia, America, and Europe. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 15, 324–351.

66.

Paul

Shrivatava

(2016). Do young managers in a developing country have stronger entrepreneurial intentions? Theory and debate. International Business Review, 25(6), 1197–1210.

67.

Peng

Hassan

Akhtar

Sarwar

Khan

M. A.

Khan

B. U.

(2019). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions for educational programs. Journal of Public Affair, 19(2), e1925.

68.

Peterman

N. E.

Kennedy

(2003).Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129–144.

69.

Phan

P. H.

Wong

Wang

C. K.

(2002). Antecedents to entrepreneurship among university students in Singapore: Beliefs, attitudes and background. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 10(2), 151–174.

70.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

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

71.

Ramayah

Cheah

Chuah

Ting

Memon

M. A.

(2018). Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) using smart PLS 3.0 (2nd ed.). Pearson.

72.

Qazi

Qureshi

J. A.

Raza

S. A.

Khan

K. A.

Qureshi

M. A.

(2021).Impact of personality traits and university green entrepreneurial support on students’ green entrepreneurial intentions: The moderating role of environmental values. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 1154–1180.

73.

Qazi

Raza

S. A.

Yousufi

S.Q.

(2022).Investigating women’s entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of family support. ASR: CMU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 9(1), e2022003.

74.

Raza

S. A.

Ahmed

Ali

Qureshi

M. A.

(2019). Influential factors of Islamic insurance adoption: An extension of theory of planned behavior. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 11(6), 1497–1515.

75.

Raza

S. A.

Qazi

Shah

(2018). Factors affecting the motivation and intention to become an entrepreneur among business university students. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 12(3), 221–241.

76.

Raza

S. A.

Qazi

Shah

Qureshi

M. A.

Qaiser

Ali

(2020). Drivers of intensive Facebook usage among university students: An implications of U&G and TPB theories. Technology in Society, 62, 101331.

77.

Sampedro

I. R.

Fernández-Laviada

Crespo

A.H.

(2014). Entrepreneurial intention: Perceived advantages and disadvantages. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 27(2), 284–315.

78.

Sampene

A. K.

Khan

Agyeman

F. O.

Opoku

R. K.

(2023). Yes! I want to be an entrepreneur: A study on university students’ entrepreneurship intentions through the theory of planned behavior. Current Psychology, 42, 21578–21596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03161-4

79.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

Crant

J. M.

(2001).What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845–874.

80.

Shi

Yao

(2019). Perceived university support, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, heterogeneous entrepreneurial intentions in entrepreneurship education: The moderating role of the Chinese sense of face. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 12(2), 205–230.

81.

Shiri

Shinnar

R. S.

Mirakzadeh

A. A.

Zarafshani

(2017). Cultural values and entrepreneurial intentions among agriculture students in Iran. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(4), 1157–1179.

82.

Tan

L. P.

Pham

L. X.

Bui

T. T.

(2021). Personality traits and social entrepreneurial intention: The mediating effect of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 30(1), 56–80.

83.

Tian

Zhang

Zhou

(2022). Gender-based differences in the relationships among proactive personality, perceived entrepreneurial support and entrepreneurial intention of Chinese private college students: A moderated mediation model. Frontier in Psychology, 13, 871343.

84.

Trivedi

(2016). Does university play significant role in shaping entrepreneurial intention? A cross-country comparative analysis. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(3), 790–811.

85.

Turker

Selcuk

S.S.

(2009). Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(2), 142–159.

86.

Voda

A. I.

Florea

(2019). Impact of personality traits and entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of business and engineering students. Sustainability, 11, 1192.

87.

Walter

S. G.

Parboteeah

K. P.

Walter

(2013). University departments and self-employment intentions of business students: A cross-level analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 175–200.

88.

Wilson

Kickul

Marlino

(2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387–406.

89.

Wiramihardja

N’dary

Al Mamun

Munikrishnan

U. T.

Yang

Salamah

A. A.

Hayat

(2022). Sustainable economic development through entrepreneurship: A study on attitude, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial intention among university students in Malaysia. Frontier in Psychology, 13, 866753.

90.

Wolfe

M. T.

Patel

P. C.

(2016). Grit and self-employment: A multi-country study. Small Business Economics, 47(4), 853–874.

91.

Wang

Zheng

Y. J.

(2019). Effect of narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism on entrepreneurial intention-the mediating of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Frontier in Psychology, 10, 360.

92.

Tian

(2022). Predictors of entrepreneurship intention among students in vocational colleges: A structural equation modeling approach. Frontier in Psychology, 12, 797790.

93.

Yang

K. M.

Tang

Donbesuur

Adomako

(2023). Institutional support for entrepreneurship and new venture internationalization: Evidence from small firms in Ghana. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113360.

94.

(2021). From green entrepreneurial intentions to green entrepreneurial behaviors: The role of university entrepreneurial support and external institutional support. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17, 963–979.

95.

(2023). What motivates academics toward entrepreneurship? Examining the formation of academic entrepreneurial intention from the push-pull perspective. Frontier in Psychology, 14, 1073866.

96.

Zampetakis

L. A.

(2008). The role of creativity and proactivity on perceived entrepreneurial desirability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(2), 154–162.

97.

Zhang

Fan

(2022). Proactive personality and entrepreneurial intention: Social class’ moderating effect among college students. The Career Development Quarterly, 70(4), 271–283.