Breaking the Shackles: Uncovering the Entrepreneurial Intention Among Women A Study Based in North India

Abstract

The present research explores the factors stimulating entrepreneurial potential among women based in India and how it eventually results in an intention to start their own business. The study is using the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the entrepreneurial event model to identify the antecedents of entrepreneurial potential among women entrepreneurs in India. The study also attempts to understand whether entrepreneurial potential results in an intention to take up a business venture. A survey questionnaire is used to gather the data, and it is conducted both online and offline. The study used 214 responses in total. The data is analyzed using validated procedures and techniques, such as exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and then path analysis in AMOS (20). The study found that entrepreneurial potential was significantly affected by perceived desirability, followed by perceived feasibility and it also found that perceived risk negatively affects entrepreneurial potential. The second finding shows that the developed potential does turn into an intention to start an entrepreneurial venture, backed by perceived desirability and perceived feasibility. The results can be used to design training programs and help incubators create a methodical strategy to ensure the promotion of women entrepreneurs.

Keywords

Women entrepreneurs entrepreneurship perceived feasibility perceived desirability entrepreneurial intention entrepreneurial potential theory of planned behavior

Introduction

“What motivates women to take up entrepreneurship?” Prima facie, appears to be a straightforward question. However, the actual answer is complex as there are layers of answers. There exist many reasons for women seeking entrepreneurship. For some women, “skill, knowledge and adaptability” act as primary motivators (Goyal & Prakash, 2011), and many others, “self-actualization,” “financial independence,” and “empowerment” are the factors pushing them towards entrepreneurship (Yunis et al., 2019).

This research aims to explore the factors stimulating entrepreneurial potential among women and how it results in an intention to start a business. In the past, studies have used the push–pull theory, that is, what motivates/demotivates an individual to take up entrepreneurship (Al Matroushi et al., 2020; Kirkwood, 2009; Orhan & Scott, 2001; Vardhan et al., 2020). Likewise, the present research explores intentions exhibited by potential entrepreneurs. However, rather than exploring what situational factors motivate a female entrepreneur, the study uses the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to understand the intentions of the behavior. TPB explains that behavioral achievement depends on both motivation (Intention) and ability (behavioral control) (Ajzen, 1991), making it suitable to understand the antecedents of entrepreneurial potential.

Using Krueger and Brazeal’s (1994) study as the base, the study aims to explore perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and perceived risk as antecedents of entrepreneurial potential. In addition to the TPB, the “entrepreneurial event” model also helps shape the study’s conceptual framework. Before the displacement, the entrepreneurial event necessitates the existence of the potential (desirability and feasibility) to develop an enterprise. The premise for incorporating the said model is that intention is explained based on perceived desirability and perceived feasibility (Kautonen et al., 2015). Shapero’s perceived desirability and feasibility correspond to Ajzen’s TPB, and the two models overlap significantly.

The present research examines the role of perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and perceived risk as an antecedent of an entrepreneur’s potential. An entrepreneur’s perceived desirability reflects one’s ideal about the attractiveness of career potential and external social forces (Jakopec et al., 2013). However, the uncertainty of something going haywire is exceptionally high in any business venture. So, risk perception is a concern every entrepreneur must tackle (Boermans & Willebrands, 2017; Dana & Dana, 2005). According to Zhou et al. (2021), perceived risk is negatively associated with entrepreneurial intention. So, an assumption can be drawn that the more the perceived risk, the lower the chances of entering into an entrepreneurial venture. Furthermore, perceived risks affect entrepreneurial decisions, and risk preferences mitigate the desire for entrepreneurship.

Does entrepreneurial potential lead to an entrepreneurial intention; this is another question this research poses. Entrepreneurial potential and intention should not be mixed. These are two different ideas. The intention is a significant driver of entrepreneurial activity, while potential relates to an individual’s latent predisposition to become an entrepreneur (Terek et al., 2017). Developing an intention is the next step in human behavior, and entrepreneurship is thought to be the stage for anticipating a person’s decision to start his/her enterprise (Bagozzi, 1992; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). One study reports potential as an antecedent of entrepreneurial intention (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). However, in recent times, generic factors, such as “gender,” “family background,” “entrepreneurial education,” “personality,” and “courage” are identified as motivating an entrepreneurial intention (Israr & Saleem, 2018). However, how the potential of women entrepreneurs shapes their intentions to encourage them to embark upon an entrepreneurial journey deserves further exploration.

Entrepreneurial intentions are individual mental states that direct attention, experience, and behavior toward the concept of starting a new business (Bird, 1988). Often the entrepreneurial intention is ought to develop over a period of time (Ajzen, 1991). However, in some circumstances, intention develops soon before the actual decision is made, while in others, the intention never results in actual behavior. But what instigates an intention to take up a venture? Studies report varied antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. For example, entrepreneurial personal traits such as autonomy and creativity, self-transcending ideals, and emotional competence are personal or individual attributes that motivate people to establish their own businesses. The present research specifically focuses on Indian women and what motivates them to take up an entrepreneurial venture. Previous studies report desirability and feasibility as the antecedent of entrepreneurial potential (Chhabra et al., 2020), but the present research tries to incorporate the role of perceived risk, as well. If it is important to understand what motivates women, it is equally important to understand what stops them from taking up a new venture. The present research tries to do the same.

The section that follows provides a literature review on perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, perceived risk, entrepreneurial potential, and entrepreneurial intention. The foundation for model testing is given by a conceptual framework. The research methodology is covered in the next section. Data is analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and SEM. The study is concluded along with its limitations and areas for future research.

Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

Entrepreneurial Ecosystem for Women in India

Oprah Winfrey famously quoted, “On my own, I will just create, and if it works, it works, and if it doesn’t, I will create something else.” The statement resonates with the problematic but enriching journey of Indian women who venture into entrepreneurship. Even though women entrepreneurs are fewer in number (Ashwini, 2021), it reflects the evolving times and how women are stepping out to carve their own space to build a business empire (Yeramilli, 2020).

India’s economic progress has not seen much of a contribution from women. In 2017, they only made up 27% of the labor force or around one-third of men. Among 131 nations, India comes in at 120th place, according to World Bank statistics. Women business owners perform similarly. Only 14% of Indian women are business owners or managers. Microenterprises make up more than 90% of businesses operated by women, and 79% of them are self-funded. In India, women make up barely 17% of the GDP, which is lower than half the global average (Mathew, 2019).

There is no denying that India has entrepreneurial potential, and women are playing a significant part in it (Dana, 2001). According to a joint analysis by Google and Bain & Company on the state of women entrepreneurs in India (Rajan et al., 2019), when given equal access to resources, women-owned firms create equally positive economic outcomes as enterprises managed by men. According to 59% of women, working for oneself lessens reliance on a husband or family, while 46% see it as a way to break past the glass ceiling. The Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) requires ministries, departments, and public organizations to acquire 25% of their goods and services from the MSME sector, with 3% owned by women. SHEROES is creating the women’s internet to foster trust, compassion, and progress through “content,” “connections,” and “commerce” (Bhatt, 2019). Godrej’s Beautypreneur program, a 1-year entrepreneurial development program, targeted almost 2,500 women in nine Indian states, concentrating on technical skill enhancement, financial management, and small business operations (Rajan et al., 2019).

Perceived Desirability

Perceived desirability is a critical component of entrepreneurial intent (Douglas & Shepherd, 2002). Entrepreneurial desirability is measured by a person’s attraction to being an entrepreneur (Chhabra et al., 2020), and the relevance of entrepreneurial desirability has been highlighted in recent years (Mahfud et al., 2020; Wannamakok et al., 2020). According to Shapero and Sokol (1982), undertaking entrepreneurship demands a prominent, personally credible chance, dependent on the innate perception of the desirability of beginning a new firm (Tan et al., 2021). Perceived desirability is a critical factor in determining attitudes toward actions and social norms (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994), which are also two constructs in the “theory of planned behaviour.” Individuals have different perspectives about what they believe is desirable and achievable (Păunescu et al., 2018). Vuorio et al. (2018) endorse this finding and further explain perceived entrepreneurial desirability as being influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic benefits.

Davidsson (1995) highlights the primary predictors of entrepreneurial behavior as a person’s desire to create and manage one’s own business as an acceptable alternative for him/her. Similarly, the desirability of self-employment is considered a significant predictor of entrepreneurial drive in a study conducted by Achchuthan and Nimalathasan (2012). Individuals are encouraged to become entrepreneurs if they perceive that entrepreneurship is the most desirable choice for them and that self-employment is preferable to paid employment (Yousaf et al., 2015). A cross-cultural study of two South-Asian nations (China and Pakistan) shows that perceived desirability partially explains why individuals opt for an entrepreneurial venture (Wang et al., 2011). Gender, family-owned business history, and educational background contribute to perceived desirability, leading to entrepreneurial intention (Thrikawala, 2011).

When considering entrepreneurship as desirable and truly achievable, a person develops the intent to act entrepreneurially (Elfving et al., 2009). Guzmán-Alfonso and Guzmán-Cuevas (2012) also describe desirability as a “degree of attraction.” As a result, the individual’s interest in entrepreneurship will decide the motivation for launching an entrepreneurial initiative (Giordano Martínez et al., 2017).

Perceived Feasibility

Feasibility is how someone regards oneself as capable of being an entrepreneur, and people with a high feasibility level appear to be more engaged in entrepreneurship (Chhabra et al., 2020). The response to the question “How confident are you that you can perform the task?” (Segal et al., 2005) would reasonably indicate the feasibility of a person becoming an entrepreneur.

Self-efficacy is often considered an indicator of perceived feasibility (Peng et al., 2015). The said indicator enhances if an individual belongs to an entrepreneurial family or has experience/education in entrepreneurship (Krueger et al., 2000). Individuals from entrepreneurial families see entrepreneurship as a “realistic alternative to conventional employment” (Carroll & Mosakowski, 1987, p. 576). The feasibility of operating an entrepreneurial venture can also enhance with the help of financial succession from entrepreneurial parents to children. Such entrepreneurs get financial assistance and inherit the non-financial aspects of a business, such as clientele, brand name, and suppliers, to name a few (Laspita et al., 2012). Although Krueger (1993) identifies perceived feasibility, desirability, and propensity to act as three motivating factors of entrepreneurial intention, feasibility has the most predictive power over the variance of these three.

Studies have identified personality traits as antecedents of perceived feasibility (Chipeta & Surujlal, 2017). Personality traits determine one’s attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur and the confidence to take up a new venture (Tan et al., 2021). While investigating the entrepreneurial intentions of university scholars in China, Li and Zhang (2020) hypothesize that feasibility and desirability exhibit a collaborative system; that is, once perceived desirability is limited, perceived feasibility plays a more central role in establishing entrepreneurial intention. Bui et al. (2020) advocated recognizing start-up prospects, viable sources of capital, innovation, and product or service ideas to boost an individual’s perceived feasibility, which functions as catalysts for entrepreneurial intention. Similarly, studies by Dissanayake (2013) and Tan et al. (2021) emphasize the relationship between feasibility and entrepreneurial intention. However, recent literature on how feasibility shapes entrepreneurial potential is somewhat limited, leading to a gap that needs to be explored.

Perceived Risk

“There seems to be general agreement that risk-bearing is a necessary prerequisite to being called an entrepreneur” (Wärneryd, 1988, p. 407). A consensus on whether an entrepreneur is a risk-averse or a risk-taker is not easy to reach. Stewart et al. (1999) conclude that entrepreneurs display risk-taking behavior. On the contrary, many individuals resist embarking on entrepreneurship because they are afraid of failing, thus preferring to pursue more secure professional opportunities (Figueiredo & Brochado, 2015). In an experiment, Macko and Tyszka (2009) classified risk into two types: “purely chance related” and “skill-related” (p. 471); the distinction between the two types of risk being the degree to which the entrepreneur has control over the event. Although the perceived risk is high in an entrepreneurial venture (Giordano Martínez et al., 2017), one takes up entrepreneurship relying on their skill set (Heath & Tversky, 1991). Thus, the risk-bearing capacity is more in individuals possessing higher skill sets.

Before exploring whether entrepreneurs display a risk-aversive or risk-taking behavior, it is imperative to know what risk means. The probability of something unfavorable is considered a risk (Jong et al., 2015). Zhao et al. (2010) find risk perception to affect entrepreneurial intention. In consonance with the findings of Figueiredo and Brochado (2015), a study by Anjum et al. (2018) reaffirms the existence of a negative relation between the elevated level of risk perception and intent to start a venture.

Furthermore, Sharma and Kurien (2017) claim that entrepreneurs exhibit risk-taking early in their careers. By effectively using the risk perception aspect, one can determine if she/he considers the risk associated with a decision to be significant or not. Individuals experience significant amounts of stress due to entrepreneurship, which can sometimes increase “financial,” “professional,” “time,” and “health” risks (Vasumathi et al., 2003), thereby causing a deterrent effect on entrepreneurial potential. Entrepreneurs need to perceive risk appropriately (Parveen et al., 2018) because the said factor can create a hostile atmosphere and delimit an entrepreneur’s potential (Nabi & Liñán, 2013). Risk perception is essential in understanding an individual’s intent to start a new business venture.

Entrepreneurial Potential

An entrepreneur is “a person who habitually creates and innovates to build something of recognized value around perceived opportunities” (Bolton & Thompson, 2000). In this definition, three aspects that seek attention are “person,” “habitual,” and “opportunity.” An individual with a recurrent habit of creating something novel at the first available opportunity can have great entrepreneurial potential. According to Raab et al. (2005), the potential is characterized by the extent to which an individual exhibits entrepreneurial skills, and people who exhibit these increase the pool of possible new business creators.

To encourage future entrepreneurial behavior, society offers new businesses regarded as more desirable than what might be required (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). According to this argument, Santos et al. (2013) regard potential as a competence that can be cultivated and is not exclusively affiliated with successful entrepreneurs. So, Santos et al. (2013) define entrepreneurship potential as “an individual’s preparedness to engage in typical entrepreneurial activities” (p. 664). The said construct is considered a latent construct representing the most distinguishing features connected with entrepreneurial achievement (Santos et al., 2016).

The current study is based on the work of Krueger and Brazeal (1994), who produced theoretical concepts on a potential entrepreneurial model built on perceived desirability and feasibility. Not much work has been done to identify and explore the antecedents of entrepreneurial potential. For example, Brindley (2005) identified how risk factor acts as a barrier to developing entrepreneurial potential. Giordano Martínez et al. (2017) have analyzed a relationship between perceived risk, perceived potential, and feasibility, but a gap remains in studying how these three constructs together shape entrepreneurial potential. Thus, the present study hypothesizes:

H₁: Perceived desirability positively affects entrepreneurial potential.

H₂: Perceived feasibility positively affects entrepreneurial potential.

H₃: Perceived risk negatively affects entrepreneurial potential.

Entrepreneurial Intention

Intention reflects the direction of future action, as it influences people’s choices and dictates conduct (Donaldson, 2019; Moriano et al., 2012). Bandura (2001) recognizes intention as a fundamental characteristic of humans. Entrepreneurial intention is defined by Chhabra et al. (2020) as “a state of mind that ultimately leads an individual towards forming a new business concept and making a career in entrepreneurship” (p. 79). Since intention is a significant predictor of actual conduct (Nisson & Earl, 2020), the more significant the intention, the greater the success of behavior prediction (Hikkerova et al., 2016). As a result, it is not incorrect to state that entrepreneurial intent is crucial for any decision to start a business (Ahadi & Kasraie, 2020).

Studies have established a direct relationship between perceived desirability and entrepreneurial intention (Dissanayake, 2013), perceived feasibility and entrepreneurial intention (Saeed et al., 2014), and perceived risk and entrepreneurial intention. However, the present research takes a detour from the conventional path. Rather than assuming a direct relationship, the study considers perceived desirability, feasibility, and perceived risk as antecedents of entrepreneurial potential, the latter as an antecedent of intention. Thus, the study hypothesizes:

H₄: Entrepreneurial potential positively affects entrepreneurial intention.

The framework follows the path elucidated in the TPB, in a truncated manner, which visualizes intention as a predictor of behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen (1991) outlines three attitudes that indicate intention while describing intention as an individual’s willingness to conduct a given behavior.

“Attitude toward the act,” is a person’s assessment of the target behavior (favorable or unfavorable).

“Social norm,” is the viewpoints of the individual’s social reference groups (family and friends) as to whether the behavior should be pursued.

“Perceived behavioural control,” is the perceived ease or complexity with which the behavior is performed.

To make the framework holistic, the study overlaps the TPB with the “entrepreneurial event model”. Shapero highlights the significance of perception. As mentioned above, the model highlights that entrepreneurial intent is often present in individuals; all that is required is “displacement” for the potential to emerge (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). Displacement causes a behavioral change; thus, the individual seeks the ideal opportunity accessible from his enacted set of alternatives. The resulting behavior is determined by the relative “credibility” of alternative behaviors (including desirability and feasibility) as well as some “propensity to act.” This gives a structural definition to the framework for the present study. Based on the hypotheses, the study designs the framework depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual Framework.

Research Methodology

Measurement Items

The constructs described above are analyzed using a standardized scale adopted by several authors. To stay true to the study’s objectives, minor adjustments have been made to the statements. The statements are rated on a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 7 being “Strongly Agree.” Perceived desirability is measured using three statements from Guerrero et al. (2008) and Dissanayake (2013). Perceived feasibility is measured using four statements adopted from Guerrero et al. (2008) and Dissanayake (2013). The present research evaluates perceived risk using four statements adopted from Giordano Martínez et al. (2017). The entrepreneurial potential is measured from the four statements Krueger and Brazeal (1994) adopted. Finally, entrepreneurial intention is measured using three statements adopted from Guerrero et al. (2008); Dissanayake (2013). A tabular presentation of measurement items is shown in Table 1. The primary reason for choosing measurement statements from the above-mentioned articles is the number of citations received. For example, Krueger and Brazeal (1994) have 3,883 citations and Guerrero et al. (2008) have 747 citations to date. This goes on to show the significance these papers hold in the studies related to entrepreneurship.

Table 1.

Measurement Items.

Construct	Items	Author
Perceived desirability	The notion of starting my own business speaks to me.	Guerrero et al. (2008) and Dissanayake (2013)
	I am eager to work for myself.
	I am highly interested in starting my own venture.
Perceived feasibility	I am optimistic about my abilities and capabilities to establish a business.	Guerrero et al. (2008) and Dissanayake (2013)
	I am ready to launch a viable business.
	I understand how to create an entrepreneurial project.
	If I tried to establish a business, I would have a good chance of success.
Perceived risk	If you start your own firm, you could lose money.	Giordano Martínez et al. (2017)
	If you fail to start your own business, it might have a detrimental impact on your social life.
	Beginning a venture limited the time you could devote to other vital activities.
	Establishing your own business may be a highly difficult experience.
Entrepreneurial potential	I frequently consider starting or expanding a business.	Krueger and Brazeal (1994)
	I feel I have strong leadership abilities and can lead effectively.
	I feel I have strong leadership abilities and the potential to be an excellent leader.
	I am a diligent worker who constantly does my best to succeed.
Entrepreneurial intention	What do you think the chances of starting your own business in the next 3 years are?	Guerrero et al. (2008) and Dissanayake (2013)
	What do you think your chances are of starting your own business at some point in your life?
	Among the different alternatives, I prefer to be an entrepreneur.

Sample and Data Collection

A sample size of 50 participants is used for pre-testing to assure that the final participants would clearly understand the final questionnaire. The study was conducted to check the reliability (α = 0.87) and face validity, which was tested by two professors (entrepreneurship and development). As the study pertains to women entrepreneurs, the questionnaire was distributed to 250 individuals. The final sample size came out to be 214 respondents. Women entrepreneurs break the glass ceiling and stereotypes, and the data supports the same. According to a report by Forbes India, women entrepreneurs make up 13.6% of entrepreneurs pan-India (Jain, 2021). To get a holistic view, the authors have collected data from the northern regions of India. The essence behind choosing this region is that it holds a diverse working environment, especially for women. For example, Delhi, the country’s national capital, was in the “top 25 global cities for women entrepreneurs” (Forbes, 2016). North India also includes regions like Kashmir, which presents a different picture. A conflicted zone with constant cross-border tension (Britannica, 2021) is not the most reliable place to start a venture. However, reports suggest that women entrepreneurs are shaping the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Kashmir (Hassan, 2021). Likewise, data has been collected from major North Indian cities to make the study more inclusive. North India comprises six states/Union Territory (UT), such as Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Jammu and Kashmir. To standardize the data collection, women-owned businesses in the capital city of each state were chosen. The composition of different cities is shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Composition of Northern Indian Cities.

S. No.	State/UT	City	Frequency	Percentage
1	Delhi	Delhi	58	27
2	Uttar Pradesh	Lucknow	35	16
3	Haryana*	Gurugram	23	11
4	Punjab	Chandigarh	28	13
5	Rajasthan	Jaipur	32	15
6	Jammu and Kashmir	Srinagar	38	18

Note: *Since Chandigarh is the common capital of Punjab and Haryana, Gurugram was selected to represent Haryana.

Two hundred and fifty questionnaires were distributed through online channels; using purposive sampling. The respondents were filtered on the basis of two parameters:

Enterprise owned by women.

At least 1 year had elapsed since the start of their business venture.

Researchers employ purposive sampling when they want to target a specific set of audiences, as all people surveyed are picked because they fit a specific profile. Identification and selection of people who are knowledgeable and skilled about the topic of interest are required for purposive sampling. In addition to having information and expertise, respondents are also available and eager to convey their thoughts and experiences in a thoughtful, eloquent, and expressive way (Etikan et al., 2016).

Following the filtering of the replies, 214 questionnaires were used in the final analysis. Considering Covid related restrictions, data is collected only using the online channel (Google Forms). Table 3 provides the key demographic descriptors.

Table 3.

Demographic Profile of Respondents.

Basis		Frequency	Percentage
Scale of business*	Micro	152	71
Scale of business*	Small	62	29
Type of business	Service	156	73
Type of business	Manufacturing	58	27
Age of entrepreneur	18–22	6	3
	23–27	28	13
	28–32	120	56
	33–37	36	17
	37 and above	24	11
Duration of business	1–2 years	135	63
	2–4 years	45	21
	More than 4 years	34	16
Education	Secondary	19	9
	Senior Secondary	63	29
	Graduate	86	41
	Postgraduate	46	21
Family members involvement	Yes	166	78
Family members involvement	No	48	22

Note: *Micro (Service): Investment up to ₹10 lakhs; Micro (Manufacturing): Investment up to ₹25 lakhs. Small (Service): Investment up to ₹10 lakhs–₹2 crores; Small (Manufacturing): Investment up to ₹25 lakhs–₹5 crores.

Analysis

Validated procedures and techniques are used to analyze the data. SPSS (24) software is used for the EFA. Following this, CFA is performed for extra validation, then path analysis in AMOS (20) is performed.

Empirical Methods

The definition of EFA is the methodical simplification of related measures. It is used to study the underpinning factor structure of a group of observable variables without imposing a predetermined structure on the output. CFA is a statistical approach used to confirm the factor structure of a collection of observed data. The researcher can study the concept of a relationship between the variables observed and the latent conceptions that underlay them using CFA.

The accuracy with which the researchers collect product attributes determines the effectiveness of factor analysis. The procedure’s value is diminished if critical characteristics are neglected. Furthermore, if the observed variables are completely unconnected, factor analysis is incapable of establishing a meaningful pattern. Finally, factor analysis can only be as accurate as the data allows. This can be challenging in social science, as researchers frequently have to depend on less valid and reliable measures like self-reports.

Results

Cronbach alpha (α) is applied to evaluate the construct’s reliability. SMC (squared multiple correlations) is used to examine item reliability (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The needed value is more than the acceptable limitations of 0.7 (Table 4) and 0.3 (Table 5).

Table 4.

Factor Extraction.

Construct	Items	Mean	Std. Dev.	Factor Loading	SMC
Perceived desirability	PD1	4.74	1.687	0.862	0.749
	PD2	5.19	1.721	0.878	0.734
	PD3	5.23	1.712	0.853	0.779
Perceived feasibility	PF1	4.56	1.613	0.832	0.716
	PF2	4.69	1.666	0.919	0.854
	PF3	4.64	1.721	0.882	0.785
	PF4	4.88	1.561	0.771	0.715
Perceived risk	PR1	5.17	1.612	0.888	0.808
	PR2	4.81	1.532	0.802	0.632
	PR3	4.54	1.514	0.725	0.530
	PR4	5.29	1.583	0.774	0.626
Entrepreneurial potential	EP1	5.00	1.568	0.875	0.776
	EP2	4.90	1.613	0.884	0.786
	EP3	4.03	1.545	0.802	0.634
	EP4	4.80	1.471	0.830	0.705
Entrepreneurial intention	EI1	4.87	1.608	0.915	0.845
	EI2	4.52	1.627	0.815	0.668
	EI3	5.28	1.347	0.838	0.706

Table 5.

Validity Measurement Index.

	Alpha	CR	AVE	PD	PF	PR	EP	EI
Threshold	>0.7	>0.07	>0.5
PD	0.924	0.931	0.755	0.868
PR	0.917	0.920	0.711	0.511	0.843
PR	0.914	0.915	0.722	0.181	0.127	0.849
EP	0.872	0.913	0.715	0.647	0.527	0.116	0.845
EI	0.905	0.886	0.732	0.254	0.062	0.340	0.217	0.855

Note: PD = Perceived desirability; PF = Perceived feasibility; PR = Perceived risk; EP = Entrepreneurial potential; EI = Entrepreneurial intention.

The data’s appropriateness and suitability are tested through “Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy” and “Bartlett’s sphericity test.” The KMO value is 0.808, which is significant since it exceeds the 0.60 cut-off value. The value of Bartlett’s test is significant (0.000) and lower than the required value of 0.05. Thus, the factors are uncorrelated. Five components, totaling 18 items, were retrieved based on one or more eigenvalues. These five factors make up 80.264% of the total variance. Table 4 indicates that the factor loading is more than 0.50, showing that the data is appropriate for factor analysis.

By comparing the correlation between factors and the square root of the AVE, the discriminant validity of the measurement model is determined. Factor loading and SMC values are more than 0.5 and thus significant. CR and AVE are much higher than acceptable parameters, implying that adequate convergent validity is reported. To resolve any validity concerns, the diagonal value must be more than the non-diagonal value (Table 5) (Ankit Kesharwani & Tiwari, 2011).

The measurement model’s key model statistics indicate all of the latent factors being modeled at the same time, with CMIN (χ²) = 264.678, Degree of freedom (df) = 212, CMIN/df (χ²/df) = 1.248, p < 0.05. All of the goodness-of-fit indices (GFI = 0.911, AGFI = 0.900, NFI = 0.937, IFI = 0.980, CFI = 0.980) and badness-of-fit measurement indices (RMR = 0.086, RMESA = 0.028) follow the cut-off requirements (Boomsma, 2000; McDonald & Ho, 2002; Schreiber, 2008).

After the evaluation of psychometric characteristics, the structural model is evaluated through AMOS (20). Table 6 represents that all the hypotheses are accepted because the p-value is less than 0.05.

Table 6.

Hypothesis Testing Result.

Hypothesis	Relationships	Path Estimates	t-Statistics	Result
H1	PD → EP	0.346	10.176	Supported
H2	PF → EP	0.140	3.167	Supported
H3	PR → EP	−0.132	2.557	Supported
H4	EP → EI	0.303	4.440	Supported

The relationship between perceived desirability and entrepreneurial potential is significant (H1 = 0. 346; p < 0.05), as shown in Table 6. Likewise, the other two relationships like perceived feasibility—entrepreneurial potential and perceived risk—entrepreneurial potential, also are significant. As can be seen through the statistical findings in Table 6, perceived feasibility—the entrepreneurial potential is positively associated (H2 = 0.140; p < 0.05). However, perceived risk—the entrepreneurial potential is negatively associated (H3 = −0.132; p < 0.05). Moving ahead to the next relationship, the statistics display that entrepreneurial potential is significantly associated with entrepreneurial intention (H4 = 0.303; p < 0.05). A graphical presentation of path coefficients is displayed in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Path Coefficients.

Discussion

Women’s entrepreneurship is critical to inclusive and sustainable economic advancement in emerging economies. According to a Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM, 2021) report, 17% of women in developing nations are entrepreneurs, and 35% desire to be one. This suggests that the majority of women in developing nations regard entrepreneurship as a means of achieving a better tomorrow. The findings of this research give to support this statement. From the statistical results, it can be concluded that perceived desirability and feasibility positively and significantly affect the entrepreneurial potential of Indian women.

With these two factors, perceived risk acts significantly in shaping the potential; however, the relationship is negative. In other words, the more the perceived risk, the less the potential to begin an entrepreneurial venture. The findings of perceived desirability and feasibility corroborate with those of Krueger and Brazeal (1994), Dissanayake (2013), and Chhabra et al. (2020). The results of perceived risk resonate with the findings of Forlani and Mullins (2000).

To answer the question posed in the beginning, that is, what factors instill confidence in women to take up entrepreneurship, the study establishes perceived desirability (β = 0.346) to be the most significant factor, followed by perceived feasibility (β =0.140) and negatively affected by perceived risk (β = −0.132). Such a result can be attributed to the prevalent condition in the geographical area of study. Certain Indian regions (e.g., Kashmir) continue to be patriarchal societies (Beigh, 2020). Women desire to become entrepreneurs as they find their businesses self-fulfilling (Gupta & Phillips, 2019), which ensures a means to financially support their families. This can be one of the significant reasons feasibility scored less in statistical results than desirability.

Women entrepreneurs in India have to go the extra mile to prove their worth (Panda, 2018) and are sometimes deprived of readily available resources to their male counterparts (Chaudhuri et al., 2020). Thus, Indian women entrepreneurs desire to explore their entrepreneurial potential but lack the resources to make the venture feasible. Other reasons that feasibility scores are lower than desired are financial difficulties, low levels of education, maintaining work–life balance, and lack of mobility (Dana, 2001; Siddiqui, 2019). The findings indicate that perceived risk has a detrimental impact on entrepreneurial potential. According to Wagner (2007), women have greater levels of risk perception than males and are consequently more risk averse. This risk-averse behavior makes it difficult for women to obtain high-value loans. This is linked to social conditioning, which undervalues what women accomplish for themselves (Singh, 2021).

The research posed another question: Would entrepreneurial potential lead to an entrepreneurial intention? The study confirms the relationship based on the statistical findings (β = 0.303). The result confirms the findings of Krueger and Brazeal (1994), Ward et al. (2019), and Tan et al. (2020). Krueger and Brazeal (1994) establish that entrepreneurial intention models presume that the target behavior is prominent in the entrepreneur’s consciousness. So, even though there is considerable potential to engage in a behavior, there does not need to be any intention. To counter this assumption, with the help of TPB and the entrepreneurial event model, the present study gives statistical evidence that entrepreneurial potential is formed because of the pre-existence of certain factors (perceived desirability, feasibility, and risk), which helps in building an entrepreneurial intention. The developed potential does turn into an intention to begin an entrepreneurial venture, backed by desirability and feasibility.

Conclusion and Policy Remarks

Conclusion

The authors posed a question at the beginning of the article, “what motivates women to take up entrepreneurship?” Based on the statistical findings, it is concluded that perceived desirability and perceived feasibility positively act in building entrepreneurial potential, whereas perceived risk negatively affects entrepreneurial potential. Furthermore, it is concluded that once a potential is developed, it is highly likely to convert into an entrepreneurial intention. These findings are premised on the TPB overlapped by the entrepreneurial event model. The present research also provides insight into which factor contributes more to developing entrepreneurial potential. It is concluded that the desire to start a venture dominates the feasible option available to start a venture.

Implications

The findings indicate a more holistic relationship between desirability, feasibility, risk, and potential. This study brings the stated factors under one framework, which has a solid potential for gauging entrepreneurial intention. These findings corroborate earlier research on how perceived desirability, feasibility, and risk influence entrepreneurial intention via entrepreneurial potential (Chhabra et al., 2020). Although studies have used TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and the entrepreneurial model to determine entrepreneurial intention (Klapper & Leger-Jarniou, 2006; Ridha & Wahyu, 2017), not many studies have focused on Indian women entrepreneurs (Chhabra et al., 2020). Although past studies have found a significant role of desirability and feasibility in shaping entrepreneurial potential, a novel finding of this research pertains to perceived risk, which is generally not studied in conjecture with the other two constructs. Since the essence of the TPB is in the intention based on perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, including the aspect of risk gives it a more comprehensive outlook.

In terms of practical application, the study offers a set of factors that lead to the efficiency of female entrepreneurs. The findings of this study can benefit women who want to start their businesses. Such entrepreneurs can concentrate on lowering the variables that increase risk perception. Simultaneously, they can devote more resources to making the venture more feasible. From the government’s point of view, this study will aid in developing training programs to promote Indian women entrepreneurs, especially in Tier II and Tier III cities. The findings can assist incubation centers in developing a methodical approach to ensure the promotion of women entrepreneurs.

Limitations and Future Scope

Although the study reaffirms the entrepreneurial intention study by Krueger and Brazeal (1994), there are certain limitations. The present research is conducted only in the northern regions of India. So, the findings may not apply in a region with a different cultural or social background. In other words, one has to remain skeptical in generalizing the findings. So, future research can conduct a cross-cultural or transnational study, where a comparative result can give a more generalized finding. The research is limited in so far as the sample size is relatively small. Considering India’s current pandemic-related situation, it became difficult to reach out to a large number of respondents. Future research can be conducted by broadening the sample size of respondents to get a more holistic overview. The present research employs quantitative techniques to portray the statistical results. The conceptual framework tested in this study gives statistically significant results but does not understand entrepreneurial intention among women at an individual level. Future research can incorporate qualitative methodology to explore the intricate reasons women take up business. A longitudinal study can also be conducted to accurately detect improvements or shifts in the attributes of women entrepreneurs over time.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Naira Fayaz

References

Achchuthan

, & Nimalathasan

(2012). Entrepreneurial motivation and selfemployment intention: Case study on management undergraduates of university of Jaffna. In Wickramasinghe

C. N.

& Madururupperuma

W. M.

(Eds.), Serious in management business (Economics and Entrepreneurship) . University of Kell. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2382411

Ahadi

, & Kasraie

(2020). Contextual factors of entrepreneurship intention in manufacturing SMEs: The case study of Iran. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , 27(4), 633–657.

Ajzen

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

Al Matroushi

, Jabeen

, Matloub

, & Tehsin

(2020). Push and pull model of women entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence from the UAE. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research , 11(3), 588–609.

Anjum

, Nazar

, Sharifi

and Farrukh

(2018). Determinants of entrepreneurial intention in perspective of theory of planned behaviour. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development , 40(4), 429–441.

Ankit Kesharwani

I. B. S.

, & Tiwari

H. R.

(2011). Exploration of internet banking website quality in India: A webqual approach. Great Lakes Herald , 5(1), 40–58.

Ashwini

(2021). Successful women entrepreneurs in India [2021 exhaustive list] . Startup Talky. https://startuptalky.com/successful-women-entrepreneurs-india/

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly , 55, 178–204.

Bandura

(1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology , 2(1), 21–41.

10.

Beigh

(2020). Kashmir’s suffocating patriarchy. Greater Kashmir . https://www.greaterkashmir.com/todays-paper/kashmirs-suffocating-patriarchy

11.

Bhatt

(2019). In Sairee Chahal’s Shoes: The SHEROES story and backing women entrepreneurs in India . Inc42.com. https://inc42.com/features/sairee-chahal-the-sheroes-story-and-women-entrepreneurs-in-india/

12.

Bird

(1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review , 13(3), 442–453.

13.

Boermans

M. A.

, & Willebrands

(2017). Entrepreneurship, risk perception and firm performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business , 31(4), 557–569.

14.

Bolton

, & Thompson

(2000). Entrepreneurs: Talent, temperament , technique . Oxford.

15.

Boomsma

(2000). Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling , 7(3), 461–483.

16.

Brindley

(2005). Barriers to women achieving their entrepreneurial potential: Women and risk. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , 11(2), 144–161.

17.

Britannica. (2021). Kashmir . https://www.britannica.com/place/Kashmir-region-Indian-subcontinent

18.

Bui

T. H. V.

, Nguyen

T. L. T.

, Tran

M. D.

, & Nguyen

T. A. T.

(2020). Determinants influencing entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates in universities of Vietnam. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business , 7(7), 369–378.

19.

Carroll

G. R.

, & Mosakowski

(1987). The career dynamics of self-employment. Administrative Science Quarterly , 32, 570–589.

20.

Chaudhuri

, Ghosh

, & Abichandani

(2020). Exploring the risky terrain of entrepreneurship with support from developmental relationships: Narratives from Indian women entrepreneurs. Advances in Developing Human Resources , 22(2), 137–149.

21.

Chhabra

, Raghunathan

, & Rao

N. M.

(2020). The antecedents of entrepreneurial intention among women entrepreneurs in India. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 14(1), 76–92.

22.

Chipeta

E. M.

, & Surujlal

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

23.

Dana

L. P.

(2001). The education and training of entrepreneurs in Asia. Education + Training , 43, 405–416.

24.

Dana

L. P.

, & Dana

T. E.

(2005). Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research. International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Small Business , 2(1), 79–88.

25.

Davidsson

(1995). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions . In RENT XI Workshop. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27464379_Determinants_Of_Entrepreneurial_Intentions

26.

Dissanayake

D. M. N. S. W.

(2013). The impact of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility on entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students in Sri Lanka: An extended model. The Kelaniya Journal of Management , 2(1), 39–57.

27.

Douglas

E. J.

, & Shepherd

D. A.

(2002). Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 26(3), 81–90.

28.

Elfving

, Brännback

, & Carsrud

(2009). Toward a contextual model of entrepreneurial intentions. In Carsrud

A. L.

& Brännback

(Eds.), Understanding the entrepreneurial mind (pp. 23–33). Springer.

29.

Etikan

, Musa

S. A.

, & Alkassim

R. S.

(2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics , 5(1), 1–4.

30.

Figueiredo

, & Brochado

A. O.

(2015). Assessing the main determinants of entrepreneurship in Portugal. Tourism & Management Studies , 11(1), 182–190.

31.

Forbes . (2016). New Delhi among world’s ‘Top 25 global cities for women entrepreneurs’. https://www.forbesindia.com/aperture/slideshow/new-delhi-among-worlds-top-25-global-cities-for-women-entrepreneurs/43605/7

32.

Forlani

, & Mullins

J. W.

(2000). Perceived risks and choices in entrepreneurs’ new venture decisions. Journal of business Venturing , 15(4), 305–322.

33.

Giordano Martínez

K. R.

, Herrero Crespo

, & Fernández-Laviada

(2017). Influence of perceived risk on entrepreneurial desirability and feasibility: Multidimensional approach for nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Risk Research , 20(2), 218–236.

34.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). (2021). Women’s entrepreneurship 2020/21 thriving through crisis . https://www.gemconsortium.org/reports/womens-entrepreneurship

35.

Goyal

, & Parkash

(2011). Women entrepreneurship in India—Problems and prospects. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research , 1(5), 195–207.

36.

Guerrero

, Rialp

, & Urbano

(2008). The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions: A structural equation model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 4(1), 35–50.

37.

Gupta

, & Phillips

(2019). Factors influencing female entrepreneurship in India. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability , 15(2), 69–108.

38.

Guzmán-Alfonso

and Guzmán-Cuevas

(2012). Entrepreneurial intention models as applied to Latin America. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 25(5), 721–735.

39.

Hassan

(2021). Women-led businesses are shaping entrepreneurship in Kashmir. Business Standard . https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/women-led-businesses-are-shaping-entrepreneurship-in-kashmir-121111801510_1.html

40.

Heath

, & Tversky

(1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 4(1), 5–28.

41.

Hikkerova

, Ilouga

S. N.

, & Sahut

J. M.

(2016). The entrepreneurship process and the model of volition. Journal of Business Research , 69(5), 1868–1873.

42.

Israr

, & Saleem

(2018). Entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Italy. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research , 8(1), 1–14.

43.

Jain

(2021). Women make up for 13.76 percent of entrepreneurs in India; own 20.37 percent of MSMEs. Forbes India . https://www.forbesindia.com/article/news-by-numbers/women-make-up-for-1376-percent-of-entrepreneurs-in-india-own-2037-percent-of-msmes/71731/1

44.

Jakopec

, Krecar

I. M.

, & Susanj

(2013). Predictors of entrepreneurial intentions of students of economics. Studia Psychologica , 55(4), 289.

45.

Jong

J. P. D.

, Parker

S. K.

, Wennekers

, & Wu

C. H.

(2015). Entrepreneurial behavior in organizations: Does job design matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 39(4), 981–995.

46.

Kautonen

, Van Gelderen

, & Fink

(2015). Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 39(3), 655–674.

47.

Kirkwood

(2009). Motivational factors in a push–pull theory of entrepreneurship. Gender in Management: An International Journal , 6, 273–295.

48.

Klapper

, & Leger-Jarniou

(2006). Entrepreneurship intention among French Grande École and university students: An application of Shapero’s model. Industry and Higher Education , 20(2), 97–110.

49.

Krueger

N. F.

, & Brazeal

D. V.

(1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 18(3), 91–104.

50.

Krueger

N. F.

, Reilly

M. D.

, & Carsrud

A. L.

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

51.

Krueger

(1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 18(1), 5–21.

52.

Laspita

, Breugst

, Heblich

, & Patzelt

(2012). Intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing , 27(4), 414–435.

53.

, & Zhang

(2020). Formation of university scholars’ entrepreneurial intentions: Interaction between perceived desirability and perceived feasibility. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal , 48(1), 1–13.

54.

Macko

, & Tyszka

(2009). Entrepreneurship and risk taking. Applied Psychology , 58(3), 469–487.

55.

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.

56.

Mathew

(2019). Making it in India . International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/03/womens-entrepreneurship-in-India-mathew

57.

McDonald

R. P.

, & Ho

M. H. R.

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

58.

Moriano

J. A.

, Gorgievski

, Laguna

, Stephan

, & Zarafshani

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

59.

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, 633–655.

60.

Nisson

, & Earl

(2020). The theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. In Sweeny

, Robbins

M. L.

, & Cohen

L. M.

(Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of health psychology (pp. 755–761). John Wiley.

61.

Orhan

, & Scott

(2001). Why women enter into entrepreneurship: An explanatory model. Women in Management Review , 16, 232–247.

62.

Panda

(2018). Constraints faced by women entrepreneurs in developing countries: Review and ranking. Gender in Management: An International Journal , 33, 315–331.

63.

Parveen

, Kassim

N. M.

, & Zain

(2018). Inclinations of Saudi Arabian and Malaysian students towards entrepreneurship. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management , 11(11), 21–36.

64.

Păunescu

, Popescu

M. C.

, & Duennweber

(2018). Factors determining desirability of entrepreneurship in Romania. Sustainability , 10(11), 3893.

65.

Peng

Y. L.

, Kong

, & Turvey

C. G.

(2015). Impacts of self-efficacy on perceived feasibility and entrepreneurial intentions: Empirical evidence from China (No. 1008-2016-79835). https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/212619/?ln=en

66.

Raab

, Stedham

, & Neuner

(2005). Entrepreneurial potential: An exploratory study of business students in the US and Germany. Journal of Business & Management , 11(2), 71–88.

67.

Rajan

, Chawla

, & Sahni

(2019). Powering the economy with her-women entrepreneurship in India . Bain.com. https://www.bain.com/contentassets/dd3604b612d84aa48a0b120f0b589532/report_powering_the_economy_with_her_-_women_entrepreneurship_in-india.pdf

68.

Ridha

R. N.

, & Wahyu

B. P.

(2017). Entrepreneurship intention in agricultural sector of young generation in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 11, 76–89.

69.

Saeed

, Muffatto

, & Yousafzai

S. Y.

(2014). Exploring intergenerational influence on entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management , 18(2/3), 134–134.

70.

Santos

S. C.

, Caetano

, & Curral

(2013). Psychosocial aspects of entrepreneurial potential. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship , 26(6), 661–685.

71.

Santos

, Morris

, Caetano

, & Costa

(2016). Team entrepreneurial potential: Construct definition and multilevel interactions . In United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Conference Proceedings (p. HX1). United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

72.

Schreiber

J. B.

(2008). Core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy , 4(2), 83–97.

73.

Segal

G. B. D.

, & Schoenfeld

(2005). The motivation to become an entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , 11, 42–57.

74.

Shapero

, & Sokol

(1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship . University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

75.

Sharma

J. K.

, & Kurien

(2017). Perceived risk in e-commerce: A demographic perspective. NMIMS Management Review , 34(1), 31–57.

76.

Siddiqui

(2019). Top 9 problems of women entrepreneurs while starting a business in India . MYHQ Digest. https://digest.myhq.in/problems-of-women-entrepreneurs-india/

77.

Singh

(2021). Women run fewer than 13% of India’s small businesses. Here’s why . IndiaSpend.com. https://www.indiaspend.com/women/women-run-fewer-than-13-of-indias-small-businesses-heres-why-731610

78.

Stewart

W. H.

, Watson

W. E.

, Carland

J. C.

, & Carland

J. W.

(1999). A proclivity for entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers. Journal of Business Venturing , 14(2), 189–214.

79.

Tan

L. P.

, Le

A. N. H.

, & Xuan

L. P.

(2020). A systematic literature review on social entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship , 11(3), 241–256.

80.

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.

81.

Terek

, Nikolić

, Ćoćkalo

, Božić

, & Nastasić

(2017). Enterprise potential, entrepreneurial intentions and envy. Central European Business Review , 6(2), 30–41.

82.

Thrikawala

(2011). The determinants of entrepreneurial intention among academics in Sri Lanka. International Proceedings of Economics Development & Research , 4, 454–468.

83.

Vardhan

, Bohra

, Abdullah

, Thennarasu

, & Jagannathan

S. K.

(2020). Push or pull motivation? A study of migrant women entrepreneurs in UAE. International Journal of Family Business and Regional Development , 1(1), 8–24.

84.

Vasumathi

, Govindarajalu

, Anuratha

E. K.

, & Amudha

(2003). Stress and coping styles of an entrepreneur. Journal of Management Research , 3(1), 43–51.

85.

Vuorio

A. M.

, Puumalainen

, & Fellnhofer

(2017). Drivers of entrepreneurial intentions in sustainable entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , 24(2), 359–381.

86.

Wagner

(2007). What a difference a Y makes-female and male nascent entrepreneurs in Germany. Small Business Economics , 28(1), 1–21.

87.

Wang

, Lu

, & Millington

J. K.

(2011). Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among college students in China and USA. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research , 1(1), 35–44.

88.

Wannamakok

, Chang

Y. Y.

, & Täks

(2020). The relationship between institutional environments and entrepreneurial intention in Estonia: Mediating roles of desirability and feasibility. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review , 8(2), 111–126.

89.

Ward

, Hernández-Sánchez

B. R.

, & Sánchez-García

J. C.

(2019). Entrepreneurial potential and gender effects: The role of personality traits in university students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Frontiers in Psychology , 10, 2700.

90.

Wärneryd

K. E.

(1988). The psychology of innovative entrepreneurship. In Fred Raaij

, Veldhoven

G. M.

, & Wärneryd

K.-E.

(Eds.), Handbook of economic psychology (pp. 404–447). Springer.

91.

Yeramilli

(2020). Women entrepreneurship in India: Are we equal yet? Business Insider . https://www.businessinsider.in/advertising/brands/article/women-entrepreneurship-in-india-are-we-equal-yet/articleshow/74518471.cms

92.

Yousaf

, Shamim

, Siddiqui

, & Raina

(2015). Studying the influence of entrepreneurial attributes, subjective norms and perceived desirability on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies , 7, 23–34.

93.

Yunis

M. S.

, Hashim

, & Anderson

A. R.

(2018). Enablers and constraints of female entrepreneurship in Khyber Pukhtunkhawa, Pakistan: Institutional and feminist perspectives. Sustainability , 11(1), 27.

94.

Zhao

, Seibert

S. E.

, & Lumpkin

G. T.

(2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management , 36(2), 381–404.

95.

Zhou

, He

, Zheng

, Hoongsengpha

, & Zhang

(2021, August). Risk perception and entrepreneurial intention under emergency (COVID-19): An empirical study in China . In International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management (pp. 43–57). Springer.