Keywords
Entrepreneurial intentions; entrepreneurial behaviour, theory of planned behaviour, higher education institution; structural equation modelling, engineering students.
This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway.
Background: The study investigates the influence of antecedents of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and personality traits on entrepreneurial intention and behaviour among engineering students in an emerging economy. It employs the extension of the TPB model by focusing on the intention-behaviour gap, an under-researched area in research. Furthermore, it investigates the moderating effect of entrepreneurial motivation on the relationship between intention and behaviour to improve conceptual model predictability.
Methods: A structured questionnaire was used to gather data from 1,564 engineering students, and the data were analyzed using structural equation modelling (SEM) with Amos software.
Results: The results revealed that subjective norms were the strongest predictor of entrepreneurial intention and behaviour, followed by entrepreneurial alertness, perceived behavioural control, attitude towards entrepreneurship, need for achievement, and risk tolerance. Moreover, the moderation analysis showed that entrepreneurial motivation was crucial in moderating the relationship between intention and behaviour.
Conclusions: The present conceptual model contributes to the existing TPB model by improving predictive power to understand the intention-behaviour relationship. The results of the study will assist policymakers, academicians of higher education institutions, and universities in developing policies, strategies, and curricula to engage more students in entrepreneurial activities.
Entrepreneurial intentions; entrepreneurial behaviour, theory of planned behaviour, higher education institution; structural equation modelling, engineering students.
Entrepreneurship has become widely popular due to its ability to promote economic activity and contribute to the overall economic development of a region or country (Veleva, 2020). Entrepreneurs are viewed as individuals who foster economic growth by generating and implementing innovative ideas into successful business enterprises (Turker and SonmezSelcuk, 2009, Voutsina, Papagiannakis and Lioukas, 2022). The growth of entrepreneurship is crucial for generating job opportunities, promoting innovation, and improving the overall efficiency of various economic sectors (Gonçalo Rodrigues Brás, Daniel and Fernandes, 2023; Robert, Frey and Sisodia, 2021).
According to Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2021–2022 survey report, the world's largest research organization on entrepreneurship, there was a significant increase in the total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) in India from 5.30% in 2020 to 14.40% in 2021. In addition, India has made remarkable progress in the “ease of doing business” parameter, achieving a fourth rank in 2021, up from its fifth rank in 2020. According to the Times of India 2020 report, 83% of the Indian workforce (aged 25 to 34) expressed a desire to begin their own businesses, notably higher than the global average of 53%. According to Mukesh, Rao and Rajasekharan Pillai K. (2018), a significant disconnect exists between the entrepreneurial potential of students in India and the higher education system. However, Pandit, Joshi and Tiwari (2018) suggest that entrepreneurship education has the potential to cultivate student interest and commitment towards entrepreneurship as a career path. Thus, nurturing the entrepreneurial intention (EI) of young individuals has become an essential requirement for fostering the growth and development of entrepreneurship in any given country.
Krueger and Carsrud (1993) defined EI as the level of determination to engage in the necessary behaviours required to initiate a business venture physically. Baum and Locke (2004) emphasized that entrepreneurship is an intentional process, which is a fundamental aspect of entrepreneurship research. Yar Hamidi, Wennberg and Berglund (2008) conducted empirical studies that concluded that an individual's intention to pursue entrepreneurship is a powerful indicator of his or her future participation in entrepreneurial activities. Two predominant theory-driven models that seek to elucidate the concept of EIs are Shapero and Sokol (1982) Entrepreneurial Event Theory (EET) and Ajzen (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).
TPB is a highly influential and frequently employed theoretical model for examining human actions (Ajzen, 2020). Additionally, TPB has been widely employed as a theoretical framework for investigating the EI of students in multiple context and culture (Hosen et al., 2022; Kumar and Shukla, 2023; Zellweger, Sieger and Halter, 2011), selected as the research framework for this study. According to Ajzen (1991), Kolvereid (1996), and Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud (2000), the TPB model highlights three motivational factors, commonly referred to as antecedents that impact the formation of intentions to engage in behaviour that are attitudes towards behaviour (ATB), subjective norms (SN), and perceived behavioural control (PBC). Numerous studies have indicated that ATB, SN, and PBC typically account for 30-50% of the variance in intention, implying that approximately half of the variance in EI remains unexplained (Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud, 2000; Liñán and Chen, 2009). Liñán et al. (2010) and other scholars have suggested that incorporating additional variables could help close the gap of unexplained variance. Therefore, researchers have incorporated additional variables, such as the need for achievement (NACH), risk tolerance (RT), and entrepreneurial alertness (EA), into the original TPB model to address its limited explanatory power. NACH, RT and EA are personality characteristics that can drive an individual towards developing an intention to become an entrepreneur. Earlier studies conducted in various countries have established a connection between personality traits such as NACH, RT and EA on EI (Li et al., 2020; Mahmoodi et al., 2023; Marques and Fuinhas, 2012). Although, only a limited number of empirical investigations have explored these factors' impact on students' EI (Ouni and Boujelbene, 2023; Passah and Panda, 2021). A lack of studies has examined the combined impact of personality traits and TPM on students' EI, especially in the Indian context. Thus, the first objective of this study is to examine the influence of personality traits and antecedents of the TPB on the EI and behaviour of engineering students in India.
Many studies on entrepreneurship have used intentions as the dependent variable; however, they have not adequately examined the relationship between intentions and behaviour (Gull et al., 2021). Moreover, evidence suggests that all business intentions are not transformed into actual behaviour or new venture creation. Although research in other fields has found a positive correlation between intention-behaviour, there is a lack of evidence on intention-behaviour linkage, specifically in the context of entrepreneurship (Thomas, 2022). Therefore, the main challenge of entrepreneurship research is to fill the knowledge gap in the intention-behaviour linkage (Gieure, Benavides-Espinosa and Roig-Dobón, 2020). Although a link between intention-behaviour through motivation may exist, the same has not been tested in terms of extension of the TPB (Carsrud and Brännback, 2010). Researchers have recommended a longitudinal study to examine the transformation of intention into behaviour (Farooq et al., 2018). However, applying a longitudinal study to engineering students presents challenges as an engineer's role in the industry evolves with experience and career advancement. Initially, engineers tend to have more technical roles, which transform into managerial positions over time. Therefore, a longitudinal study may not be an immediate solution for investigating the transformation of intention into behaviour. Hence, the study's second objective is to investigate how entrepreneurial motivation moderates the link between intention and behaviour. In this way, our findings are expected to contribute to scholarly debate on the linkage between EI and behaviour. The study proposes practical suggestions for policymakers and academicians on how to advance training content and design the curricula as a result of this research.
The research has two main goals. Firstly, it examines how antecedents of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and personality traits influence entrepreneurial intention and behaviour among engineering students in an emerging economy. Secondly, the study investigates the moderating effects of entrepreneurial motivation on the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and behaviour. The paper begins with a literature review that covers earlier research, followed by hypotheses and a proposed model for the study. The research methodology is then presented to outline the scope of the work, followed by data analysis. The last section includes the conclusion, which discusses the results, implications, further research opportunities, and study limitations.
According to Ajzen (1991) theory, a person's attitude, whether affective/experiential (feelings of joy or satisfaction) or instrumental/cognitive (beliefs, thoughts, or rational arguments), is the key determinant in initiating any action. Ajzen (1991, 2002) and Kolvereid (1996) research suggests that an individual's ATE reflects their personal evaluation of its desirability, indicating the degree to which they hold a positive or negative view towards being an entrepreneur. An individual's attitude is a predisposition that influences their positive or negative response towards an object, person, institution, or event. This attitude plays a significant role in shaping the individual's behavioural intentions (Ajzen and Driver, 1992; Bell and Cui, 2023; Thoudam et al., 2021). The assessment of an individual's ATE indicates their perception of the positive or negative consequences associated with engaging in entrepreneurial activities (Esfandiar et al., 2019). When considering different career options, an individual considers various potential consequences such as financial gain, risk factors, and level of autonomy (Douglas and Shepherd, 2002; Gibson et al., 2021). According to Lumpkin and Dess (1996), entrepreneurship involves various types of risks such as personal, social, and psychological, while independence pertains to the level of autonomy in decision-making, and income encompasses both material and non-material benefits of entrepreneurship. Although some studies (Gultom et al., 2020; Zahid and Haji Din, 2019; Zainuddin and Mukhtar, 2022) have examined the relationship between ATE and EI, we aim to test this relationship in the Indian context to confirm its validity, as previous research has not extensively examined this relationship in India. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: ATE significantly influences EI.
Subjective norm (SN), a construct associated with TPB, is believed to predict intentions, as it comprises an individual's beliefs such as whether others think they should perform a particular behaviour (Conner and Armitage, 1998). Regarding entrepreneurship, SN measures the perceived social pressure an individual feels to become an entrepreneur, which can come from significant people like family members, friends, teachers, and financiers. The strength of an individual's motivation to comply with these perceptions also plays a role (Krueger et al., 2000; Yasir et al., 2023).
There needs to be more consensuses among scholars in the existing literature on the impact of SN on EI. While some studies suggest that SN has a weaker influence compared to ATE and PBC (Autio et al., 2001; Echchabi, Ayedh and Omar, 2020; Ruizalba Robledo et al., 2015), other studies have demonstrated a significant relationship between SN and EI (Gultom et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2020; Kolvereid, 1996; Ruiz-Dotras and Lladós-Masllorens, 2022). According to Hofstede (2011) research, the results regarding the relationship between SN and EI are divided into socialistic and individualistic countries. The study found a positive correlation between SN and EI in socialistic countries like Russia, Ghana, and Southeast Asian countries. However, in the context of the USA and EU, a negative correlation or no significant correlation was observed between SN and EI. Considering the communal lifestyle, the limited job opportunities available in the public sector, and the perceived difficulties associated with entrepreneurship in an industrially underdeveloped region with corrupt practices related to setting up a business (Panda, 2000), the investigators are encouraged to reconsider the correlation between SN and EI in the Indian context. Drawing on the literature review results, the investigators have formulated Hypothesis H2 in the following manner.
H2: SN significantly influences EI.
PBC, the third construct of the TPB, plays a critical role in assessing the magnitude of both EI and entrepreneurial behaviours, according to Boyd and Vozikis (1994) research. Ajzen (1991) defines PBC as an individual's perception of the level of difficulty or ease in performing behaviour, taking into account anticipated obstacles and challenges, as well as previous experiences. According to Ajzen (2002), PBC is a more comprehensive construct than self-efficacy, as it considers not only internal factors such as knowledge, skills, and confidence but also external factors like resources, opportunities, and potential barriers. PBC predicts behaviour directly, while self-efficacy only predicts intentions (Armitage and Conner, 2001). Boyd and Vozikis (1994) suggest that self-efficacy, as a control belief, serves as the foundation for an individual's perception of behavioural control. This perception is based on preconceived notions about the availability or unavailability of necessary resources and opportunities (Ajzen, 2001). In addition to differences in conceptualization and operationalization, the construct has become controversial due to the lack of consistent empirical evidence supporting its impact on intention (Yap, Othman and Wee, 2013). Although the positive impact of PBC on EI has been extensively studied in other countries (Giovanni Di Stefano et al., 2023; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Ruizalba Robledo et al., 2015), authors here aim to revisit its impact in the specific context of India, where factors such as perceived government support, family support, entrepreneurship development programs, and service quality of entrepreneurship education may affect EI with varying degrees of influence. Drawing on the aforementioned considerations, authors have formulated Hypothesis H3 in the following manner.
H3: PBC significantly influences EI.
EA is an essential trait for an entrepreneur. It refers to the ability of individuals to identify and recognize entrepreneurial opportunities. Several earlier studies have reported a positive relationship between EA and EI (Tang et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2018; Neneh, 2019). EA has garnered significant attention in entrepreneurship, as it facilitates the identification of suitable career paths and enables the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities (Tang, 2008; Short et al., 2009; Xin and Ma, 2023). According to Montiel Campos (2017), EA begins with an individual's capability to identify potential opportunities, followed by continuous personal growth necessary to transform those opportunities into actual outcomes. McMullen and Shepherd (2006) suggest that EA should lead to entrepreneurial action. Lu and Wang (2018) found that there is a direct relationship between EA and EI. This is because EA helps individuals recognize business opportunities and make informed judgments, which in turn influences their intent to pursue entrepreneurship. In addition, several scholars have pointed out that alertness is an essential skill for entrepreneurs to anticipate and recognize opportunities (Ardichvili and Cardozo, 2000; Mannino and Schiera, 2017; Shamsudeen, Keat and Hassan, 2017). Thus, it can be inferred that individuals who possess a higher level of alertness are more likely to identify favourable opportunities and embark on an entrepreneurial career. Based on this observation, the study will propose the following hypothesis.
H4: EA significantly influences EI.
McClelland (1961) proposed the need for achievement, a personality trait characterized by a strong aspiration to establish and sustain elevated performance levels. People with a high need for achievement are highly motivated to succeed, set higher goals, take calculated risks, and select innovative and moderately tricky tasks that are challenging yet achievable. Entrepreneurial careers allow for greater control over outcomes, entail moderate risk-taking, and offer immediate feedback on performance. It is logical to anticipate that individuals with a strong need for achievement would be inclined to pursue entrepreneurship as a profession. McClelland (1965) conducted a longitudinal study, which revealed that a greater number of individuals with a high need for achievement scores were engaged in entrepreneurial occupations compared to those with lower scores on the same trait. Mukesh, Pillai and Mamman (2019) found that NACH was a significant predictor of EI among engineering students in India. Other studies, such as Chaudhary (2017) and Littunen (2000), have also reported that NACH has a stronger link with entrepreneurship than any other trait.
In contrast, Davidsson and Wiklund (1999) argued that the need for achievement traits has limited significance in predicting entrepreneurial behaviour. The conflicting results highlight the necessity for further investigation into the relationship between the need for achievement traits and entrepreneurial intention. Consequently, the authors propose a hypothesis.
H5: NACH significantly influences EI.
Risk-taking propensity is often considered an important trait for entrepreneurs, as it involves the willingness to take risks in the face of uncertainty. Entrepreneurs face many uncertain situations and must make decisions without complete information, and a high tolerance for risk can help them navigate these challenges. Brockhaus (1980) was one of the first to suggest that risk-taking propensity is an important trait for entrepreneurs. Since then, many studies have reported a positive relationship between risk-taking propensity and entrepreneurial intentions or behaviours (Liñán and Chen, 2009; Rauch and Frese, 2007). However, it's important to note that not all entrepreneurs are high-risk takers, and there is some debate over the extent to which risk-taking propensity is a necessary trait for entrepreneurship (Busenitz and Lau, 1996; Mitchell et al., 2002; Sobaih and Elshaer, 2023). Therefore, authors hypothesize that:
H6: RT significantly influences EI.
There will be significant differences between intention and behaviour of real start-ups. Although scholars advise longitudinal studies to assess the rate of entrepreneurial intention to actual behaviour (Farooq et al., 2018), the difference cannot be determined using conventional research methods. The objective of research is to transform intentions into action. In the 1980s, Sexton, Donald and Smilor, Raymond (1986) and Smilor and Kuhn (1986) conducted preliminary research on EM from theoretical and practical viewpoints. After that, research on entrepreneurs' characteristics took the lead, and EM research could no longer attract scholars.
Bird (1989), and Krueger and Carsrud (1993) stressed the importance of transforming intention into behaviour in realising the complete process of entrepreneurship. The attitude-intention and intention-behaviour links define the relationship between attitude and behaviour. Scholars have not focused on empirical studies on the relationship between entrepreneurial motivation and behaviour (Kuratko et al., 2017); nevertheless, a previous study by Carsrud, Olm and Thomas (1989) addressed motivation and behaviour in the context of business performance. According to Carsrud and Brännback (2010) EM produces the relationship between intention and action. Motivators are impulses that ultimately drive action in pursuit of a goal. Carsrud and Brännback (2010) further found that scholars have researched motivation to explain different reactions of persons to the same stimuli of motivation and choice of diverse personal behaviour.
The push motivation and pull motivation theories are the two types of motivation theories. The pull factors are the ones that motivate individuals to engage in entrepreneurial endeavours (CantúCavada, Bobek and Maček, 2017; Iqbal et al., 2020). The pull factors include the ability to employ others, social status, the opportunity to use one's education and experience, the support and encouragement of one's family, independence, the potential to learn new skills, market opportunities, financial independence, more negotiating power at home, and more control over household decisions (Chhabra, Raghunathan and Rao, 2020; Lockyer and George, 2012). The push factors are the ones which motivate individuals to engage in entrepreneurial activities (Zgheib, 2018). Push factors include lack of job satisfaction, low household earnings, insufficient pay and necessity (Dawson and Henley, 2012).
The goal is essential in motivational studies (Lockyer and George, 2012). Goals are intangible, representing future results and motivating people to keep working hard (Chhabra, Raghunathan and Rao, 2020). Also, motivation acts as a link between intention and behaviour. The capacity of individuals to adapt to changing environments originates from their ability to modify their motivations and goals (Chaudhary, 2017).
According to Ryan and Deci (2000), motivation is influenced by a combination of an individual's cognitive processes and natural and social factors. Motivational initiatives set the direction with purpose and determination. Therefore, the pursuit of motivation, which is driven by an individual's goals and motives, serves as a crucial factor in bridging the gap between intention and behaviour. Earlier research studies suggest that there is a considerable time lag between the formation of intentions in individuals and their actual manifestation in behaviour (Helmreich et al., 1986). Ajzen (1991) TPB posits that an individual's behavioural intention is influenced by their ATB, SN, and PBC, which in turn leads to the actual manifestation of the behaviour. A link between intention-behaviour through motivation may exist, but the same has not been tested in terms of extension of the TPB (Carsrud and Brännback, 2010). Scholars have highlighted the lack of research on this particular aspect of entrepreneurship, which has been addressed in the present study that aims to elucidate engineering students' intentions, motivations, and behaviours. As a result, the following hypothesis is developed:
H7: EM moderates the relationship between EI and EB.
Figure 1 shows a conceptual framework developed based on the hypotheses discussed above.
CMB needs to be assessed when both independent and dependent variables are assessed using the same survey instrument. CMB was assessed using Harman’s single-factor analysis (Lee et al., 2014). The result of this test shows that a single factor explains 34.99% of the total variance. As this value is significantly less than 50%, it is safe to assume that there does not exist any one dominant factor in the data set. Hence, it is proved that the CMB issue does not exist with the collected samples.
This study used a survey questionnaire as the research instrument (see Extended data; Nayak, 2023b). All the items used to measure the constructs were adopted from previous studies. The attitude towards entrepreneurship, subjective norms and entrepreneurial intention were measured using a 5-item, 3-item, and 4-item scale adapted from Liñán et al. (2010). Perceived behavioural control and risk tolerances were measured using a 5-item and 7-item scale adapted from Chatterjee, Das and Srivastava (2019). The need for achievement was measured using an 8-item scale developed and adapted by Chatterjee, Das and Srivastava (2019) and Dinis et al. (2013). Entrepreneurial alertness was measured using a 4-item scale developed and adopted by Tang et al. (2012). The entrepreneurial motivation was measured using a 4-item scale developed and adapted by Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo (2012). Entrepreneurial behaviour was measured using a 4-item scale developed and adopted by Li et al. (2020). All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating “strongly disagree” and 5 indicating “strongly agree”.
A quantitative approach was applied to accomplish the research objectives and test the proposed research model, and a cross-sectional descriptive research design was used in the study. Data were collected from final-year engineering students studying in several colleges across India, using a structured questionnaire which was adapted from earlier studies. The questionnaires were personally distributed to the students, and they were informed that participation in the survey was purely on a volunteer basis. They were also assured that their response would be used only for academic purposes and kept confidential. This study distributed 2000 hard copies of the survey questionnaire; finally, 1564 usable questionnaires were further processed for data analysis, yielding a response rate of 78.2%.
The proposed research model was analyzed using the SEM supported by AMOS and the SPSS software program. According to Hair et al. (2010), the analysis of moments structures model (AMOS) is one of the latest software. Developed and available in the market, this software is used to assist researchers in performing analysis of the inter-relationships and make models for such inter-relationships within constructs that possess multiple indicators in an efficient, accurate and effective manner. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the reliability and validity of each construct in the model. The criteria to consider the model achieve overall fit with actual data when CFI, GFI, TLI, and IFI are all greater than 0.9 and RMSEA is less than 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The factor loadings of items within each construct are greater than 0.5, showing that the constructs in the model achieve convergent validity. The constructs achieve reliability when composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach's Alpha are greater than 0.6 and the average variance extracted (AVE) is greater than 50% (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Lee et al., 2013). To test discriminant validity between constructs in the model, we used criteria comparing the square root value of AVE and correlation coefficients in the model or using a 95% confidence interval of correlation coefficients (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). If the square root of AVE values of each construct is greater than the correlation of constructs, or the 95% confidence interval of the correlation coefficient does not contain one value indicating that the constructs reach discriminant validity. We used structural equation modeling to test hypotheses with criteria statistically significant at a level of 5%.
According to Hair et al. (2010), SEM can be effectively evaluated using a two-step approach that involves first assessing the measurement model and then examining the proposed structural model.
We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the properties of our measures with the saturated model (final model). The results analysis showed that the model achieved overall fits with the actual data: CFI = 0.958; GFI = 0.949; TLI = 0.929; IFI = 0.947, all were larger than 0.9 and RMSEA = 0.041 was less than 0.08 (Nayak, 2023a).
All the constructs had factor loadings higher than the benchmark level of 0.05, which indicated that the constructs achieved convergent validity. The Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability coefficients of all constructs exceed the 0.7 benchmarks, and all AVEs were larger than 0.5 (Table 1). These tests showed that our measures for constructs have achieved internal consistency and reliability.
The analysis result indicated that all constructs have the square root of AVE values of all the constructs was greater than the inter-construct correlations (Table 2 and Figure 2). Therefore, based on the Fornell–Larcker criterion, it was proved that adequate levels of discriminant validity exist in the measurement model.
After successfully validating the measurement model, researchers proceeded to the next stage of their analysis to evaluate the structural model to test their hypotheses about the relationships between latent variables. To assess the appropriateness of the proposed model, researchers examined the R-squared value of the structural model. The results showed that the constructs of ATE, SN, PBC, NACH, RT and EA explained 81% of the variance in EI. Additionally, the impact of EI on behaviour was also measured and found to be 59%, respectively.
Table 3 shows the results of the hypotheses testing. The results showed that all constructs are significant predictors of EI. Furthermore, SN (Path Coefficients = 0.252, CR = 9.993, P = 0.000) and EA (Path Coefficients = 0.246, CR = 8.044, P = 0.000) show a relatively strong effect on EI, followed by PBC (Path Coefficients = 0.208, CR = 8.020, P = 0.000) and ATE (Path Coefficients = 0.198, CR = 7.482, P = 0.000). However, NACH (Path Coefficients = 0.127, CR = 6.203, P = 0.000) and RT (Path Coefficients = 0.054, CR = 2.073, P = 0.038) show the lowest influence on EI.
According to Table 4, the direct influence of entrepreneurial motivation (EM) on entrepreneurial behaviour (EB) is not statistically significant, indicating that EM alone may not significantly impact EB. Nevertheless, the study revealed that the interaction between entrepreneurial intention (EI) and EM (EI x EM) is significant, with a p-value of less than 0.05. This outcome supports the hypothesis that the relationship between EI and EB is moderated by EM, which implies that the influence of EI on EB is reliant on the level of EM. To examine this relationship further, the researchers created a plot illustrating the three variables at three levels of both EI and EM based on their means and standard deviations. These levels include low, medium, and high, providing a better understanding of how the interaction between EI and EM affects EB at varying levels.
The results obtained from simple slope analyses, as shown in Figure 3, suggest that there is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial intention (EI) and entrepreneurial behaviour (EB) among the engineering students who participated in the study. The plot further reveals that higher levels of entrepreneurial motivation (EM) correspond to higher values of EB for a given level of EI, indicating that motivation amplifies the impact of EI on EB. Moreover, as the level of EI increases, the difference between the plots for various levels of EM also increases, implying that the effect of motivation on EB is more pronounced at higher levels of EI. Thus, the findings suggest that students with high levels of EI and EM are more likely to exhibit entrepreneurial behaviour.
While prior research has extensively investigated the impact of antecedents of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) on entrepreneurial intention (EI) among higher education students in various contexts (Hassan et al., 2021; Hoang et al., 2020), there is still a gap in understanding the combined effect of personality traits and TPB antecedents on EI among engineering students in South Asian emerging economies. This is particularly significant as entrepreneurship development can vary across different regions of the world. As such, the study aims to explore the influence of both personality traits and TPB antecedents on engineering students' EI and behaviour. The study also examines the moderating effect of entrepreneurial motivation on the relationship between intention and behaviour.
The study found that Subjective norm (SN) (β= 0.252) was the biggest determinant of EI among engineering students in India, which contrasts with previous research conducted in individualistic societies (Bazkiaei et al., 2021; Boutaky and Sahib Eddine, 2022; Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud, 2000; Liñán and Chen, 2009). These earlier studies have shown that SN is a weak predictor of EI. However, the study suggests that in collectivistic cultures like India, students may be more susceptible to external influences, such as peer pressure, societal expectations, and guidance from relatives and teachers, when it comes to pursuing entrepreneurship (Shrivastava and Acharya, 2020). This is because Indian culture places a significant emphasis on family, friends, and society in shaping an individual's beliefs and behaviours (Marmat, 2021). The findings of the study indicate that interventions aimed at encouraging entrepreneurship among engineering students in India should focus on addressing social barriers and norms that discourage entrepreneurship, and promote a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship among family members and peers. These findings have significant implications for entrepreneurship education and policymaking, as they suggest the importance of creating supportive environments that encourage and facilitate entrepreneurial activity among students.
The study found that entrepreneurial alertness (EA) (β= 0.246) was the second most important factor impacting the students EI, in line with previous research (Lim, Lee and Mamun, 2021; Minola, Criaco and Obschonka, 2015; Neneh, 2019). This suggests that individuals who are more alert to entrepreneurial opportunities and are better equipped to recognize and act on them are more likely to form EI and behaviours. By improving an individual's ability to search and scan, gather the right information, and identify opportunities, EA can increase their likelihood of starting their own businesses and becoming entrepreneurs (Ugwueze, Ike and Ugwu, 2022). The study's finding that students with higher alertness are better positioned to find and recognize opportunities and are more likely to start their businesses is a valuable insight that can inform efforts to promote entrepreneurship among young people. It highlights the importance of encouraging and developing entrepreneurial skills and mindset in students and suggests that initiatives to promote entrepreneurship should focus not only on technical skills but also on fostering an entrepreneurial mindset.
Perceived behavioural control (PBC) (β= 0.208) was found to be the third most crucial factor impacting engineering students' EI is consistent with prior research studies (Alnemer, 2021; Ambad, 2022; Lopez et al., 2021; Marmat, 2021; Naktiyok, Nur Karabey and CaglarGulluce, 2009). It suggests that engineering students with a higher level of PBC may have a greater intention to pursue entrepreneurship because they believe they have the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to start and run a successful venture. There could be several reasons why PBC is a significant predictor of EI among engineering students. One potential explanation for this relationship is that engineering students may have a strong sense of self-efficacy, which is a fundamental component of PBC (Nguyen, Nguyen and Ba Le, 2022). Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in his or her ability to perform a specific behaviour successfully. As engineering students gain technical and problem-solving skills during their studies, they may develop higher levels of self-efficacy than students from other fields (Nguyen, Nguyen and Ba Le, 2022). Therefore, the finding that PBC is a crucial factor impacting engineering students' EI has significant implications for policymakers and educators interested in promoting entrepreneurship. It highlights the importance of creating an environment that supports self-efficacy and encourages acquiring the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to pursue entrepreneurial activities.
The study's results revealed that attitude towards entrepreneurship (ATE) (β= 0.198) was the fourth most significant factor impacting students' EI, indicating a favorable ATE among the students. This finding is consistent with previous studies conducted in diverse cultural and contextual settings, suggesting that the relationship between ATE and EI is likely to hold true across various populations (Al-Mamary et al., 2020; Aloulou, 2016; Maheshwari, 2021). The results suggest that engineering students have a desire to become their own bosses in the future and are more self-reliant. Promoting a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship may be an effective strategy for encouraging more students to consider entrepreneurship, which could have significant economic and social implications in the long run.
Need for achievement (NACH) (β= 0.127) is the fifth important factor impacting engineering students' EI, suggesting that individuals with a high NACH are more likely to intend to pursue entrepreneurial activities. This could be because individuals with a high NACH desire to set and achieve challenging goals, take calculated risks, and strive for independence and recognition, which are all critical components of entrepreneurial behaviour. Moreover, previous research has consistently shown that NACH significantly predicts EI and behaviour across various contexts and populations (Bağış et al., 2022; Gürol and Atsan, 2006; Hansemark, 2003; Turker and SonmezSelcuk, 2009). This further supports the idea that individuals with a high NACH are more likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities. McClelland (1961) identified NACH as a critical factor in entrepreneurial success. This suggests that students with a higher NACH may be better equipped to handle the challenges and uncertainties of starting a new business and are more likely to succeed.
The study found that Risk tolerance (RT) (β= 0.054) was the least significant factor impacting engineering students' EI. It suggests that RT may not be a critical predictor for students' interest in pursuing entrepreneurial activities. This result is consistent with prior research conducted by Ibidunni, Mozie and Ayeni (2020), Ilevbare et al. (2022) and Moraes, Iizuka and Pedro (2018). In addition, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) emphasized the importance of risk-taking propensity as a fundamental entrepreneurial trait across all levels. They suggested that individuals more willing to take calculated risks are more likely to become successful entrepreneurs. This view is consistent with the principles of Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour. This study outcome may be attributed to various factors, such as cultural values and norms in India, which tend to prioritize stability and security over risk-taking behaviour (Chaudhary, 2017). Another possibility is that Indian engineering students view entrepreneurship as a low-risk pursuit due to established business networks, government support, and other factors (Dubey, 2022). Nevertheless, it is essential to note that the finding does not imply that RT is not a crucial component of entrepreneurial behaviour. On the contrary, taking calculated risks is often vital for entrepreneurial success. Educators and policymakers can encourage more students to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities and develop successful businesses by promoting a culture of entrepreneurship that highlights the importance of RT in a responsible and strategic manner.
The study found that the antecedents being hypothesized regarding the TPB accounted for 81% of the variance in students' EI. This percentage of variance explained is higher than the average explained variance reported in previous meta-analyses of TPB studies, indicating that the factors included in the study are highly relevant to predicting students' EI (Mukesh et al., 2020). This finding suggests that the TPB model is a valuable framework for understanding and predicting EI among students.
Finally, the study found that the relationship between entrepreneurial intention (EI) and entrepreneurial behaviour (EB) is influenced by entrepreneurial motivation (EM). The research suggests that highly motivated students are more likely to engage in EB when they have a strong intention to become entrepreneurs. However, for students with low or medium EM, an increase in EI is likely to result in a corresponding increase in EB. These results are consistent with the recommendations of Carsrud and Brännback (2010) and Lechuga Sancho, Ramos-Rodríguez and Frende Vega (2022), who highlighted the importance of investigating the intention-behaviour gap in entrepreneurship, an area that has received limited research attention.
Unemployment is a significant problem in many developing nations, particularly India, where many educated individuals graduate from various academic institutions each year, but employment opportunities are scarce. To tackle this issue effectively, policymakers and educators must put more effort into recognising and cultivating potential entrepreneurs. In this direction, the outcomes of this study have essential practical applications for policymakers and educators in emerging economies.
The study found that ATE significantly influences students' EI, which supports Hypothesis 1. Policymakers can use this information to develop policies and programs encouraging a positive ATE among engineering students, such as creating an entrepreneurial ecosystem on campuses that fosters innovation and creativity (Dubey, 2022). This can include mentorship and networking programs, competitions, and other experiential learning opportunities that expose students to entrepreneurship. Academicians can incorporate entrepreneurship education into engineering curricula to foster a positive ATE. This can include courses covering topics such as opportunity recognition, business planning, marketing, and financial management, as well as experiential learning such as internships, competitions, and incubation programs (Mukesh et al., 2020).
SN is the most significant determinant of students' EI, which supports Hypothesis 2. This has practical implications for policymakers and academicians. For policymakers, this result suggests that efforts to promote entrepreneurship among engineering students should address the social and cultural norms surrounding entrepreneurship (Boutaky and Sahib Eddine, 2022). This could involve creating awareness campaigns highlighting successful entrepreneurs' impact on society and the benefits of entrepreneurship for individuals and communities. Additionally, policymakers could work towards establishing a supportive environment for entrepreneurs by providing access to financing, infrastructure, and other necessary resources for successful startups. For academicians, the finding emphasizes the importance of developing programs and curricula that address social and cultural norms related to entrepreneurship. Universities and engineering institutes could incorporate case studies and guest lecturers that showcase successful entrepreneurs and their contributions to society (Bazkiaei et al., 2021). Also, establishing mentorship programs that connect students with successful entrepreneurs in their field could be useful. Academics could also work towards identifying and overcoming any cultural or social barriers to entrepreneurship among engineering students by providing resources and support to tackle these challenges.
The study supports Hypothesis 3, indicating that PBC significantly influences students' EI. Therefore, policymakers and academicians can develop and promote programs that enhance engineering students' PBC towards entrepreneurship. This can include providing opportunities for students to participate in entrepreneurship training and education programs that focus on building their knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy regarding starting and managing a business (Ambad, 2022; Lopez et al., 2021). To increase students' confidence in their ability to start and run a business, policymakers and academicians can collaborate with industry partners to offer hands-on experience and exposure to real-world entrepreneurial settings (Marmat, 2021).
The study supports Hypothesis 4, indicating that engineering students' EA significantly and positively influences their EI. Policymakers and academicians can take practical steps to develop and enhance students' EA by providing training programs and workshops that expose them to industry experts and successful entrepreneurs. These programs may include case studies and exercises designed to improve students' ability to identify entrepreneurial opportunities and take calculated risks. Additionally, academic institutions can encourage collaboration between students, faculty, and industry to foster an entrepreneurial culture on campus and provide students with more opportunities to hone their entrepreneurial skills (Lim, Lee and Mamun, 2021). Policymakers can also promote innovation and entrepreneurship in the engineering sector by offering funding opportunities for startups and incentivizing businesses to invest in research and development (Neneh, 2019). By creating an environment that values entrepreneurship and innovation, policymakers and academicians can contribute to developing the next generation of successful entrepreneurs in the engineering field.
The NACH significantly influences students' EI. The result supports hypothesis 5. To encourage more students to pursue entrepreneurship, policymakers can consider creating an environment fostering achievement and success. This can be done by promoting and supporting entrepreneurial events and competitions, offering financial incentives and support to young entrepreneurs, and developing policies encouraging entrepreneurship (Biswas and Verma, 2021). By creating an environment that rewards achievement, policymakers can help increase the number of engineering students who desire to start their own businesses. Academicians can also take note of this finding and use it to design and implement programs that foster a sense of achievement among engineering students. For example, entrepreneurship courses and programs can be developed that emphasize the importance of goal-setting, hard work, and perseverance in achieving success as an entrepreneur. These programs also offer opportunities for students to work on real-world entrepreneurial projects, which can help them to build their confidence and sense of achievement. By providing engineering students with the tools and resources they need to succeed as entrepreneurs, academicians can help increase the number of students pursuing entrepreneurial careers.
The RT significantly influences students' EI, which supports hypothesis 6. Policymakers can use this information to design policies and programs that encourage and support risk-taking behaviours among engineering students, such as providing access to funding, mentoring, and incubation programs that can help students mitigate and manage risks associated with entrepreneurship (Dubey, 2022). Additionally, policymakers can explore ways to incentivize industry collaborations and startup partnerships that expose engineering students to real-world experiences that can increase their risk tolerance. Academicians can use this finding to design and implement educational and training programs that help students develop and improve their risk-taking abilities (Ilevbare et al., 2022). This can include integrating experiential learning opportunities into the engineering curriculum, such as business plan competitions and hackathons, where students can practice identifying and mitigating risks in a low-stakes environment (Ibidunni, Mozie and Ayeni, 2020). It can also offer courses and workshops on risk management and decision-making to help students develop the skills and knowledge necessary to evaluate and manage risks associated with entrepreneurship.
The limitations of this study suggest several areas for future research. Researchers could expand the theoretical model used in this study to include environmental and external factors that may influence entrepreneurial intentions and behaviour. Furthermore, researchers could use qualitative or mixed-method approaches to gain a more in-depth understanding of the factors that contribute to entrepreneurial intentions and behaviour. Future studies could also include samples from other countries, such as those in South Asia, to provide cross-country data on the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education. Additionally, future research could explore the generalizability of the findings beyond India by including students from other nationalities. Longitudinal studies could be conducted better to understand the entrepreneurial journey of higher education students as they transition to becoming entrepreneurs. These studies could provide insights into the factors that influence the development and success of entrepreneurs, as well as the challenges they face along the way.
Ethics approval was obtained on 04 June 2021 from the Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital Institutional Ethical Committee (Registration number, IEC 235/2021). Completion of the questionnaire also was taken as consent of the students to take part in the study.
Figshare: Questionnaire. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24217848 (Nayak, 2023b).
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Entrepreneurship
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Customer Satisfaction & Loyalty, Purchase Intention, Behavior Buyer-Seller relationship, CSR, Consumer behaviour
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 2 (revision) 01 Jul 24 |
read | read |
Version 1 14 Dec 23 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)