African Journal of
Educational Management, Teaching and Entrepreneurship Studies

  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 2736-0261
  • DOI: 10.5897/AJEMATES
  • Start Year: 2020
  • Published Articles: 20

Full Length Research Paper

Environmental factors and the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intentions: Perspectives from Zambia

Clement Mwaanga
  • Clement Mwaanga
  • Department of Business Studies, Faculty of Business Studies, Mulungushi University, Zambia.
  • Google Scholar
Richard Shambare
  • Richard Shambare
  • University of Western Cape, Faculty of Economics and Management Science, Department of Business and Finance, South Africa.
  • Google Scholar
Van Zyl Cina
  • Van Zyl Cina
  • University of South Africa, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Department of Applied Management, South Africa.
  • Google Scholar

  •  Received: 20 July 2022
  •  Accepted: 09 September 2022
  •  Published: 31 October 2022


The purpose of this study was to establish the influence of entrepreneurial environmental factors on the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intention. To address and answer the research question which reads: “To what extent do entrepreneurial environmental factors in the form of innovativeness, proactivity and entrepreneurship education affect the formation of student’s entrepreneurial intentions” The conceptual model based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) was employed. The primary data were collected from a sample of 380 Mulungushi University (MU) students in Zambia using a closed-ended self-administered questionnaire. For data analysis, SPSS v.21, and STATA 14 were utilised to generate descriptive statistics. Proactivity as an entrepreneurial competency was observed to affect immediate entrepreneurial intentions only while entrepreneurship education was observed to affect both immediate and future entrepreneurial intentions. Innovativeness yielded non-statistical significance on both immediate and future entrepreneurial intentions. This study contributes to the existing body of literature by highlighting the difference between immediate and future entrepreneurial intentions and the importance of personality factors and entrepreneurship education in the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Based on the above findings, recommendations have been made regarding the revision of entrepreneurship education to stimulate entrepreneurial competencies among students.

Key words: Entrepreneurship, proactivity, innovativeness, entrepreneurial environment, entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurship education.


Given the important role entrepreneurship plays in economic development and the creation of employment, developing economies have given the promotion of entrepreneurship a national priority. This is particularly true for developing countries where entrepreneurship needs  to   be   encourage   and   supported   because   it represents what is described as the basis for economic development (Marques et al., 2018). Entrepreneurship plays a vital role in addressing the problem of unemployment by stimulating entrepreneurial activities (Chiang and Yan, 2011). In the case of Zambia, the unemployment rate was at 37.3% mostly the youths aged between 15 to 35 years (Labour Force Survey, 2020). Consequently, Valliere (2015) emphasised the need for the government to collaborate with the private sector to enhance the capacity to develop a policy aimed to create formal employment for the youths. Entrepreneurship activities especially among graduates have been instrumental in promoting sustainable economic expansion through job creation and an increased tax base (Nuwagaba, 2015). Given that entrepreneurship education (EE) and the supportive university environment (Ge and Li, 2015; Mustafa et al., 2016; Marques et al., 2018) are instrumental in encouraging graduates to engaged in entrepreneurial activities deserving for further investigation. These are some of the factors echoed in the literature to promote the formation of entrepreneurial intentions (EIs) among students (Gelaidan and Abdullateef, 2017).

Studies on the formation of EIs have linked environmental factors to entrepreneurial intentions (Salati Marcondes de Moraes et al., 2018; Ebewo, 2017; Gelaidan and Bdullateef, 2017; Cie?lik and Van Stel, 2017; Farah et al., 2016; Tran and Von Korflesch, 2016; Mustafa et al., 2016). However, there is a need to understand what makes a person to develop an interest in entrepreneurship and engage in it (Koe, 2016). According to Ferreire et al. (2012), EE enhances students’ development of personal entrepreneurial skills and provides them with competencies such as proactiveness (PRO) and innovativeness (INN). It was observed that personality factors and contextual factors have been treated insolation of each other in several studies on EI. According to Mustafa et al. (2016), antecedents of EIs should not be treated as different factors but should be included in one comprehensive model. Additionally, few studies have been done to examine the influence PRO and INN and EE on students’ EIs, particularly in a Zambian context. Lastly, the focus of these studies has been on innovation-driven or developed countries (Valliere, 2015; Matlay, 2014) hence the need to test, modify and replicate the theories of entrepreneurship and intent in developing countries, Zambia (Martens et al., 2016; Valliere, 2015). A study conducted by Bolton (2012) emphasised validating the constructs of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) on university students in different countries with different age groups in future research. Hence, this forms the rationale for this research.

Theoretical framework

Entrepreneurship and TPB

Over the years, entrepreneurship as a field of study has gained significant attention (Raposo and do Paço, 2011). Various scholars hold differing beliefs about what entrepreneurship entails and who constitutes an entrepreneur   which   makes  it  difficult  to  have  an  all- inclusive definition of entrepreneurship (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Gartner, 2001).

The process of entrepreneurship is driven by three elements: the entrepreneur's identified opportunities and the configuration of resources required to exploit these opportunities (Ireland et al., 2005; O’Connor, 2013). Therefore, a person is perceived to be an entrepreneur if he or she can produce new products and services, innovative technologies, create employment, and influence and contribute to the country’s economic development.

For this study, the definition proposed by Acs and Szerb (2010) was adopted as the unique association of individual attitudes, activities and aspirations. The decision to adopt this definition was based on the premise that entrepreneurship, as a career option is also a way of life and students venturing into entrepreneurship, are well equipped with business knowledge and possess the ability to analyse the environment, identify opportunities, and overcome the challenges. To advance scholarship in the field of entrepreneurship, several seminal theories have been applied to gain more insight into entrepreneurship actions and how these actions can be enhanced and sustained.

Literature on entrepreneurship has shown that intentions have been regarded as one of the predictors of one’s action to become an entrepreneur (Bird, 1988; Krueger et al., 2000). In trying to appreciate the determinants of an individual's EIs, several theoretical approaches have been applied by scholars (Mustafa et al., 2016). These are validated theories that explain the development of entrepreneurship intentions among students.

EI models have been included in this study because they explain how entrepreneurial intentions influence the creation of new ventures. The primary theories are the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Theory of Planned Behaviour Entrepreneurial Model (TPBEM), Entrepreneurial Events Model (EEM), and Entrepreneurial Intention Model (EIM) (Ajzen, 1991, 2011; Krueger and Casrud, 1993; Shapero and Sokol, 1982; Krueger et al., 2000; Boyd and Vozikis, 1994). Recent studies on EIs have described these theories as dominant models of EIs (Tran and Von Korflesch, 2016).

The TPB, when applied to entrepreneurs, helps understand the effects and antecedents of entrepreneurial intent (Valliere, 2015). TPB is founded on the principle that a person’s behaviour is a planned activity and is influenced by the intentions towards that behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). TPB predicts the interactions of activities from a personal belief concerning the environment to attitudes towards the desired future state, intention to act and the behaviour being exhibited (Valliere et al., 2014). Heuer and Kolvereid (2013) concluded that entrepreneurship behaviour is caused by entrepreneurial intentions which are also affected by three antecedents, namely: attitude (A) the degree to which an individual has a negative or positive assessment of the behaviour being considered (Alok et al., 2017); subjective norms (SN) the second predictor of intentions or the perceived social pressure to act in a certain way (Elali and Al-Yacoub, 2016).  and perceived behavioural control (PBC) personal conviction on whether entrepreneurial activities can be achieved with or without greater effort (Elali and Al-Yacoub, 2016).

Although TPB has received criticism about limited validity, it is still regarded as a validated model to use in research on the formation of entrepreneurial intent (Y?ld?r?m et al., 2016). Furthermore, it is regarded as the best primary theories-driven model that explains the formation of entrepreneurial intentions, especially in students (Al et al., 2017). A refined framework is used to understand and predict EIs of people without focusing on personal, demographic, environmental and social factors as antecedents of entrepreneurial behaviour (Krueger et al., 2000; Ozaralli and Rivenburgh, 2016).

TPB is regarded as an appropriate framework for predicting human behaviour as it enables one to understand and explain the formation of entrepreneurial intentions (Henley et al., 2017). Farhah et al. (2017) suggested that TPB is suitable for studies that focus on analysing human action as is the case for this study.

Therefore, TPB remains the choice for this study, and it was employed to facilitate the comprehension of the mediating effects of EO on the interaction between the entrepreneurial environment and EIs of Zambian students.

Entrepreneurial intentions

EI is one’s interest in undertaking entrepreneurship as a career with the plan of establishing an enterprise in the future (Alok et al., 2017). In the recent past, studies focusing on the concepts of EI and its antecedents have gained popularity among scholars for their ability to predict entrepreneurial behaviour and demonstrate how EIs are formed (Fayolle and Gailly, 2015). According to Do and Dadvari (2017:2), EI is defined as an "attentive state of mind that directs personal attention and experience towards planned entrepreneurial behaviour". An intention is a signal that an individual is prepared and willing to do something with the requisite effort to exhibit a certain behaviour (Islamic, 2018). Accordingly, the intention is one's willingness to perform a task and engage in certain behaviour. It serves as the drive for an individual to perform a certain action. On the other hand, EI is also described as how far an individual is willing to engage in something and the level of energy required to exhibit the desired behaviour (Mwiya et al., 2018). EI is about one’s attitude towards engaging in entrepreneurial activities (Kuehn, 2008).

EO and EI

According to Jalali (2012), studies on   EO  have  focused on two levels of analysis: first, an organisational level and second, at an individual level. The analysis at the individual level is because an organisation, whether a private or public entity, is regarded as an outcome of individual actions (Bolton, 2012). A person can conceptualise a business idea that can be actualised and transformed into a bigger corporation. A meta-analysis study conducted by Jalali (2012:12) defined EO at an organisational level as "the strategy-making process that provides an organisation with a basis for entrepreneurial decisions and actions"

The three dimensions of this definition coined by Miller (1983) RST, INN and PRO  have been used in the existing body of literature to determine the EO of business organisations (Taatila and Down, 2012). However, in this study only two dimensions namely PRO and INN were employed.

Innovativeness: Is connected to entrepreneurship due to the ability of the construct to predict the formation of EIs (Melati et al., 2018). The conceptualisation of business ideas and their actualisation requires considerable creativity through trials and experiments. In this research, INN is defined as the student’s ability to generate new business ideas or improve on existing ones and create new business ventures. INN, as an attribute, enables entrepreneurs to identify problems, develop solutions and create new products and services (Melati et al., 2018). It is a powerful predictor of students’ EIs and enables them to persist in entrepreneurial behaviour. Syed et al. (2020) found INN to be a director predictor of students’ EIs and subsequent behaviour. Thus, the hypotheses were formulated as follows:

Student’s INN ability as an entrepreneurial competency has a positive effect on the formation EIs

Proactivity: Defined as “a dispositional construct that identifies differences among people in the extent to which they take action to influence their environment (Bateman and Crant, 1993:103). In this study, PRO is defined as a student’s ability to seek business opportunities or have the foresight and create new ventures ahead of the competition. Several previous studies have associated students’ PRO behaviour with EIs (Prabhu et al., 2012; Mahon and Chee, 2016; Mustafa, 2016; Israr and Hashim, 2017; Kumar and Shukla, 2019; Munir, Jianfeng and Ramzan, 2019), and have demonstrated that the propensity to act influences students’ EI which results in new venture creation. This supports the inclusion of proactivity in this study. With this background, the hypotheses:

Student’s PRO ability as an entrepreneurial competency has a positive effect on the formation of EIs

EE and EIs

Since the introduction of the time entrepreneurship courses in 1947 at Harvard Business School, EE has received much attention in most parts of the world (Nabi et al., 2017). A study conducted by Westhead and Solesvik (2016) emphasises the importance of EE in enhancing students’ enterprise knowledge and skills required to collect and analyse information necessary for new business venture creation. The recognition is reflected in the adoption of EE by several universities worldwide to promote and stimulate entrepreneurial activities and behaviour.

However, studies on the association between EE and EIs have revealed mixed results suggesting positive and negative findings (Volery et al., 2013; Bae and Patterson, 2014; Rauch and Hulsink, 2015; Karimi et al., 2016).  The inconclusive results are a result of different methodologies employed, the nature and context of the programmes and lack of control groups (Nabi et al., 2017) and also various types and objectives of entrepreneurship education (Fayolle and Gailly, 2015). In addition, the duration of the programme also matters, for example, the study Fayolle and Gailly (2015) found a negative link between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship intention in the short term and a positive relationship in the medium term.  While some studies (O’ Connor, 2013; Martin et al., 2013; Jones, 2014: Jones, 2014; Bae et al., 2014) have revealed mixed results on the formation of entrepreneurship intentions.

EE as a contextual factor has a positive effect on the formation of EIs

Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework is displayed in Figure 1.


Sample and data collection

In this study, 380 Mulungushi University final year students registered in 2019 were surveyed as a case in most studies on EIs. (Syam et al., 2018; Munir et al., 2018; Gunawardena et al., 2018; Al et al., 2017; Y?ld?r?m et al., 2016; Westhead, 2016; Fayolle and Gailly, 2015; Ahmad et al., 2019: Nabi et al., 2010; Liñán and Chen, 2009). Simple random sampling was used (Saunders et al., 2009; Babbie, 2007).

A total of 372 questionnaires were completed and returned representing a 97.8% response rate. In line with Hair et al. (2010), the questionnaire responses were screened for missing data and outliers before the validation process. A 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 representing strongly disagree to 5 representing strongly agree was employed to measure the independent variables and the dependent variables.

The primary data collected measured the research model consisting of three antecedents of EIs and was tested using the SEM. Factor analysis was performed to reduce the data to smaller and manageable latent variables and perform a multivariate statistical test (Pallant, 2010). The following tests were conducted as suggested by Field (2009); adequate sample size, KMO criterion and Correlation tests as shown in Table 2.


Of the 372 respondents, 84% were aged between 18 and 25 years, 13% were aged 26 to 35 years and about 3% were aged between 36 to 45 years. The study revealed that most of the respondents met the higher education age entry requirement. 49% of the respondents were male and 51% female. Table 1 presents the key demographic characteristics of the sample. This is an indication that the students are mature enough and ready to venture into entrepreneurial activities, especially female students. The results in Table 1 suggest that fewer students are self-employed despite EE being offered to them with many of them studying business-related degrees. Therefore, it can be concluded that the impact and influence of EE on the formation of EIs among students at MU has been low.

Exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory factors analysis was conducted to determine discriminant validity and composite reliability. To conduct exploratory factors analysis, 16 items were used to measure the constructs of the hypothesised research model (Figure 1).

The study adopted a required minimum factor loading of 0.5 for this study (Hair et al., 2010).  According to Comery and Lee (1992) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), an application of a tight cut-off ranges from 0.32 (poor), 0.45 (fair), 0.55 (good), 0.63 (very good) or 0.7 (excellent) where the frequency distribution of items is not similar is recommended.

The results in Table 2 confirmed the unidimensionality (all items loaded into one factor only) of the INN, PRO EE and EI constructs. In the case of EI two factors were identified and were labelled as immediate entrepreneurial intentions (EI_1) and future intentions (EI_2). Discriminant validity was achieved by using the Heterotrait-Monotrait criteria.

Henseler et al. (2015) suggested discriminant validity thresholds of 0.850 (strict) and 0.999 (liberal). In this research, the analysis revealed that all the constructs showed discriminant validity as none was above the threshold of 0.85 according to Table 3. Concerning composite reliability, three of the research constructs were above 0.5 which is considered satisfactory. Malhotra and Dash (2011) proposed that when AVE is too strict, reliability can be determined through CR alone (Table 3).

Means standard deviation and Pearson Correlation Analysis

From Table 4, on the independent variables students rated themselves highest in entrepreneurship education (Mean = 18.322;   SD = 3.907)   followed   by    proactivity (mean=11.975; SD=2.105) and innovativeness (mean=11.724; SD=2.309). About the dependent variables, the immediate entrepreneurial intentions were higher with a mean score of 10.814 (SD=2.702) and future entrepreneurial intentions with a mean score of 8.024 (SD=1.919).

Additionally, Pearson correlations were conducted to establish   the   direction   of   associations   between  the research variables (Pallant, 2010). The analysis reported a strongest significant interaction between innovativeness and proactivity (r = 0.303; sig.= < 0.05) followed by the association between entrepreneurial education and future entrepreneurial intentions (r = 0.258; sig. = < 0.05), immediate entrepreneurial intentions and future intentions (r =0.211; sig. = < 0.05), entrepreneurship education and immediate  entrepreneurial  intention   (r  = 0.210; sig. = <0.05) and the least was between proactivity and immediate entrepreneurial intentions (r=0.179; sig. =<0.05).

Since all the r-values in Table 4 were 0.70, the highest being 0.303 was an indication that multicollinearity issues were not observed.

Model fit

CFA was conducted to assess the model fit using the chi-square and normal X^2/df value together with other model fit indices such as Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and the Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The study used the cut-off value for the goodness of fit of indices recommended by Hu and Bentler’s (1999) and Hair et al (2010). As a standard practice, the acceptable model fit is denoted  by a value greater than 0.9 for the CFI and TLI and a value less than 0.08 for the RMSEA. However, to show that there is a relatively good fit between the hypothesized model and observed data, the cut-off value of close to 0.95 for the CFI and TLI and 0.06 for the RMSEA are accepted (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Hair et al., 2010).

The initial model did not indicate a perfect fit of the data CMIN (X²) =66.455; CMIN /df = 2.486; RMSEA= 0.148; TLI= 0.053; CFI=0.865. Modifications were made using a conservative strategy and the revised model reported a superior fit of the data CMIN (X²) =66.455; CMIN /df = 1.595; RMSEA= 0.000; TLI= 1.000; CFI=1.000.

Structural model output

The SEM output presented in Table 5 reported a positivity  relationship  between proactivity and immediate entrepreneurial intentions (Coef. =0.243; P = 0.000). Additionally, entrepreneurship education was observed to have a significant interaction with immediate entrepreneurship intention (Coef. =0.145; P = 0.000) while innovativeness was not statistically significant (Coef. = -0.406; P=0.510).

On the relationship between the independent variables and the future entrepreneurial intentions, the results reported statistically significant interactions between entrepreneurship  education   and  future  entrepreneurial intentions (Coef. =0.126; P=0.000). The effects of innovativeness and proactivity on future entrepreneurial intentions were not statistically significant (Coef. =0.028; P=0.511) and (Coef. =0.059; P=0.220) respectively.


This study employed the combined environmental and personality    factors     to     explain    the    formation    of entrepreneurial intentions of final year students in the Zambian context. The findings reported that final years students in Zambia had a high interest in becoming entrepreneurs.  The willingness to become entrepreneurs among students was higher than in previous studies with a means score of 10.814 for immediate entrepreneurial intentions and 8.024 for future entrepreneurial intentions. For instance, the study conducted by Keo (2016) reported a mean score of 4.088, Koe and Zaher (2013) with 3.99 and Sandhu et al. (2011) with >3.70. The higher interest in becoming entrepreneurs can be attributed to the entrepreneurship-related courses of students who have received their perception of the university environment has a significant impact on their ability and willingness to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Additionally, the business talks organized by the university for students and the Zambian government's efforts to promote entrepreneurship among youths have also impacted positively on them.

The SEM output also reported a positive relationship between proactivity and immediate entrepreneurial intentions. The findings are consistent with prior studies (Crant, 1996; Becherer and Maurer, 1999; Gupta and Bhawe, 2007; Yan, 2010; Prabhu et al., 2012; Mahon and Chee, 2016; Mustafa, 2016; Israr and Hashim, 2017; Kumar and Shukla, 2019; Munir et al., 2019) which reported a positive direct interaction with Entrepreneurial intentions. Proactivity is an important personality factor which helps students to develop the ability to plan, and do things themselves than waiting for others to set the pace and they always anticipate future problems. Students with these abilities tend to have a positive inclination towards entrepreneurial behaviours. With the future entrepreneurial intentions, the relationship was not statistically significant. Graduating students are always in a hurry to engage in entrepreneurial activities as a way of keeping themselves busy and surviving, therefore their proactiveness enables them to identify business opportunities and exploit them immediately.

Entrepreneurship education was also found to be a significant factor influencing the formation of entrepreneurial intentions (Both immediate and future intentions). The provision of well-organized entrepreneurship education as indicated by Koe (2016), where entrepreneurship education is well-designed stimulates the formation of entrepreneurial intention among students. Entrepreneurship education is intended to stimulate entrepreneurial behaviour and thinking nature, entrepreneurial ideas and assist in the creation of a venture (Keat et al., 2011).

However, innovativeness did not yield any statistical significance on both immediate and future entrepreneurial intentions. Therefore, there is no direct interaction between students’ innovativeness and the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. The findings are inconsistent with findings in the past and recent research (Carland and Carland, 1991; Goldsmith and Kirr, 1991;  Mirjana  et al., 2018; Wathanakom et al., 2020) which reported a positive interaction between innovativeness and entrepreneurial intentions. Innovativeness is about students developing novel ideas, products, systems and processes (Koe, 2016). The students cannot try their unique way when learning new things and they do things like everyone else. Apart from classroom instructions and the university environment, students need to be exposed to several local and international events for them to exhibit their innovations and learn from others. Doing so could help to stimulate the formation of entrepreneurial intentions among them. Furthermore, they should be given opportunities to experiment with new ideas and original approaches to problem-solving than employing standard methods.


This study aimed to establish the factors influencing the formation of entrepreneurial intentions of students in Zambia. The results established the time-specific entrepreneurial intentions such as immediate entrepreneurial intention (with 12 months after completing school) and future intentions (5 ≤ years < 10 after completing school). Additionally, students reported higher intensity of intentions to become entrepreneurs and engage in entrepreneurial activities. Furthermore, the study established that proactivity positively affected immediate entrepreneurial intention only while entrepreneurship education affected both immediate and future intentions.  Innovativeness did not affect both immediate and future entrepreneurial intentions.

The findings above present both theoretical and practical implications. From the theoretical perspective, the study has established the importance of environmental factors in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. It confirms the position that personality and contextual factors can be combined in one study and measured at a personal level. The practical implication is that the study has established the university student’s personality factors and entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship education can enhance students learning experiences if educators can make it stimulating, practical and interactive. Learners should be allowed to experiment with real-life situations and listen to business talks presented by successful entrepreneurs. Educators should endeavour to provide students with theories and practices to increase their commercial awareness and new venture creation stills. This could also help to enhance entrepreneurial competencies such as innovativeness and proactivity.

A well-designed entrepreneurship education programme promotes individual achievements and presents opportunities for teamwork and strengthens learners' soft skills   which   are   important  to  business  and  society's wellbeing. Therefore, EE providers have a critical role to play in enhancing students' university learning experience. There is also a need in line with this study's results, to strengthen entrepreneurship education policy in Zambia to stimulate the number of start-ups through well-designed and packaged programme initiatives. This calls for an urgent need for the creation of a business environment that supports the development of entrepreneurial intentions, especially among the students.

This study has several limitations. Future research should pick a sample including graduates (those who graduate < 5 years). Furthermore, the research should expand the entrepreneurial orientation model to include more than three variables.

Lastly, the revealed importance of preactivity and entrepreneurial education in the development of students entrepreneurial intentions has made significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge and at the same time provided valuable information to policy makers and educators on how entrepreneurial intentions among students could be enhanced.


The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.


Ács ZJ, Szerb L (2010). Global entrepreneurship and the United States. DTIC document.



Ahmad NH, Ramayah T, Mahmud I, Musa M, Anika JJ (2019). Entrepreneurship as a career option: modelling tourism's student's entrepreneurial intentions. Education + Training 61(9):1151-1169.


Alok, S, Kocherlakota N, Beernelly S (2017). Gender and entrepreneurial intentions: A study among BITS-Pilani students pp. 7-24.


Ajzen I (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational behaviour and decision making process 50(1):179-211.


Ajzen I (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology and Health 26(9):1113-1127.


Bae TJ, Qian S, Miao C (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship educations and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analysis view. Entrepreneurship theory and Practice 38(2):217-254.


Bateman TS, Crant JM (1993). The proactive component of organizational behaviour: a measure and correlates, Journal of Organizational Behaviour 14(2):103-118.


Bea SO, Petterson L (2014). Comparisons and implications of human capital theory at the individual, organisation and country levels. Journal of Organisational Culture, Communication and Conflict 18(1):11-29.


Babbie E (2007). The practise of social research. Thomson Learning Academic Center. The USA.


Becherer RC, Maurer JG (1999). The proactive personality disposition and entrepreneurial behaviour among small company presidents. Journal of Small Business Management 37(1):28.


Bird B (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intentions. The Academy of Management review 13(3):442-453.


Bolton DL (2012). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: further investigation of a measurement instrument, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 18(1):91-98.


Boyd NG, Vozikis GS (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(4):63-77.


Carland JC, Carland JW (1991). An empirical investigation into the distinctions between male and female entrepreneurs and managers. International Small Business Journal 9(3):62-72.


Chiang C, Yan H (2011). Entrepreneurship, competitive advantages, and the growth of the firm: The case of Taiwan's Radio Control Model Corporation-Thunder Tiger Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 24(4):513-530.


Cie?lik J, Van Stel A (2017). Explaining university students' career path intentions from their current entrepreneurial exposure. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 2(24):313-332.


Comery AL, Lee HB (1992). The first course in factor analysis, 2nd ed. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.


Crant JM (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management 29(3):62-74.


Do BR, Dadvari A (2017). The influence of the dark triad on the relationship between entrepreneurial attitude orientation and entrepreneurial intention: A study among students in Taiwan University. Asia Pacific Management Review. Elsevier Ltd. 22(4):185-191.


Ebewo PE (2017). Entrepreneurial environment and the development of entrepreneurial intentions among arts students: A South African perspective. African Journal of Business and Management 11(9):175-182.


Elali W, Al-Yacoub B (2016). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions among Kuwaitis. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 12(1):18-34.


Farhah S, Mamun AA, Binti F, Binti N, Nawi C, Nazri M, Zakaria B (2017). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention among Malaysian. Journal of Developing Areas 51(2015):288299.


Ferreira, J, Fernandes, IC, Ratten, V (2016). The influence of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention. In: Peris-Ortiz, M, Gomez, J, Merijo,-Lindah, J, Rueda-Amengot, C (eds). Entrepreneurial universities. Innovation, technology, management, Springer, Chan.


Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. American Psychological Association 82(2):261-277.


Fayolle A, Gailly B (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management 53(1):75-93.


Gartner WB (2001). Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in the theory of development. Entrepreneurship theory and practice 25(3):27-37.


Ge C, Li X (2015). Management and engineering. The strategies analysis on entrepreneurship education in Colleges and Universities 21(1):36-40.


Gelaidan HM, Abdullateef AO (2017). Entrepreneurial intentions of business students Malaysia: The role of self-confidence, educational and relation support. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 24(1):54-67.


Goldsmith RE, Kerr JR (1991). Entrepreneurship and adaption-innovation theory. Technovation 11(6):373-382.


Gunawardena L, Hemachandra D, Kodithuwakku SS (2018). Career intention of undergraduate students: An application of theory of planned behaviour. IUP Journal of Entrepreneurship Development 15(1).


Gupta VK, Bhawe NM (2007). The influence of proactive personality and stereotype threat on women's entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 13(4):73-85.


Hair J, Black B, Babin B, Anderson R (2010). Multivariate data analysis.7th ed. Upper saddle river. NJ, USA. Pearson Pretence Hall.


Henley A, Contreras F, Espinosa JC (2017). Entrepreneurial intentions of Colombian business students Planned behaviour, leadership skills and social capital. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research 23(6):1017-1032.


Henseler,J, Ringle, C M, Sarstedt, M (2015). A new criterion of assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 43(1):115-135.


Heuer A, Kolvereid L (2013). Education in entrepreneurship and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. European Journal of Training and Development 38(6):506-523.


Ireland R, Covin J, Hornsby J (2005). A model of middle-level manager's entrepreneurial behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29(6): 699-717.


Islamic S (2018). Effect of entrepreneurship education, self-efficacy and need for Achievement toward students' entrepreneurship intention: Casestudy in febiiain Surakarta, Indonesia. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 21(2):1-17.


Israr A, Hashim N (2017). Impact of personality on entrepreneurial intentions: A proposed framework. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 5(3):67-73.


Jalali H (2012). Environmental determinants, entrepreneurial orientation and export performance: Empirical evidence from Iran. Serbian Journal of Management 7(2):245-255.


Karimi S, Biemans JA, Lans T, Chizari M, Mulder M (2016). The Impact of entrepreneurship education: A study of Iranian students' entrepreneurial intentions and opportunity identification. Journal of Small Business Management 54(1):187-209.


Keat OY, Selvarajah C, Meyer D (2011). Inclination towards entrepreneurship among university students: An empirical study of Malaysian university students. International Journal of Business and Social Science 2(4):206-220.


Koe WL (2016). The relationship between individual entrepreneurial orientation (IEO) and entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research 6(1):1-11.


Koe WL, Zaher NFA (2013). Influence of cultural dimensions on entrepreneurial inclination. Penang: The 10th Asian Academy of Management International Conference.


Krueger N, Reilly M, Carsrud A (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of business venturing 15(5/6):411-432.


Krueger NF Jr, Casrud A (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Francis and Taylor 5(4):315-330.


Kumar R, Shukla S (2019). Creativity, proactivity, personality and entrepreneurial intentions; Examining the mediation role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Global Business Review 23(1):101-118.


Liñán F, Chen Y (2009). 'Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(3):593-617.


Matlay H (2014). International reflection on entrepreneurship education. Education and Training 56(8/9):221.


Mirjana PB, Ana A, Marjana MS (2018). Examining determinants of entrepreneurial intentions in Slovenia: applying the theory of planned behaviour and an innovative cognitive style. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 31(1):453-1471.


Mustafa MJ, Hernandez E, Mahon C, Chee LK (2016). Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in an emerging economy: The influence of university support and proactive personality on students' entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 8(2):162-179.


Martin BC, McNally JJ, Kay MJ (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing 28(2013):211-224.


Marques CSE, Santos G, Galvao A, Mascarenha C, Justino E (2018). Entrepreneurship education, gender and family background as antecedents on the entrepreneurial orientation of university students. International Journal of Innovation Science 10(1):58-70.


Martens CDP, Lacerda FM, Belfert CA, Rodriques de freitas HM (2016). Research on entrepreneurial orientation: current status and future agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 22(4):556-583.


Miller D (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science 29(7):770-791.


Munir H, Jianfeng C, Miao W, Ramzan S (2019). Human capital and theory of planned behaviour: Unraveling entrepreneurial intentions of IT students in Pakistan. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation 6(2):23-46.


Mwiya B, Wang Y, Kaulungombe B, Kayekesi M (2018). Exploring entrepreneurial intention's mediating role in the relationship between self-efficacy and nascent behaviour?: Evidence from Zambia. Africa Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development Article information 26(4):466-485.


Nabi G, Linan F, Fayolle A, Krueger N, Walmsley A (2017). The Impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education?: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda 16(2):277-299.


Nabi G, Holden R, Walmsley A (2010). From student to entrepreneur: Towards a model of graduate entrepreneurial career-making. Journal of Education and Work 23(5):389-415.


Nuwagaba A (2015). Mircro financing of small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in Zambia. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 4(4):48-56.


O'Connor A (2013). A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. Journal of Business Venturing 28(4):546-563.


Ozaralli N, Rivenburgh NK (2016). Entrepreneurial intention: antecedents to entrepreneurial behaviour in the USA. and Turkey. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research 6(1):1-32.


Prabhu VP, McGuire SJ, Drost EA, Kwong KK (2012). Proactive personality and entrepreneurial intent: Is entrepreneurial self?efficacy a mediator or moderator? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research 18(5):559-586.


Rauch A, Hulsink W (2015). Putting entrepreneurship were the intentions to act lies: An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship behaviour. Academy of management learning and education 14 (2):187-204.


Renata M, Barral M, Ribeiro FG, Canever MD (2018). Influence of the university environment in the entrepreneurial intention in public and private universities. RAUSP Management Journal 53:122-133.


Raposo M, Do Paço A (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Relationship between educations and entrepreneurial activity. Piscothema 23(3):453-457.


Salati Marcondes de Moraes GH, Sadao IE, Pedro M (2018). Effects ofentrepreneurial characteristics and University environment on entrepreneurial intention. RAC-Revista de Administração Contemporânea 22(2):226-248.


Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2009). Research methods for business students. 6th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.


Shane S, Venkateraman S (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of management journal 25(3):217-226.


Syam A, Akib H, Yunus M, Hasbiah S (2018). Determinants of entrepreneurship motivation for students at an educational institution and education personnel in Indonesia. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 21(2):1-12


Syed I, Butler JC, Smith RM, Cao X (2020). From entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial intentions: The role of entrepreneurial passion, innovativeness, and curiosity in driving entrepreneurial intentions. Personality and Individual Differences 157(6):0191-8869.


Taatila V, Down S (2012). Measuring entrepreneurial orientation of university students. Education and Training 54(8):744-760.


Tabachnick B, Fidell L (2007). Using multivariate statistics. New York. Allyn and Bacon.


Tran ATP, Von Korflesch H (2016). A conceptual model of social entrepreneurial intention based on the social cognitive career theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 10(1):17-38.


Valliere D (2015). An effectuation measure of entrepreneurial intent. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences 169(2):131-142.


Valliere D, Gedeon AS, Wise S (2014). A comprehensive framework for entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 26(1):89-120.


Volery T, Muller S, Oser F, Naepflin C, Rey N (2013). The impact ofentrepreneurship education on human capital at the upper-secondary level. Journal of Small Business Management 51(3):429-446.


Wathanakom N, Khlaisang J, Songkram N (2020). The study of the causal relationship between innovativeness and entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 9(1):1-13.


Westhead P, Solesvik MZ (2016). Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: Do female students benefit? International Small Business Journal 34(8):979-1003.


Yan J (2010). The impact of entrepreneurial personality traits on the perception of new venture opportunity. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship 13(2):21. 


Y?ld?r?m N, Çak?r Ö, A?kun OB (2016). Ready to Dare? A Case Study of the Entrepreneurial Intentions of Business and Engineering Students in Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences 229:277-288.