Environmental Support, Entrepreneurial Mindset and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: A Mediation and Moderation Model of Entrepreneurial Intention among Final-Year Associate Degree Management Students in Yogyakarta

Abstract

Indonesia continues to face relatively high unemployment among higher-education graduates, indicating persistent challenges in graduate employability and career readiness. Although entrepreneurship is increasingly promoted as an alternative career pathway, entrepreneurial intention among students remains relatively limited. This study investigates how environmental support in entrepreneurship education settings contributes to entrepreneurial intention through entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy while examining the moderating role of gender. Using a census sampling approach, data were collected from 166 final-year associate degree management students who had completed an entrepreneurship practicum course in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The sample represented 94.3% of the target population and exceeded the minimum sample size indicated by statistical power analysis. Data were analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), with gender moderation assessed through interaction terms rather than measurement-invariance-based multi-group analysis. The findings indicate that environmental support positively influences entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurial mindset enhances entrepreneurial self-efficacy but does not directly predict entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy serves as a key mechanism through which environmental support and entrepreneurial mindset contribute to entrepreneurial intention, and the serial mediation pathway is supported. Gender significantly moderates the relationships between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intention, and between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention, whereas the interaction between environmental support and entrepreneurial intention is not significant. These findings highlight the importance of strengthening university entrepreneurship education support environments while simultaneously developing students’ entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy to foster entrepreneurial intention.

Keywords: entrepreneurial intention; entrepreneurial mindset; entrepreneurial self-efficacy; environmental support; gender.

Introduction

Recent labour statistics indicate that unemployment among higher-education graduates in Indonesia remains relatively high and has not declined consistently over time. Data from Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS, 2026) show that open unemployment

among associate degree holders is around 4.31% and among university graduates about 5.39%, signalling a persistent mismatch between graduate competencies and labour market absorption. In this regard, entrepreneurship is widely recognized as a strategic tool for boosting economic resilience, generating new jobs, and fostering innovation, especially amid technological upheaval and structural shifts in the economy (Gries & Naudé, 2010; Van Praag & Versloot, 2007). However, entrepreneurial ambition among Indonesian students remains low despite initiatives to expand and integrate entrepreneurship instruction in K–12 and higher education (Satriadi et al., 2022; Yohana, 2021). Therefore, it is crucial to understand how the Indonesian entrepreneurship-education support environment can translate into significant entrepreneurial intention among college students. Final-year associate degree management students represent a particularly relevant population for examining this issue because they are approaching the transition from higher education to the labour market and are therefore required to make increasingly concrete career decisions. Yogyakarta provides an appropriate context for this investigation as it is one of Indonesia’s major educational centres, hosting numerous universities and entrepreneurship development initiatives. Consequently, this setting provides useful context for understanding how environmental support within the entrepreneurship-education support environment contributes to the development of entrepreneurial intention among university students. Building on this need to nurture entrepreneurial intention among students, existing research has identified both contextual and psychological determinants of entrepreneurial intention (Liñán & Fayolle, 2015; Maheshwari et al., 2023). Contextual influences include entrepreneurship education and exposure to entrepreneurial role models (Abbasianchavari & Moritz, 2021; Nowiński & Haddoud, 2019), family business background (Georgescu & Herman, 2020; Zaman et al., 2020), access to institutional support (Fox et al., 2023; Rusu et al., 2022), and the social attractiveness of entrepreneurial careers (Alshagawi & Ghaleb, 2023; Mykolenko et al., 2022). Psychological factors included attitudes toward entrepreneurship (Lechuga Sancho et al., 2020; Vamvaka et al., 2020), personality traits (Brás et al., 2023; Dwi Lestari et al., 2022), entrepreneurial mindset (Liao et al., 2022; Oulhou & Ibourk, 2023), and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Al-Qadasi et al., 2023; FerreiraNeto et al., 2023). Although contextual and psychological determinants of entrepreneurial intention have been widely investigated, the mechanisms linking these factors remain insufficiently understood (Liñán et al., 2016; Schmutzler et al., 2019). Existing studies have frequently examined environmental support, entrepreneurial mindset, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy as independent predictors of entrepreneurial intention (Georgescu & Herman, 2020; Marques et al., 2012), whereas others have explored mediation or moderation mechanisms separately (Saoula et al., 2023; Sun et al., 2023). However, empirical evidence on how environmental support translates into entrepreneurial intention through a sequential cognitive process involving entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy remains limited. Moreover, studies that simultaneously examine serial mediation and gender as a boundary condition remain scarce, particularly in emerging-economy contexts such as Indonesia. Addressing this gap is important because entrepreneurship education policies increasingly emphasize both environmental support and psychological readiness as foundations for entrepreneurial career development. To address this gap, the present study integrates Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1991, 2001) and Implicit Theory of the Self (Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).

Social Cognitive Theory explains that environmental influences affect behavioural intentions through cognitive mechanisms rather than through direct stimulus–response processes (Bandura, 1991, 2001). Within the entrepreneurial context, environmental support provides informational resources, social encouragement, and institutional opportunities that strengthen individuals’ beliefs about their entrepreneurial capabilities and shape their future behavioural intentions (Newman et al., 2019; Nowiński et al., 2019). Consequently, environmental support is expected to contribute to entrepreneurial intention through cognitive processes, particularly entrepreneurial selfefficacy. Implicit Theory complements this perspective by explaining how individuals’ beliefs regarding the malleability of their abilities influence their responses to challenges and opportunities (Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Individuals with a growth-oriented entrepreneurial mindset are more likely to interpret setbacks as learning opportunities and to view entrepreneurial competencies as developable through effort and experience (Burnette et al., 2020; Morris et al., 2023). Such beliefs are expected to strengthen entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which subsequently increases entrepreneurial intention (Gál & Kerekes, 2025; Pollack et al., 2012). Integrating these two theoretical perspectives, therefore, provides a more comprehensive explanation of how environmental support is translated into entrepreneurial intention through entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Building upon these theoretical arguments, this study proposes that environmental support influences entrepreneurial intention through a sequential process in which entrepreneurial mindset enhances entrepreneurial selfefficacy, which subsequently strengthens entrepreneurial intention. Gender is incorporated in this study as a moderating variable that may influence the strength of the relationships between entrepreneurial cognitions and entrepreneurial intention. Prior research suggests that men and women often differ in their access to resources, perceptions of entrepreneurial opportunities, and confidence in performing entrepreneurial tasks (Rietveld & Patel, 2022; Wu et al., 2019). In many Asian contexts, women frequently face additional social expectations related to caregiving and family responsibilities, which may constrain their entrepreneurial engagement and access to entrepreneurial networks (Datta et al., 2022; Pan & Sun, 2022). Empirical evidence also indicates that women often encounter greater challenges in accessing financial resources, social capital, and external support systems necessary for entrepreneurial activities (Guzman & Kacperczyk, 2019; Li & Sanusi, 2025). Therefore, this study proposes that gender functions as a boundary condition that may influence how environmental support is translated into entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and ultimately entrepreneurial intention. This study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature in three important ways. First, it extends prior research by examining a serial mediation mechanism through which environmental support is associated with entrepreneurial intention via entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial selfefficacy. The empirical findings show that entrepreneurial mindset does not directly predict entrepreneurial intention but contributes indirectly through entrepreneurial self-efficacy, highlighting self-efficacy as a key cognitive mechanism that translates entrepreneurial mindset into intention. The supported serial mediation pathway further demonstrates how environmental support may be linked to entrepreneurial intention sequentially through entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Second, the study examines gender as a boundary condition and finds significant interaction effects in selected entrepreneurial cognition– intention relationships, although these effects should be interpreted within the present sample rather than as conclusive

evidence of structural gender differences. Third, the study provides empirical evidence from final-year associate degree management students in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, who had completed an entrepreneurship practicum course, offering a context-specific perspective on entrepreneurial intention among students exposed to formal entrepreneurship education. Collectively, these findings provide a more integrated explanation of how environmental support and cognitive mechanisms are associated with entrepreneurial intention and highlight the central role of entrepreneurial selfefficacy in this process.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Formally articulated in the late 1980s to elucidate venture initiation, the construct marked the inception of research on entrepreneurial intention (Bird, 1988; Katz & Gartner, 1988). It is now generally acknowledged that intention is a crucial antecedent of behavior, despite growing evidence of a persisting intention-behavior gap (Pietersen & Botha, 2021; Xanthopoulou et al., 2026). However, according to both the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991, 2012) and Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1991, 2001), entrepreneurial intention is the most immediate antecedent of entrepreneurial behaviour because both theories assume that human actions are largely deliberate and intentional. A substantial amount of research has examined the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, much of which has focused on two primary clusters: contextual (environmental) and individual psychological characteristics. Perceived environmental support (Sim et al., 2021; Yi, 2021), exposure to models of entrepreneurship (Al Halbusi et al., 2024; Moreno-Gómez et al., 2020), history of family businesses (Onjewu et al., 2022; Zaman et al., 2020), entrepreneurship education (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2023; Paray & Kumar, 2020), and more general sociocultural and institutional conditions (Amini Sedeh et al., 2020; González-Serrano et al., 2021) are consistent predictors. Perceived behavioral control (Tadi et al., 2024; Vamvaka et al., 2020), entrepreneurial mindset (Oulhou & Ibourk, 2023; Yan et al., 2023), self-efficacy in entrepreneurship (Al-Qadasi et al., 2023; Ferreira-Neto et al., 2023), perspectives on entrepreneurship (Lechuga Sancho et al., 2020; Vamvaka et al., 2020), as well as individual risk propensity (Brás et al., 2023; Ilevbare et al., 2022) are some of the psychological determinants. Direct-effect models have given way to research examining how environmental and psychological factors interact. Evidence indicates that environmental conditions moderate the influence of psychological traits on entrepreneurship, suggesting that internal beliefs and attitudes operate within contextual dependence (Amini Sedeh et al., 2020; González-Serrano et al., 2021). Other reports claim that psychological characteristics reduce the influence of environmental conditions on intention, suggesting that certain individuals are more affected than others by constraints or external support (Anwar et al., 2022; Y. Liu et al., 2022). Additional research has shown mediation mechanisms, demonstrating how psychological factors might impact entrepreneurial intention through environmental support (BarNir et al., 2011; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2023). Alternatively, environmental variables may act as mediators in the relationship between psychological characteristics and intention (Chauhan et al., 2024). Mechanisms: Serial Mediation Model The joint impact of psychological and environmental elements on entrepreneurial inclination is well supported by current research. Higher entrepreneurial inclination has been repeatedly associated with environmental support (Dwi Lestari et al., 2022; Ilevbare et al., 2022), while entrepreneurial mindset (Liao et al., 2022; Oulhou & Ibourk,

2023) and self-efficacy in entrepreneurship (Duong et al., 2020; Ferreira-Neto et al., 2023) stand out as important psychological indicators. Additional research indicates that encouraging an entrepreneurial mindset is another way that environmental support functions indirectly (Cui & Bell, 2022; Sun et al., 2023) and boosts one's self-efficacy (Al-Qadasi et al., 2023; Anwar et al., 2022). Thus, this study contends that contextual support is transformed into entrepreneurial intention through a sequential mechanism that encompasses both characteristics. As mentioned earlier, the researcher utilized Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1991, 2001) and implicit theories (Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) to ground this process. Social Cognitive Theory views humans as agentic beings, implying that external stimuli do not directly translate into action but are cognitively processed to form beliefs about what is desirable and feasible (Bandura, 1991, 2001). Thus, environmental support for entrepreneurship, for example, through role models, courses, and institutional backing, is expected to shape students’ entrepreneurial mindset, understood here as their characteristic way of interpreting uncertainty and opportunity, and their adaptive skills. According to implicit theory research, an optimistic mindset boosts one's self-assurance in one's ability to complete specific tasks (Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), which, in this context, manifests as entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Individuals with this orientation typically view challenges as opportunities for learning, thereby strengthening their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. In addition to the sequential process, prior entrepreneurship research suggests that environmental support may also directly influence entrepreneurial intention. Supportive entrepreneurial environments provide access to information, resources, role models, and institutional encouragement that increase the attractiveness and perceived feasibility of entrepreneurial careers (Nowiński et al., 2019; Saeed et al., 2018). Consequently, students who perceive higher levels of environmental support are more likely to develop stronger entrepreneurial intentions. Furthermore, an entrepreneurial mindset has been identified as an important cognitive precursor of entrepreneurial intention, as individuals with a growth-oriented, opportunity-focused mindset tend to perceive entrepreneurial activities more positively and are more willing to engage in such pursuits (Liao et al., 2022; Oulhou & Ibourk, 2023). At the same time, entrepreneurial self-efficacy serves as a key psychological mechanism by which both environmental support and entrepreneurial mindset translate into entrepreneurial intention (Al-Qadasi et al., 2023; Ferreira-Neto et al., 2023). Therefore, environmental support and entrepreneurial mindset may influence entrepreneurial intention both directly and indirectly through entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Accordingly, we expect that: H1a: Environmental support positively affects entrepreneurial mindset. H1b: Environmental support positively affects entrepreneurial self-efficacy. H1c: Environmental support positively affects entrepreneurial intention. H2a: An entrepreneurial mindset positively affects entrepreneurial self-efficacy. H2b: An entrepreneurial mindset positively affects entrepreneurial intention. H3: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively affects entrepreneurial intention. H4a: Environmental support indirectly affects entrepreneurial intention through entrepreneurial mindset. H4b: Environmental support indirectly affects entrepreneurial intention through entrepreneurial self-efficacy. H4c: Entrepreneurial mindset indirectly affects entrepreneurial

intention through entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework and Hypothesized Relationships H4d: Environmental support indirectly affects entrepreneurial intention through the sequential mediation of entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Gender as A Boundary Condition Unlike contextual and psychological factors, where evidence of their effects on entrepreneurial intention is relatively well documented (Maheshwari et al., 2023; Tetteh et al., 2024), evidence on demographic dimensions, particularly age and gender, tends to vary (Haus et al., 2013; Pérez-Macías et al., 2022). Findings on age and gender effects in entrepreneurial intention remain inconclusive, with some studies reporting significant associations (Cacija et al., 2023; Gomes et al., 2021) and others showing negligible or no effects (Linardi & Costa, 2021; Rodriguez-Gutierrez et al., 2020). Such inconsistencies are frequently attributed to contextual heterogeneity, including cultural, regional, and ethnic disparities that influence how demographic characteristics influence entrepreneurial mindset and choices (Ali et al., 2023; Datta et al., 2022). Despite these mixed results, a substantial body of work suggests that women are generally less well-positioned to take advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities (Rietveld & Patel, 2022; Wu et al., 2019). Empirical reports indicate that women’s dual roles as breadwinners and primary caretakers can constrain the time, energy, and flexibility needed to exploit opportunities and scale up their ventures (Li et al., 2020; Pan & Sun, 2022). Other studies indicate that in cultures where women occupy a second-tier social status, access to financial, social, and informational resources is more challenging for women than for men, particularly in activities such as capital raising and network building (Guzman & Kacperczyk, 2019; Li & Sanusi, 2025). Consequently, although men and women may be exposed to comparable levels of entrepreneurship-education support environment, women often perceive fewer business opportunities and have difficulty translating that support into entrepreneurial cognitive capacity. Accordingly, gender is expected to serve as a boundary condition shaping how environmental support is cognitively internalized and how it indirectly influences entrepreneurial intention. H5a: Gender moderates the relationship between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intention. H5b: Gender moderates the relationship between

entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. H5c: Gender moderates the relationship between environmental support and entrepreneurial intention. Taken together, these hypotheses propose an integrated model in which environmental support influences entrepreneurial intention through entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, while gender serves as a boundary condition affecting the strength of selected relationships within the model. Gender functions as a boundary condition that moderates the extent to which entrepreneurial cognitions are translated into entrepreneurial intention. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed model, including the direct effects among the constructs, the indirect pathways through entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and the moderating effects of gender on the relationships between environmental support, entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention.

Methods

The study was conducted among final-year associate degree students enrolled at Akademi Manajemen Administrasi Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The focus on a single institution was intended to maintain relative homogeneity in contextual conditions, including the institutional environment, local culture, and regional economic setting. Final-year students were selected because they are typically at a stage where career decisions become more concrete and realistic (Liñán & Chen, 2009). The target population consisted of 176 students who had completed the entrepreneurship practicum course. The census frame was intentionally defined because students who had completed entrepreneurship-related learning activities were considered better able to evaluate the environmental support available within the entrepreneurshipeducation support environment. However, this inclusion criterion may have resulted in relatively higher levels of entrepreneurial intention than would be expected among the broader student population. Accordingly, the findings should be interpreted within the context of students who have received formal entrepreneurship training. Data were collected through an online questionnaire administered via Google Forms between December 2025 and January 2026. Of the 176 questionnaires distributed, 166 valid responses were retained for analysis, resulting in coverage of 94.32% of the target

population. Responses exhibiting clear response-pattern bias, such as identical answers across all questionnaire items, were excluded from the final dataset. The final sample consisted of 124 female students (74.7%) and 42 male students (25.3%). The adequacy of the sample size was further assessed using an a priori power analysis in G*Power. Based on a linear multiple regression framework with six predictors for the most complex endogenous construct, assuming a medium effect size (f² = 0.15), a significance level of 0.05, and statistical power of 0.80, the analysis indicated a minimum required sample size of 98 respondents. The final sample of 166 respondents exceeded this minimum requirement and represented 94.32% of the target population, supporting its adequacy for estimating the proposed PLS-SEM model. Prior to data collection, the questionnaire was pilot-tested with 30 respondents to ensure item clarity and consistency. To reduce potential common method bias, respondents were assured of anonymity and confidentiality, and the questionnaire items were arranged to minimize evaluation apprehension and response pattern tendencies. The entrepreneurial mindset construct was adapted from the entrepreneurial cognition framework proposed by Haynie et al. (2010) and further informed by Krueger and Brazeal (1994) and Kickul and Gundry (2002). It comprises four dimensions: risk-taking readiness, the ability to perceive challenges as opportunities, innovative thinking, and proactive opportunity seeking. These indicators reflect an adaptive cognitive orientation that enables individuals to respond effectively to uncertainty and develop an entrepreneurial outlook. The entrepreneurial self-efficacy construct was derived from Bandura's (1997) conceptual framework and operationalized drawing on the measurement approaches of Chen et al. (1998) and McGee et al. (2009). It denotes individuals’ confidence in executing entrepreneurial tasks, including venture creation, problem-solving, and managing marketing and financial functions. These indicators capture students’ perceived capability to perform entrepreneurial activities effectively (Nowiński et al., 2019). The environmental support construct was developed based on prior studies by Saeed et al. (2018), Q. Liu and YaoPing Peng (2025), and Nowiński et al. (2019), which emphasize the role of social and institutional support in fostering entrepreneurial intention. This construct comprises four key dimensions: family support, peer support, university support, and broader societal support. These indicators capture students’ perceptions of the extent to which their environment provides encouragement, knowledge, and resources that facilitate entrepreneurial engagement

(Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2017; Shinnar et al., 2018). Entrepreneurial intention measurement draws on the tools of Liñán and Chen (2009), Krueger et al. (2000), and Thompson (2009), commonly applied in cross-cultural student entrepreneurship research. It reflects readiness and commitment toward future entrepreneurial activity across four dimensions: business initiation intention, planning orientation, determination, and career commitment (Doanh & Bernat, 2019; Hu et al., 2018). Gender was operationalized as a binary variable, coded 0 for female and 1 for male, following prior entrepreneurship studies examining gender differences in entrepreneurial cognition and intention (Datta et al., 2022; Shinnar et al., 2018). This binary operationalization was limited to the gender categories represented in the dataset and does not capture broader gender identities. Gender moderation was examined using interaction terms within the PLS-SEM structural model. Accordingly, the findings are interpreted as interaction-term evidence within the present sample rather than as evidence of measurement invariance or structural differences between gender groups, as MICOM and multi-group analyses were not performed. Data were analysed using SmartPLS version 4.0.9.9 following a two-stage PLS-SEM evaluation procedure. First, the measurement model was assessed by examining convergent validity (outer loadings ≥ 0.70 and AVE ≥ 0.50), discriminant validity (HTMT < 0.90), and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability ≥ 0.70) (Henseler & Sarstedt, 2013). Second, the structural model was evaluated to test the hypothesised direct, indirect, and moderating relationships using a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 resamples (Hair et al., 2021). Gender moderation was examined through three interaction terms: Gender × Entrepreneurial Mindset → Entrepreneurial Intention, Gender × Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy → Entrepreneurial Intention, and Gender × Environmental Support → Entrepreneurial Intention. The interaction terms were estimated using the twostage approach implemented in SmartPLS 4 (Becker et al., 2018). Model explanatory power and predictive relevance were evaluated using R², Q², and f² statistics (Hair et al., 2019).

Result and Discussion

The measurement model was assessed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the study constructs. The measurement model demonstrated satisfactory reliability and convergent validity. As shown in Table 1, all indicator loadings exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70, ranging from

Table 1. Outer Model, Reliability, and Convergent Validity Tests Variable Environmental Support

Entrepreneurial Self- efficacy

Entrepreneurial Mindset

Item ES1 ES2 ES3 ES4 SE1 SE2 SE3 SE4 EM1 EM2 EM3 EM4

Entrepreneurial Intention

EI1 EI2 EI3 EI4

Statement Family Support Peer Support University Support Support from the social environment Confidence in starting a business Overcoming obstacles Managing marketing activities Managing financial activities Willingness to face risk Seeing problems as opportunities Creativity in thinking Being proactive in seeking opportunities Intention to start a business Business planning Commitment Entrepreneurial career orientation

Loading Factor 0.901 0.895 0.921 0.907 0.887 0.945 0.905 0.900 0.803 0.738 0.879 0.802

CA 0.927

CR 0.948

AVE 0.821

0.930

0.950

0.827

0.821

0.882

0.652

0.906 0.916 0.953 0.896

0.938

0.955

0.843

0.748 to 0.953 (Hair et al., 2019). Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.821 to 0.938, while composite reliability values ranged from 0.882 to 0.955, exceeding the minimum criterion of 0.70 (Henseler & Sarstedt, 2013). All AVE estimates are above 0.50, confirming the robustness of convergent validity. Entrepreneurial intention had the highest average value (0.843), while entrepreneurial mindset had the lowest (0.652); although these values differ, both are still higher than the minimum standard set by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Overall, the results demonstrate adequate reliability and validity for all constructs, supporting the continuation of the structural model assessment in the present study. Discriminant validity was assessed using both the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT). As presented in Table 2, the square root of the AVE for each construct exceeded its correlations with other constructs, satisfying the Fornell–Larcker criterion. Furthermore, all HTMT values were below the recommended threshold of 0.90, ranging from 0.071 to 0.869. These findings indicate that each construct is empirically distinct and that discriminant validity is adequately established (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Henseler et al., 2015). These findings confirm adequate discriminant validity among all constructs. The measuring model is sufficiently robust for further structural model evaluation, as evidenced by the results' overall good convergent and discriminant validity across all constructs. Table 3 presents the model fit assessment. The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) value for the estimated model was 0.098, which is marginally below the recommended threshold of 0.10 and therefore suggests an

acceptable, although borderline, level of model fit. The Normed Fit Index (NFI) also exceeded the recommended criterion of 0.80. However, consistent with PLS-SEM recommendations, these fit indices are treated only as supplementary diagnostic information and are not used as the primary basis for evaluating the structural model. The overall assessment of the model is therefore considered alongside measurement model validity and reliability, structural path estimates, explanatory and predictive relevance, and collinearity diagnostics. Table 4 reports the explanatory power and predictive relevance of the structural model. Entrepreneurial mindset had an R² of 0.517 (adjusted R² = 0.514), entrepreneurial selfefficacy had an R² of 0.690 (adjusted R² = 0.686), and entrepreneurial intention had an R² of 0.749 (adjusted R² = 0.738). Thus, the model explained 51.7%, 69.0%, and 74.9% of the variance in entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention, respectively. The corresponding Stone–Geisser Q² values were 0.327, 0.564, and 0.611, respectively. Because all Q² values were greater than zero, the endogenous constructs demonstrated predictive relevance within the model. The f² effect sizes for the individual structural relationships are reported in Table 5 and interpreted alongside the corresponding path coefficients. Overall, these results indicate meaningful explanatory power for the endogenous constructs and positive predictive relevance, although these measures are interpreted together with the structural path estimates and other model diagnostics rather than as standalone evidence of overall model validity. The overall structural model, including the path coefficients and R² values for each endogenous construct, is illustrated in Figure 2.

Table 2. Discriminant Validity Based on Fornell–Larcker and HTMT Variable Environmental Support Entrepreneurial Selfefficacy Entrepreneurial Mindset Entrepreneurial Intention

Environmental Support 0.906 0.807

Self-efficacy 0.869 0.910

Entrepreneurial Mindset 0.821 0.810

Entrepreneurial Intention 0.822 0.828

0.718 0.769

0.714 0.775

0.807 0.687

0.779 0.918

Note: The bold diagonal values show the square root of AVE (Fornell–Larcker criterion). The values below the diagonal are correlations between constructs, and those above the diagonal are HTMT ratios.

Figure 2. Structural model

Table 5 presents the results of the direct effects hypothesis testing. Environmental support positively affected entrepreneurial mindset (β = 0.719, t = 13.702, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.590, 0.799]), entrepreneurial self-efficacy (β = 0.604, t = 8.192, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.455, 0.739]), and entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.347, t = 4.222, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.189, 0.512]), supporting H1a, H1b, and H1c, respectively. Entrepreneurial mindset positively affected entrepreneurial self-efficacy (β = 0.283, t = 3.454, p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.126, 0.445]), supporting H2a. However, entrepreneurial mindset did not have a significant direct effect on entrepreneurial intention (β = −0.151, t = 1.881, p = 0.060, 95% CI [−0.299, 0.016]); thus, H2b was not supported. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively affected entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.655, t = 6.957, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.468, 0.832]), supporting H3. The f² values indicate that the magnitude of the direct effects varied across relationships, with environmental support exerting the largest effect on entrepreneurial mindset (f² = 1.070), followed by environmental support on entrepreneurial self-efficacy (f² = 0.568) and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention (f² = 0.334). Table 6 presents the results of the mediation analysis. The indirect effect of environmental support on entrepreneurial intention through entrepreneurial mindset was not statistically significant (β = −0.109, t = 1.858, p = 0.063, 95% CI [−0.220, 0.009]), as the confidence interval included zero; therefore, H4a was not supported. In contrast, environmental support had a significant indirect effect on entrepreneurial intention through entrepreneurial self-efficacy (β = 0.396, t = 4.961, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.255, 0.567]), supporting H4b. Entrepreneurial mindset also had a significant indirect effect on entrepreneurial intention through entrepreneurial selfefficacy (β = 0.185, t = 3.210, p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.085, 0.311]), supporting H4c. Furthermore, the serial indirect effect of environmental support on entrepreneurial intention, mediated by entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, was significant (β = 0.133, t = 2.928, p = 0.003, 95% CI [0.059, 0.236]), supporting H4d. These findings indicate that entrepreneurial self-efficacy plays a central mediating role, both independently and sequentially following entrepreneurial mindset, in linking environmental support to entrepreneurial intention. Table 7 presents the results of the moderation analysis. Gender significantly moderated the relationship between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intention (β =

0.765, t = 3.355, p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.264, 1.097]), supporting H5a. Given the gender coding (0 = female; 1 = male), the positive interaction coefficient indicates that the relationship between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intention is stronger among male students than among female students. Gender also significantly moderated the relationship between entrepreneurial selfefficacy and entrepreneurial intention (β = −0.730, t = 3.645, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−1.177, −0.375]), supporting H5b. The negative interaction coefficient indicates that the positive relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention is stronger among female students than among male students. In contrast, the interaction between gender and environmental support was not statistically significant (β = −0.063, t = 0.223, p = 0.824, 95% CI [−0.592, 0.473]); therefore, H5c was not supported. The corresponding f² values indicate a moderate interaction effect for Gender × Entrepreneurial Mindset (f² = 0.232), a small-tomoderate effect for Gender × Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (f² = 0.148), and a negligible effect for Gender × Environmental Support (f² = 0.001). These interaction effects are interpreted within the present sample and should not be considered conclusive evidence of structural differences between gender groups because measurement invariance testing and multigroup analysis were not conducted. Table 3. Model Goodness of Fit Index

Saturated Model 0.052 0.413 0.339 0.875

SRMR d_ULS d_G NFI

Estimated Model 0.098 1.482 n/a 0.993

Threshold Criterion < 0.10 > 0.80

Conclusion

Fit Fit

Table 4. Stone–Geisser’s Q² and Adjusted R-squared Results Variable Entrepreneurial Mindset Entrepreneurial Selfefficacy Entrepreneurial Intention

R2

Adjusted R2

Q2

0.517

0.514

0.327

0.690

0.686

0.564

0.749

0.738

0.611

Table 5. Results of Direct Effects Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis H1a H1b H1c H2a H2b H3

Path ES → EM ES → SE ES → EI EM → SE EM → EI SE → EI

β 0.719 0.604 0.347 0.283 -0.151 0.655

t-statistic 13.702 8.192 4.222 3.454 1.881 6.957

95% CI (0.590) - (0.799) (0.455) - (0.739) (0.189) - (0.512) (0.126) - (0.445) (-0.299) - (0.016) (0.468) - (0.832)

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.060 0.000

f2 1.070 0.568 0.099 0.125 0.021 0.334

VIF 1.000 2.070 4.848 2.070 4.036 4.121

Result Supported Supported Supported Supported Not supported Supported

Table 6. Results of Mediation Effects Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis H4a H4b H4c H4d

Path ES → EM → EI ES → SE → EI EM → SE → EI ES → EM → SE → EI

β -0.109 0.396 0.185 0.133

t-statistic 1.858 4.961 3.210 2.928

95% CI (-0.220) - (0.009) (0.255) - (0.567) (0.085) - (0.311) (0.059) - (0.236)

p-value 0.063 0.000 0.001 0.003

Result Not supported Supported Supported Supported

Table 7. Results of Moderation Effects Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis H5a H5b H5c

Path Gender*EM → EI Gender*SE → EI Gender*ES → EI

β 0.765 -0.730 -0.063

t-statistic 3.355 3.645 0.223

95% CI (0.264) - (1.097) (-1.177) - (-0.375) (-0.592) - (0.473)

p-value 0.001 0.000 0.824

f2 0.232 0.148 0.001

VIF 4.967 5.537 6.060

Result Supported Supported Not supported

Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the significant interaction effects of gender on the relationships between entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial mindset, and entrepreneurial intention. Given the gender coding (0 = female; 1 = male), Figure 3 shows that the positive relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention is stronger among female students, consistent with the negative interaction coefficient (β = −0.730, p < 0.001). In contrast, Figure 4 shows that the relationship between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intention is stronger among male students, consistent with the positive interaction coefficient (β = 0.765, p = 0.001). These interaction plots visually illustrate the direction of the significant moderation effects reported in Table 7. Collinearity diagnostics indicated VIF values ranging from 1.000 to 6.060 across the structural predictors and interaction terms, as reported in Tables 5 and 7. The VIF values for the gender interaction terms were 4.967 for Gender × Entrepreneurial Mindset, 5.537 for Gender × Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and 6.060 for Gender × Environmental Support. Although the latter two values exceeded the commonly recommended threshold of 5.0, the corresponding moderation estimates were interpreted with caution, as elevated VIF values may indicate potential collinearity among predictor constructs (Hair et al., 2021). Gender was operationalized as a binary variable (0 = female; 1 = male), and the moderation effects were estimated through interaction terms within the PLS-SEM structural model. Accordingly, the elevated VIF values associated with the interaction terms were explicitly considered when interpreting the moderation results. The present study produced three principal findings. First, environmental support was positively associated with entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention. Second, entrepreneurial selfefficacy emerged as the key mediating mechanism linking environmental support and entrepreneurial intention, whereas entrepreneurial mindset did not exhibit a significant direct relationship with entrepreneurial intention. Third, gender significantly moderated the relationships between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intention as well as between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. Collectively, these findings provide partial support for integrating Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1991, 2001) and Implicit Theory (Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) to explain entrepreneurial intention among final-year associate degree students enrolled in a management school in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The positive effects of environmental support on entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and

Figure 3. Moderating Effect of Gender on the Relationship between Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intention

entrepreneurial intention are consistent with Social Cognitive Theory, which emphasizes that environmental conditions shape individuals’ cognitive beliefs and behavioural intentions (Bandura, 1991, 2001). Students who perceive stronger support from family, peers, universities, and the broader social environment tend to report stronger entrepreneurial cognitions and entrepreneurial intentions. This finding aligns with previous studies showing that supportive entrepreneurship-education support environments foster entrepreneurial confidence, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial career aspirations (Nowiński et al., 2019; Saeed et al., 2018; Sim et al., 2021; Yi, 2021). The result further reinforces evidence from emerging economies suggesting that entrepreneurship-supportive educational environments play an important role in encouraging students to consider entrepreneurship as a viable career option (Anwar et al., 2022; Liu & Peng, 2025). One of the most noteworthy findings is the absence of a significant direct relationship between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intention. This result contrasts with studies reporting a positive direct effect of entrepreneurial mindset on entrepreneurial intention (Liao et al., 2022; Oulhou & Ibourk, 2023; Yan et al., 2023). However, it is consistent with theoretical arguments suggesting that an entrepreneurial mindset may function primarily as an antecedent of entrepreneurial self-efficacy rather than as a direct predictor of entrepreneurial intention (Burnette et al., 2020; Morris et al., 2023). A growth-oriented mindset encourages individuals to perceive challenges as learning opportunities and entrepreneurial competencies as developable through effort and experience. Nevertheless, such cognitive orientation may not automatically generate entrepreneurial intention unless individuals also possess confidence in their capability to perform entrepreneurial tasks successfully. In this regard, entrepreneurial self-efficacy appears to represent a more proximal determinant of entrepreneurial intention, consistent with Social Cognitive Theory and previous entrepreneurship research (Pollack et al., 2012; Newman et al., 2019). The mediation results further highlight the central role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Environmental support significantly influenced entrepreneurial intention through entrepreneurial self-efficacy, while entrepreneurial mindset also exerted a significant indirect effect through entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Moreover, the serial mediation pathway linking environmental support, entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention was supported. These findings extend previous studies that separately examined the mediating role of entrepreneurial mindset (Sun et al., 2023; Cui & Bell, 2022) or entrepreneurial self-efficacy

Figure 4. Moderating Effect of Gender on the Relationship between Entrepreneurial Mindset and Entrepreneurial Intention

(Al-Qadasi et al., 2023; Ferreira-Neto et al., 2023) by demonstrating that both constructs operate sequentially in translating environmental support into entrepreneurial intention. Unlike previous studies that examined entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy as separate mediators, the present study demonstrates that both constructs operate sequentially within a single explanatory framework. This finding contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by providing empirical support for a cognitive pathway through which contextual resources are transformed into entrepreneurial aspirations. From a Social Cognitive Theory perspective, environmental support may first shape entrepreneurial thinking patterns, which subsequently strengthen self-beliefs regarding entrepreneurial capabilities before influencing entrepreneurial intention. The moderation analysis indicates that gender moderates the relationship between entrepreneurial cognitions and entrepreneurial intention. Because gender was coded as 0 for female and 1 for male, the positive interaction between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intention suggests that this relationship is stronger among male students than among female students. Conversely, the negative interaction between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention suggests that the positive relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention is stronger among female students. However, the non-significant interaction involving environmental support indicates that the direct influence of environmental support on entrepreneurial intention does not differ significantly across gender within the present sample. These findings are broadly consistent with previous studies showing that gender may shape entrepreneurial confidence, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial decision-making (Rietveld & Patel, 2022; Wu et al., 2019). Previous studies have also suggested that women may encounter additional barriers to accessing entrepreneurial resources, networks, and social support, potentially affecting how entrepreneurial cognitions are translated into entrepreneurial intentions (Guzman & Kacperczyk, 2019; Pan & Sun, 2022). Nevertheless, because gender moderation was assessed using interaction terms rather than measurement invariance testing or multi-group analysis, the findings should be interpreted as interaction effects within the present sample, not as conclusive evidence of structural differences between male and female students. Comparison with Previous Studies The positive association between environmental support and entrepreneurial intention is consistent with previous studies demonstrating that supportive entrepreneurship education environments foster entrepreneurial readiness and intention among university students (Barba-Sánchez et al., 2022; Liu & Peng, 2025). Similar findings have been reported in Indonesia, where support from universities, family members, and peer networks contributes to the development of entrepreneurial aspirations and entrepreneurial engagement (Soelaiman et al., 2024). The present study further confirms that environmental support remains an important contextual factor in the development of entrepreneurship among students in emerging-economy settings. The significant role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy is also consistent with a substantial body of research in entrepreneurship. Previous studies have consistently identified entrepreneurial self-efficacy as one of the strongest predictors of entrepreneurial intention, reflecting individuals’ confidence in their ability to successfully perform entrepreneurial activities (Jiatong et al., 2021; Nowiński et al., 2019; Ferreira-Neto et al., 2023). The present findings reinforce this argument by showing that entrepreneurial self-

efficacy not only directly predicts entrepreneurial intention but also serves as the principal mechanism by which environmental support and entrepreneurial mindset influence it. However, the present findings differ from several studies reporting a direct positive relationship between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intention (Liao et al., 2022; Oulhou & Ibourk, 2023; Yan et al., 2023). Instead, the results suggest that an entrepreneurial mindset influences entrepreneurial intention indirectly through entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This finding refines existing knowledge by indicating that possessing a growth-oriented entrepreneurial mindset may not be sufficient to generate entrepreneurial intention unless accompanied by confidence in entrepreneurial capabilities. Consequently, entrepreneurial self-efficacy appears to be a critical mechanism translating entrepreneurial cognition into entrepreneurial intention. Another important contribution concerns the serial mediation mechanism. Previous studies have generally examined entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial selfefficacy separately as mediators of entrepreneurial intention (Sun et al., 2023; Al-Qadasi et al., 2023). By demonstrating a significant sequential pathway from environmental support to entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention, the present study provides evidence that these cognitive mechanisms operate in an interconnected manner rather than independently. This finding contributes to the growing literature emphasizing the joint role of contextual and psychological factors in entrepreneurial career development. The gender moderation findings provide a more nuanced perspective on the association between entrepreneurial cognitions and entrepreneurial intention. Given the gender coding (0 = female; 1 = male), the positive interaction between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intention indicates that this relationship was stronger among male students in the present sample. This finding broadly aligns with previous research suggesting that gender may be associated with variations in entrepreneurial cognition and intention (Datta et al., 2022; Shinnar et al., 2018). However, because prior research has more commonly examined gender differences in entrepreneurial intention and related cognitive factors rather than the gender-contingent effect of entrepreneurial mindset specifically, the present finding should be regarded as contextspecific evidence requiring further empirical confirmation. In contrast, the negative interaction between gender and entrepreneurial self-efficacy indicates that the positive relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention was stronger among female students. This finding is consistent with prior research highlighting the important role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in understanding gender-related variations in entrepreneurial intentions (Wilson et al., 2007) and with more recent evidence indicating that the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention may differ across gender groups (Duong & Vu, 2024). One possible interpretation is that confidence in entrepreneurial capabilities may represent a particularly relevant cognitive resource for female students when forming entrepreneurial intentions. Nevertheless, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence that entrepreneurial mindset is inherently more important for men or that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is inherently more important for women. The observed interaction patterns may reflect the characteristics of the present sample and its educational and sociocultural context. Moreover, because the study employed interaction-term analysis rather than measurement invariance testing and multi-group analysis, and the sample included substantially more female than male students, further research with more diverse samples and appropriate group-comparison procedures is needed to

determine whether these patterns are replicated across different educational, social, and cultural contexts. In practice, these results underscore the urgency of developing a holistic entrepreneurship education strategy at universities. Universities are encouraged to reinforce their entrepreneurship-education support environment not only through formal coursework, incubation programmes, or technical training, but also by intentionally fostering growthoriented entrepreneurial mindsets and strengthening students’ self-efficacy. Given the significant serial mediation pathway identified in this study, entrepreneurship programmes should not only provide environmental support but also intentionally strengthen entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy as complementary developmental targets. Approaches such as project-based learning, structured mentoring, and opportunities for genuine entrepreneurial participation can foster meaningful learning environments in which students can build confidence, improve problem-solving skills, and navigate uncertainty. In addition, higher education institutions should prioritise inclusivity by developing support systems that are sensitive to gender-related barriers. This may include providing targeted mentoring and networking opportunities for female students, as well as offering flexible and family-friendly programme structures. Such efforts may help ensure that environmental support translates into entrepreneurial cognitions and intentions across gender groups. Overall, this study advances theoretical insights into the formation of entrepreneurial intention and provides practical implications for universities seeking to develop innovative, autonomous, and psychologically resilient graduates. Limitations and Cautions Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the cross-sectional design prevents strong causal inference regarding the relationships among environmental support, entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention. Although the proposed model is theoretically grounded, longitudinal evidence is needed to verify the temporal ordering among these constructs. Second, all variables were measured using self-reported questionnaires, which may increase the risk of common method bias despite the procedural remedies implemented during data collection. Third, the sample was drawn from a single business school in Yogyakarta, limiting the generalisability of the findings to other institutional, disciplinary, and cultural contexts. Fourth, gender differences were examined using interaction-term analysis rather than measurement invariance testing and multi-group analysis. Consequently, conclusions regarding gender-based differences should be interpreted with caution. Recommendations for Future Research Future studies should employ longitudinal designs to examine how environmental support, entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention evolve over time. Such designs would provide stronger evidence regarding the temporal relationships proposed by Social Cognitive Theory and Implicit Theory. Future research may also extend the sampling frame to multiple universities, regions, and academic disciplines to enhance the generalisability of the findings. In addition, future studies should consider conducting measurement invariance testing and multi-group analysis to provide a more rigorous assessment of gender-based differences. Researchers may also incorporate additional variables, such as entrepreneurial resilience, digital entrepreneurial competence, entrepreneurial experience, or artificial intelligence literacy, to further enrich understanding of the psychological and contextual factors associated with

entrepreneurial environments.

intention

in

contemporary

educational

Conclusion This study examined the relationships among environmental support, entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention, with gender incorporated as a moderating variable. The findings indicate that environmental support positively influences entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial selfefficacy, and entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurial selfefficacy emerged as the strongest predictor of entrepreneurial intention and served as a key mechanism through which environmental support and entrepreneurial mindset were translated into entrepreneurial intention. While the direct effect of entrepreneurial mindset on entrepreneurial intention was not supported, the serial mediation pathway linking environmental support, entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention was significant. These findings highlight the importance of jointly considering contextual and psychological factors in explaining entrepreneurial intention. For higher education institutions, the results suggest that entrepreneurship development should extend beyond providing environmental support to strengthening students’ entrepreneurial mindset and selfefficacy through experiential learning, mentoring, and entrepreneurial engagement activities. Significant interaction effects involving gender were identified for selected entrepreneurial cognition–intention relationships within the present sample. However, because measurement invariance testing and multi-group analysis were not conducted, these findings should be interpreted as interaction-term evidence rather than conclusive evidence of structural gender differences. This study is subject to several limitations, including its cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported data, and focus on students from a single management school in Yogyakarta. Future research is encouraged to employ longitudinal designs, involve more diverse educational contexts, and apply measurement invariance and multi-group analyses to provide a more rigorous understanding of gender differences in entrepreneurial intention. Additional variables, such as entrepreneurial resilience, digital entrepreneurial competence, and artificial intelligence literacy, may also be incorporated to enrich future research on entrepreneurship.

Author Contributions

The first author contributed to conceptualization, research design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of the results, and preparation of the original manuscript. The second author contributed to theoretical development, critical review, and intellectual refinement of the manuscript. The third author contributed to methodological review, data screening, verification of the analytical procedures, and final manuscript editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Declaration of Generative Ai Use The authors used generative AI tools, including Grammarly and ChatGPT, solely to assist with language editing, grammatical accuracy, and improvements in writing clarity and style. All content, data analysis, citations, and interpretations were independently reviewed and verified by the authors. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and

final content of the manuscript.

References

Abbasianchavari, A., & Moritz, A. (2021). The impact of role models on entrepreneurial intentions and behavior: A review of the literature. Management Review Quarterly, 71(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00179-0

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I. (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In Handbook of theories of social psychology, (Vol. 1. pp. 438–459). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n22 Al Halbusi, H., Soto-Acosta, P., & Popa, S. (2024). Entrepreneurial passion, role models and self-perceived creativity as antecedents of e-entrepreneurial intention in an emerging Asian economy: The moderating effect of social media. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(3), 1253–1284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-022-09857-2

Ali, J., Jabeen, Z., & Burhan, M. (2023). Measuring factors influencing entrepreneurial intention across gender in India: Evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Database. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 25(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-08-2021-0105

Al-Qadasi, N., Zhang, G., Al-Awlaqi, M. A., Alshebami, A. S., & Aamer, A. (2023). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention of university students in Yemen: The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1111934

Alshagawi, M., & Ghaleb, M. M. (2023). Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Innovation Science, 15(4), 581–597. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-052021-0083 Amini Sedeh, A., Abootorabi, H., & Zhang, J. (2020). National social capital, perceived entrepreneurial ability and entrepreneurial intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(2), 334–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2019-0616

Anwar, I., Thoudam, P., & Saleem, I. (2022). Role of entrepreneurial education in shaping entrepreneurial intention among university students: Testing the hypotheses using mediation and moderation approach. Journal of Education for Business, 97(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2021.1883502

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Barba-Sánchez, V., Mitre-Aranda, M., & Brío-González, J. D. (2022). The entrepreneurial intention of university students: An environmental perspective. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 28(2), 100184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2021.100184

Barnir, A., Watson, W. E., & Hutchins, H. M. (2011). Mediation and moderated mediation in the relationship among role models, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial career intention, and gender. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(2), 270–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15591816.2010.00713.x Becker, Jan-Michael and Ringle, Christian M. and Sarstedt, Marko, Estimating Moderating Effects in PLS-SEM and PLSc-SEM: Interaction Term Generation*Data Treatment (June 15, 2018). Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 2(2), 1-21, June 2018, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3223421.

Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. The Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442. https://doi.org/10.2307/258091 Badan Pusat Statistik. (2026). Tingkat pengangguran terbuka berdasarkan tingkat pendidikan, 2025. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik. Retrieved from https://www.bps.go.id/id/statistics-table/2/MTE3OSMy/tingkatpengangguran-terbuka-berdasarkan-tingkat-pendidikan.html

Brás, G. R., Daniel, A., & Fernandes, C. (2023). The effect of proximal personality traits on entrepreneurial intention among higher education students. International Journal of Innovation Science, 16(1), 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-10-2022-0198 Burnette, J. L., Pollack, J. M., Forsyth, R. B., Hoyt, C. L., Babij, A. D., Thomas, F.

N., & Coy, A. E. (2020). A growth mindset intervention: Enhancing students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy and career development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(5), 878–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719864293

Cacija, L. N., Lovrincevic, M., & Bilic, I. (2023). The role of demographic factors and prior entrepreneurial exposure in shaping the entrepreneurial intentions of young adults: The case of Croatia. Sustainability, 15(6), 5151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065151 Chauhan, S., Chauhan, K., Singh, S., Mahlawat, S., Kumar, V., & Singh, S. (2024). Analyzing family support mediating role between motivational factors and sustainable entrepreneurial intentions: A study on university students. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2024.100076

Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S08839026(97)00029-3

Cui, J., & Bell, R. (2022). Behavioural entrepreneurial mindset: How entrepreneurial education activity impacts entrepreneurial intention and behaviour. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(2), 100639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100639

Datta, A., Bazan, C., & Arnold, K. A. (2022). Effect of gender role identity on the entrepreneurial intention of university students. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 34(5), 618–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2021.1981729

Doanh, D. C., & Bernat, T. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention among Vietnamese students: A meta-analytic path analysis based on the theory of planned behavior. Procedia Computer Science, 159, 2447– 2460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.420

Duong, C. D., Nguyen, H. X., Ngo, T. V. N., Nguyen, V. H., & Nguyen, T. P. L. (2020). The impact of individual and environmental characteristics on students’ entrepreneurial intention. Management Science Letters, 599–608. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.9.020

Duong, C. D., & Vu, N. X. (2024). Entrepreneurial education and intention: Fear of failure, self-efficacy and gender. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 31(4), 629–654. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-022023-0057

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_12

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256

Entrialgo, M., & Iglesias, V. (2017). Are the intentions to entrepreneurship of men and women shaped differently? The impact of entrepreneurial role-model exposure and entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2017-0013 Ferreira-Neto, M. N., de Carvalho Castro, J. L., de Sousa-Filho, J. M., & de Souza

Lessa, B. (2023). The role of self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion, and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1134618

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Fox, C. J., Muldoon, J., & Davis, P. E. (2023). Social entrepreneurial intention: Examining the impacts of social and institutional support. Journal of Business Research, 164, 114036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114036

Gál, É., & Kerekes, T. (2025). The relationship between students’ and teachers’ mindset, self-efficacy and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 246, 113336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113336

Georgescu, M.-A., & Herman, E. (2020). The impact of the family background on students’ entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical analysis. Sustainability, 12(11), 4775. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114775 Gomes, S., Morais Lopes, J., Oliveira, J., Oliveira, M., Santos, T., & Sousa, M. (2021). The impact of gender on entrepreneurial intention in a peripheral region of Europe: A multigroup analysis. Social Sciences, 10(11), 415. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10110415 González-Serrano, M. H., González-García, R. J., Carvalho, M. J., & Calabuig, F. (2021). Predicting entrepreneurial intentions of sports sciences students: A cross-cultural approach. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 29, 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100322

Gries, T., & Naudé, W. (2010). Entrepreneurship and structural economic transformation. Small Business Economics, 34(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9192-8

Guzman, J., & Kacperczyk, A. (Olenka). (2019). Gender gap in entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 48(7), 1666–1680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.012

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2– 24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Haus, I., Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2013). Gender effects on entrepreneurial intention: A meta‐analytical structural equation model. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 130–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566261311328828

Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. (2010). A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.10.001

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

Henseler, J., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Computational Statistics, 28(2), 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-012-0317-1

Hu, R., Wang, L., Zhang, W., & Bin, P. (2018). Creativity, proactive personality, and entrepreneurial intention: The role of entrepreneurial alertness. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 951. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00951

Ilevbare, F. M., Ilevbare, O. E., Adelowo, C. M., & Oshorenua, F. P. (2022). Social support and risk-taking propensity as predictors of entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates in Nigeria. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-02-2022-0010

Jiatong, W., Murad, M., Bajun, F., Tufail, M. S., Mirza, F., & Rafiq, M. (2021). Impact of entrepreneurial education, mindset, and creativity on entrepreneurial intention: Mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 724440. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.724440

Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429. https://doi.org/10.2307/258090

Kickul, J., & Gundry, L. (2002). Prospecting for strategic advantage: The proactive entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-627X.00042

Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879401800307

Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0 Lechuga Sancho, M. P., Martín-Navarro, A., & Ramos-Rodríguez, A. R. (2020). Will they end up doing what they like? The moderating role of the attitude towards entrepreneurship in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(2), 416–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1539959

Lestari, D. E., Rizkalla, N., & Purnamaningsih, P. (2022). The effect of perceived university support, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and proactive personality in promoting student entrepreneurial intention in Indonesia. Journal of Management and Business Education, 5(2), 169–197. https://doi.org/10.35564/jmbe.2022.0011

Li, J., Sun, J. Y., Wang, L., & Ke, J. (2020). Second-generation women entrepreneurs in Chinese family-owned businesses: motivations, challenges, and opportunities. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 22(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422320907043

Li, S., & Sanusi, E. S. (2025). Pull motivation and well-being as drivers of entrepreneurial success: The moderating role of social capital. PLOS ONE, 20(8), e0327894. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327894

Liao, Y.-K., Nguyen, V. H. A., Chi, H.-K., & Nguyen, H. H. (2022). Unraveling the direct and indirect effects of entrepreneurial education and mindset on entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of entrepreneurial passion. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 41(3), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22151

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x

Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907– 933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0356-5

Liñán, F., Moriano, J. A., & Jaén, I. (2016). Individualism and entrepreneurship: Does the pattern depend on the social context? International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(6), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242615584646

Linardi, M. A., & Costa, J. (2021). Appraising the role of age among senior entrepreneurial intentions. European analysis based on HDI. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 14(6), 953–975. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-12-2020-0435

Liu, Q., & Yao-Ping Peng, M. (2025). Exploring factors influencing university students’ entrepreneurial intentions: The role of attitudes, beliefs, and environmental support. PLOS ONE, 20(1), e0316392. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316392

Liu, Y., Li, M., Li, X., & Zeng, J. (2022). Entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of the personality and family economic status. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.978480

Maheshwari, G., Kha, K. L., & Arokiasamy, A. R. A. (2023). Factors affecting students’ entrepreneurial intentions: A systematic review (2005–2022) for future directions in theory and practice. Management Review Quarterly, 73(4), 1903–1970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-02200289-2

Marques, C. S., Ferreira, J. J., Gomes, D. N., & Gouveia Rodrigues, R. (2012). Entrepreneurship education: How psychological, demographic and behavioural factors predict the entrepreneurial intention. Education + Training, 54(8/9), 657–672. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211274819

McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. L., & Sequeira, J. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial self–efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 965–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15406520.2009.00304.x

Moreno-Gómez, J., Gómez-Araujo, E., & Castillo-De Andreis, R. (2020). Parental role models and entrepreneurial intentions in Colombia: Does gender play a moderating role? Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 12(3), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-04-20190048

Morris, S., Carlos, C., Kistruck, G. M., Lount Jr, R. B., & Thomas, T. E. (2023). The impact of growth mindset training on entrepreneurial action among necessity entrepreneurs: Evidence from a randomized control trial. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 17(3), 671–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1472

Mykolenko, O., Ippolitova, I., Doroshenko, H., & Strapchuk, S. (2022). The impact of entrepreneurship education and cultural context on entrepreneurial intentions of Ukrainian students: The mediating role of attitudes and perceived control. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 12(3), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-08-2020-0190

Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., & Nielsen, I. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 403– 419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.012

Nguyen, Q. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2023). Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of entrepreneurial capacity. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 100730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100730 Nowiński, W., & Haddoud, M. Y. (2019). The role of inspiring role models in enhancing entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Research, 96, 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.005 Nowiński, W., Haddoud, M. Y., Lančarič, D., Egerová, D., & Czeglédi, C. (2019). The impact of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 361–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1365359

Onjewu, A.-K. E., Haddoud, M. Y., Tony-Okeke, U., Cao, D., & Nowiński, W. (2022). Dissecting the effect of family business exposure on entrepreneurial implementation intention. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 28(6), 1438–1462. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2021-0350

Oulhou, H., & Ibourk, A. (2023). Perceived effectiveness of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention among Moroccan university students: A correlational study. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), 100719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100719

Pan, Y., & Sun, G. (2022). Exploring work-life balance among professional women in mainland China: A qualitative study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.938664

Paray, Z. A., & Kumar, S. (2020). Does entrepreneurship education influence entrepreneurial intention among students in HEI’s?: The role of age, gender and degree background. Journal of International Education in Business, 13(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-02-2019-0009

Pérez-Macías, N., Fernández-Fernández, J.-L., & Vieites, A. R. (2022). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: A review of literature on factors with influence on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 52–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843021-00289-5

Pietersen, M. L., & Botha, M. (2021). Impulsivity and entrepreneurial behaviour: Exploring an unreasoned pathway. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 39(8), 755–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426211008149

Pollack, J. M., Burnette, J. L., & Hoyt, C. L. (2012). Self-efficacy in the face of threats to entrepreneurial success: Mind-sets matter. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(3), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.674452

Rietveld, C. A., & Patel, P. C. (2022). Gender inequality and the entrepreneurial gender gap: Evidence from 97 countries (2006–2017). Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 32(4), 1205–1229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-022-00780-9

Rodriguez-Gutierrez, P., Cabeza-Ramírez, L. J., & Muñoz-Fernández, G. A. (2020). University students’ behaviour towards entrepreneurial intention in Ecuador: Testing for the influence of gender. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8475. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228475

Rusu, V. D., Roman, A., & Tudose, M. B. (2022). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions of youth: The role of access to finance. Engineering Economics, 33(1), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.33.1.28716

Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S., Yani-De-Soriano, M., & Muffatto, M. (2018). The role of perceived university support in the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intention. In Sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 3–23). Routledge.

Saoula, O., Shamim, A., Ahmad, M. J., & Abid, M. F. (2023). Do entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial motivation, and family support enhance entrepreneurial intention? The mediating role of entrepreneurial education. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 20–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-06-2022-0055 Satriadi, S., Almaududi Ausat, A. M., Heryadi, D. Y., Widjaja, W., & Sari, A. R. (2022). Determinants of entrepreneurial intention: A study on Indonesian students. Bisnis & Birokrasi: Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Organisasi, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.20476/jbb.v29i3.1323

Schmutzler, J., Andonova, V., & Diaz-Serrano, L. (2019). How context shapes entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a driver of entrepreneurial intentions: A multilevel approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(5), 880– 920. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717753142

Shinnar, R. S., Hsu, D. K., Powell, B. C., & Zhou, H. (2018). Entrepreneurial intentions and start-ups: Are women or men more likely to enact their intentions? International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 36(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242617704277

Sim, M. S. C., Galloway, J. E., Ramos, H. M., & Mustafa, M. J. (2021). University’s support for entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of entrepreneurial climate. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 15(2), 360–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-09-2021-0354

Soelaiman, L., Keni, K., & Puspitowati, I. (2024). Empowering entrepreneurial intentions: Educational support and self-efficacy in MBKM context. Jurnal Manajemen, 28(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.24912/jm.v28i1.1760

Sun, J., Shi, J., & Zhang, J. (2023). From entrepreneurship education to entrepreneurial intention: Mindset, motivation, and prior exposure. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.954118

Tadi, P. K., Aneesh, A., Neethu, P. S., & Sia, S. K. (2024). Entrepreneurial intention of rural college students: Role of perceived behavioural control, entrepreneurial desire and entrepreneurial knowledge. International Journal of Rural Management, 20(2), 192–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/09730052231207176

Tetteh, C., Tasavori, M., Bhattarai, C. R., Zaefarian, R., & Rajwani, T. (2024). How do environmental factors shape entrepreneurial intention? A review and future research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 20(4), 2955–2977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-02401002-3

Thompson, E. R. (2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 669–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00321.x

Vamvaka, V., Stoforos, C., Palaskas, T., & Botsaris, C. (2020). Attitude toward entrepreneurship, perceived behavioral control, and entrepreneurial intention: Dimensionality, structural relationships, and gender differences. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-0112-0 Van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9074-x

Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00179.x

Wu, J., Li, Y., & Zhang, D. (2019). Identifying women’s entrepreneurial barriers and empowering female entrepreneurship worldwide: A fuzzy-set QCA approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(3), 905–928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00570-z

Xanthopoulou, P., Sahinidis, A., Vassiliou, E. E., & Kavoura, A. (2026). When intentions stall: Exploring the quasi-longitudinal divide between entrepreneurial intention and action. Administrative Sciences, 16(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci16010014

Yan, J., Huang, T., & Xiao, Y. (2023). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurial education activity on entrepreneurial intention and behavior: Role of behavioral entrepreneurial mindset. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(10), 26292–26307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356022-23878-w

Yi, G. (2021). From green entrepreneurial intentions to green entrepreneurial behaviors: The role of university entrepreneurial support and external institutional support. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(2), 963–979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00649y

Yohana, C. (2021). Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial intention: A perspective of tertiary education in Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Ekonomi dan Bisnis (JPEB), 9(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.21009/JPEB.009.1.6

Zaman, S., Arshad, M., Sultana, N., & Saleem, S. (2020). The effect of family business exposure on individuals’ entrepreneurial intentions: An institutional theory perspective. Journal of Family Business Management, 11(4), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-01-2020-0008