Keywords

Attitude; Self-efficacy; Subjective norms; Entrepreneurial intention.

Introduction

Entrepreneurship is an important component in economics (Etzkowitz et al., 2000). The entrepreneurial process necessitates the creation of new business opportunities, the ability to think creatively, the determination to never give up, and the willingness to take risks (Brockner et al., 2004). This has a strong link with innovation and has helped economic growth (Lee, 2013) and is a means for knowledge transfer in the context of the company and the social-economic conditions of the community (Heidenreich, 2012; Dudin et al., 2013).

Traditionally, the entrepreneurial planning process has been based on planned behaviour theory (TPB) (Tornikoski & Maalaoui, 2019; Ahadiat et al., 2021), which considers entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The literature validates this theory with entrepreneurial intentions to explain entrepreneurial events (Fayolle & Liñán, 2014). In various studies, this theoretical framework was used to analyze external and internal factors and business intentions (Paul et al., 2017). For students, this relationship's study is significant, which has increased the scientific community and research institutions' interest (Greenhalgh et al., 2016).

However, it is not clear what elements to try in entrepreneurship education in Higher Education (Henry et al., 2017). Traditionally, this education has focused on management skills (Asah et al., 2015; Dicke et al., 2015). However, some personal skills characterize entrepreneurial behaviour (Shabbir et al., 2016; Stephan & Drencheva, 2017). This ability is related to creativity, enthusiasm and an adventurous spirit (Gu et al., 2017; Chang & Shih, 2019). Despite the fact that more literature on Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), direct and indirect relations between personal abilities, management skills and components of the theory are still known (Cavusoglu et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2018). The literature shows that personal abilities contribute to entrepreneurial intentions (Anggadwita & Dhewanto, 2016; Farrukh et al., 2018).

However, this feature's role in the business is not clearly agreed upon. Therefore, the substitution relationship and the indirect effect on TPB need to be explored (Alzubaidi et al., 2021). To fill in the literature gaps, we used the multi-dimensional structure of entrepreneurial self-efficacy proposed by (McGee & Peterson, 2019). Many studies have shown that there is a direct relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions (Nowi?ski et al., 2019). However, recent research has shown that this connection is not just direct. Students' entrepreneurial attitudes mediate the connection between self-efficiency and intent (Tsai et al., 2016; Rosique-Blasco et al., 2018).

The possible influence between attitudes, subjective standards, self-efficacy and business intentions raises the following research issues discussed in previous literature:

1. Does entrepreneurial attitude affect entrepreneurial intentions?
2. Does self-efficacy affect entrepreneurial intentions?
3. Do subjective norms affect entrepreneurial intentions?
4. Do entrepreneurial attitudes, self-efficacy, and subjective norms affect entrepreneurial intentions?

Literature Review

Entrepreneurial Intentions

The main issue in the planned behaviour theory (Ajzen, 2015) is the person's intensity to carry out a behaviour since the intention is a middle variable that causes the behaviour of an attitude and other variables. Some things that must be taken into account in the variable of intent are 1) Intent to respond as an intermediate to motivating factors that affect behaviour. 2) The intention is not as subtle as someone dared to try. 3) Intention also doesn't matter how much effort a person plans to put into it. 4) Intention is most closely related to the next behaviour.

The intention is a unique guide that combines the deep concern of a person with certain actions. Based on the description above, it can be concluded that the intention is for someone to act or to do certain things. The formation of intentions can be explained by the theory that people are always intended to behave (De Leeuw et al., 2015; Ajzen, 2020). This theory states that attitude to behaviour is the basis that plays a role in intention. The behaviour factor has two major aspects, namely the person's conviction that it can be in the form of individual opinions that don't necessarily correspond to reality, showing or not showing certain behaviour results and an aspect of individual knowledge of the purpose of the attitude. The more positive the person's faith in the effects of an object of attitude, the more favourable his attitude is towards the object of attitude and vice versa (Maydiantoro et al., 2021). The intention in the concept of planned behaviour theory is explained by several factors, namely attitudes, subjective norms, and behaviour control (Botetzagias et al., 2015; Bagheri et al., 2019; Qi & Ploeger, 2019).

In its development, the concept of behaviour theory explains the background factors that form the basis for behavioural intentions such as knowledge, risk-taking, information and so on. The development of intentions can be explained by the theory of planned conduct which assumes that human beings are always intended to behave (Ajzen, 2020). This theory says that intent functions as the basis for the development of intentions as attitude behaviour, behavioural control and subjective norms. Several research results explain the factors that play a role in explaining entrepreneurial intentions directly but not comprehensively, such as self-efficacy (Liñán & Fayolle, 2015; Ip et al., 2018; Asimakopoulos et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019) and entrepreneurial attitudes (Zabelina et al., 2019). Research has furthermore found that in a group of existing business owners, self-efficacy has an impact on entrepreneurial intentions but does not affect the business intentions of respondents who are about to start a business (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015). It is possible that the attitude and self-efficacy for entrepreneurship have not yet been formed in the group that will start entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurial Attitude

Entrepreneurial intention research stems from attitude research. Attitude is said to be an evaluative response. Evaluation response means that an attitude-expressed form of reaction occurs in a person's assessment process, which stimulates bad, negative and annoying, then crystallizes as a possible reaction to the attitude object. This is based on an evaluation response. The response will only arise when individual visits are faced with a stimulus that requires an individual reaction (Robledo et al., 2015; Arvidsson & Coudounaris, 2020). Many studies have shown that behaviour related to attitudes can even be predicted from attitudes ( Shropshire et al., 2015; Brick & Lewis, 2016; Blazar & Kraft, 2017). This result is quite rational. However, some researchers still question the relationship between these behaviours because they found few positive messages between attitudes and behaviours (Ardoin et al., 2015). (Bergmann et al., 2016) has concluded from several studies that before between attitudes and behaviour rarely reaches 0.30 (if squared, it shows only 9 per cent of the variability in behaviour is caused by attitudes). An entrepreneurial attitude is a general feeling or evaluation of entrepreneurship. They are based on beliefs and evaluations of entrepreneurs or a business. Entrepreneurial attitudes can be shown by the attitude of starting a business is interesting, a serious view of entrepreneurship, attractive in finding business ideas, consideration of starting a business, enjoying personal satisfaction in starting a business, and providing quality of life in starting a business (Maydiantoro et al., 2021).

Self-Efficacy

In addition to control behaviour, behavioural behaviour is individual behaviour to behave. Success is determined by individual factors, namely individual self-control in doing business (Chatterjee et al., 2015; Haws et al., 2016; Efendi et al., 2019). One form of entrepreneurial behaviour control is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is an individual's belief (perception) regarding the ability to form entrepreneurial behaviour as measured by self-efficacy (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015), namely confidence in the ability to start a business, human resource leadership, can work under pressure, which is able to identify potential areas in the business, and is able to formulate a number of actions according to the opportunities that exist. Successful individuals have better self-confidence than individuals who fail in trying. Specifically, individuals who have self-confidence that self-confidence in entrepreneurship are not determined by external factors but depend on the business owner (Javed et al., 2018; Martins et al., 2018).

Subjective Norms

The role of the environment around the business owner also forms entrepreneurial intentions. In the concept of the Theory of Reasoned Action, it is stated as a subjective norm. Subjective standards, namely individual beliefs in standards, the environment and the individual motivation to comply with these standards (Cho & Lee, 2015; Bartle & Harvey, 2017). Subjective standards are the opinions of other parties which are considered to be important by persons who suggest that certain behaviours may or may not be displayed and motivate or may not exert a willingness to express views or opinions of other parties which are considered important to individuals or who are not here to function as entrepreneurs (Maggino, 2015). The reference group includes all groups which influence the attitude or the behaviour of the person directly (face to face) and indirectly, which is called subjective rules. The reference group has a strong influence on the choice of behaviour for individuals because it is a model in behaviour (Higgs, 2015).

The family is the largest consumer buying company in society and is the subject of extensive research (Carlucci et al., 2015; Rana & Paul, 2017). Family members are the most influential group of people because they are closest to people, in particular in Indonesia. Among other things, their role includes activities to be performed by a person.

Based on theoretical studies and previous research results, three hypotheses can be put forward in this study: H1: Entrepreneurial attitudes affect entrepreneurial intentions, H2: Self-efficacy affects entrepreneurial intentions, H3: Subjective norms affect entrepreneurial intentions, H4: Attitudes, self-efficacy and subjective norms affect entrepreneurial intentions.

Methodology

Participants

The participants of this study were 436 students at the University of Lampung with the criteria for final semester students or at least semester 6 with the consideration of entrepreneurial decision making after graduation.

Instruments

This study uses primary data obtained by distributing questionnaires. In conducting the survey, researchers used a personal approach by distributing questionnaires that were given and collected directly from respondents because their location was in one place or closed together.

The researcher asked the respondent to fill in the questionnaire questions included in the list given to the respondent.

The previous questionnaire has tested its validity and reliability. The validity test results using the Pearson product-moment correlation technique show that all items of each variable are valid. Then, from the results of the reliability test with Cronbach's alpha, it is known that all items are declared reliable. The final data collected from the research sample were then analyzed using descriptive analysis and regression analysis by first fulfilling the classic assumption test requirements, namely the normality test, linearity test, heteroscedasticity test, and multicollinearity test.

Data Analysis

The research conducted is quantitative by testing the hypothesis, namely the analysis of research data using SPSS version 21 software.

Results

The types of respondents in this study were described by gender, age, and faculty.

Gender

The criteria for respondents based on gender determined in this study are based on gender, which is grouped into two genders, namely male gender and female gender. From these data, the number of female respondents is more than that of men. Male respondents were 179 respondents or 41%, while female respondents were 257 respondents or 59%. (Figure 1)

Age

The criteria for respondents based on age were grouped into six age groups. Most respondents were 21 years old, 253 people (58.03%). In contrast, the lowest respondent's age was 24 years, namely ten people (2.29%). The details of the age of the respondents can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1 The Criteria for Respondents Based on Age
No	Age (years)	Frequency (n)		User Percentage (%)
1	19	15		3,44
2	20	71		16,28
3	21	253		58,03
4	22	62		14,22
5	23	25		5,73
6	24	10		2,29
Total			436		100

Faculty

The characteristics of the respondents based on the faculty obtained in this study are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 The Criteria for Respondents Based on the Faculty
No	Faculty	Frequency (n)	Presentase (%)
1	Teacher training and education	83	19
2	Economics and Business	61	14
3	Social science and political science	64	15
4	Technique	57	13
5	Agriculture	68	16
6	Mathematics and Natural science	46	11
7	Law	57	13
Total		436	100

The characteristics of respondents based on faculty are grouped into seven faculty groups, namely teacher training and education (FKIP), economics and business (FEB), social and political science (FISIP), mathematics and natural sciences (FMIPA), engineering (FT), law (FH) and agriculture (FP). The study's Respondents were fairly evenly distributed, ranging from 11% to 19%. However, the largest group of respondents from FKIP was 83 respondents (19%), and the smallest group of respondents from FMIPA were 46 respondents (11%).

Discussion

Analysis of Variable Descriptions

Research Descriptive analysis for each variable shows a positive value on agreed answers with a high average percentage of answers. The attitude variable is 62.21% which shows the respondent's interest in business opportunities. For the self-efficacy variable, an agreed score of 47.2% was obtained on the indicators of self-evaluation and future beliefs regarding his career choices as an entrepreneur. Whereas in the subjective norm variable, respondents gave agreed answers with an average percentage of answers of 55.81%, which means that the assumptions, suggestions, and expectations of the closest person influence the respondent's thinking pattern. The entrepreneurial intention variable of the respondent who stated agrees as much as 52.3%, which means that most respondents are interested in becoming entrepreneurs in the future.

Hypothesis Analysis

H1: Entrepreneurial attitudes affect entrepreneurial intentions

On the basis of the F test results, the Fcount value (4.879) > Ftable (1.40) with a meaning value of 0.009 is lower than that of 0.05. So Ha was accepted, and Ho was rejected. This shows that an entrepreneurial attitude affects students' entrepreneurial intentions. Based on observations made in students' daily lives on campus, it is evident that students who have an entrepreneurial attitude are actually brave enough to start a business. The businesses opened are quite diverse, for example, by opening the service and trade industry, the creative industry and the food and beverage industry. However, they are still on a small scale. Hypothesis 1 test results also support research (Do Paço et al., 2015; Hussain & Norashidah, 2015; Krueger, 2017; Teixeira et al., 2018).

H2: Self-efficacy affects entrepreneurial intentions

On the basis of the F test, F_count (4.611)> Ftable (1.40) is 0.012, meaning it is less than 0.05 mean value. So Ha was accepted, and Ho was rejected. This shows that self-efficacy affects students' entrepreneurial intentions. Students who have started their own business actually have quite good knowledge of the business. These students got a pretty good provision about business from the observations made from formal and informal education and social interactions. These things form high self-efficacy so that these students dare to start a business. The results of hypothesis testing III support the research of (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015; Rosique-Blasco et al., 2018; Nowi?ski et al., 2019; Schmutzler et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2019).

H3: Subjective norms affect entrepreneurial intentions

The F_count value (6,577) > Ftable is based on the results of the F test (1.40). The value is 0.002, which means that it is less than the value of 0.05. So Ha was accepted, and Ho was rejected. This shows that subjective norms affect students' entrepreneurial intentions. Like the first condition (positive attitude towards entrepreneurship), 35% of the students observed were brave to become entrepreneurs because of their entrepreneurial family background. The family played a big role in instilling a subjective norm that being an entrepreneur was as successful as other professions. This also relates to the environment in which students interact, most of which also interact with other business people. The results of hypothesis testing II support the research of ( Yousaf et al., 2015; Farooq et al., 2016; Santos & Liguori, 2019; Shah et al., 2020).

H4: Attitudes, self-efficacy and subjective norms affect entrepreneurial intentions

On the basis of the results of the F test, F_count value (5.698) > Ftable (1.37) is 0.025, meaning that the value is less than the value of 0.05. So Ha was accepted, and Ho was rejected. This shows that age-controlled attitudes, subjective norms, and self-efficacy affect student entrepreneurship. When viewed as a whole, students who dare to start a business tend to have these three factors already. In fact, students who have not dared to start a business tend not to have these three factors optimally. Meanwhile, the Adjusted R2 value is 0.146 or 15.6%. Thus, students' entrepreneurial intentions are determined by attitudes, subjective norms, and self-efficacy by 15.6%. Other factors convince the remaining 84.4%.

Conclusion

This study concludes that entrepreneurial attitudes significantly affect entrepreneurial intentions. The higher the positive attitude of students’ in entrepreneurship, the higher the entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, subjective norms also significantly influence entrepreneurial intentions. Subjective norms as external factors have contributed to encouraging student interest in entrepreneurship, such as success stories from business actors will increase entrepreneurial interest. Likewise, self-efficacy also significantly affects entrepreneurial intentions. This shows that there is a significant role of self-efficacy in encouraging students' interest in entrepreneurship or the higher the student's self-efficacy, the higher the student's entrepreneurial intention. The three variables that influence students' entrepreneurial interest can be stated that the subjective norm variable is the variable that most influences students' entrepreneurial interest at the University of Lampung.

Suggestion

Based on the results of this study, the following suggestions are given:

The results show that entrepreneurial attitudes have a significant effect on entrepreneurial intentions. The higher the positive attitude of students in entrepreneurship, the higher the entrepreneurial intention. It is suggested that lecturers encourage their students to improve entrepreneurial attitudes so that they will increase entrepreneurial intentions.

It was found that subjective norms also had a significant effect on entrepreneurial intentions. Subjective norms as external factors also encourage student interest in entrepreneurship, such as success stories of business actors will increase interest in entrepreneurship. It is suggested that entrepreneurship learning be able to invite guest lecturers from entrepreneurial circles to increase student interest in entrepreneurship.

It was found that self-efficacy encourages students' interest in entrepreneurship or the higher the student's self-efficacy, the higher the student's entrepreneurial interest. So it is suggested that in entrepreneurship lectures, students can continue to be motivated to increase self-confidence.

Based on the joint testing of the three variables in influencing students 'interest in entrepreneurship, it can be said that the subjective norm variable is the variable that most influences students' entrepreneurial interest. So it is suggested that in the lecture the portion of presenting guest lecturers from business actors needs to be improved.

To other researchers, it is necessary to conduct research at other universities, to test the results of this study.

References

1. Ahadiat, A., Ribhan, Maydiantoro, A., & Fajrin Satria Dwi, K. (2021). The theory of planned Behavior and Marketing Ethics Theory in Predicting Digital Piracy Intentions WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 18, 679-702.
2. Ajzen, I. (2015). Consumer attitudes and behavior: the theory of planned behavior applied to food consumption decisions. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics, 70(2), 121-138.
3. Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314-324.
4. Alzubaidi, H., Slade, E. L., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). Examining antecedents of consumers’ pro-environmental behaviours: TPB extended with materialism and innovativeness. Journal of Business Research, 122, 685-699.
5. Anggadwita, G., & Dhewanto, W. (2016). The influence of personal attitude and social perception on women entrepreneurial intentions in micro and small enterprises in Indonesia. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 27(2-3), 131-148.
6. Ardoin, N. M., Wheaton, M., Bowers, A. W., Hunt, C. A., & Durham, W. H. (2015). Nature-based tourism's impact on environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: a review and analysis of the literature and potential future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(6), 838-858.
7. Arvidsson, H. G., & Coudounaris, D. N. (2020). The shift from causation to effectuation for international entrepreneurs: Attitudes and attitude change versus social representations. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 24(3), 1-23.
8. Asah, F., Fatoki, O. O., & Rungani, E. (2015). The impact of motivations, personal values and management skills on the performance of SMEs in South Africa. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 6(3), 308-322.
9. Asimakopoulos, G., Hernández, V., & Peña Miguel, J. (2019). Entrepreneurial intention of engineering students: The role of social norms and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Sustainability, 11(16), 4314.
10. Bagheri, A., Bondori, A., Allahyari, M. S., & Damalas, C. A. (2019). Modeling farmers’ intention to use pesticides: An expanded version of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of environmental management, 248, 109291.
11. Bartle, N. C., & Harvey, K. (2017). Explaining infant feeding: The role of previous personal and vicarious experience on attitudes, subjective norms, self?efficacy, and breastfeeding outcomes. British journal of health psychology, 22(4), 763-785.
12. Bergmann, H., Hundt, C., & Sternberg, R. (2016). What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small business economics, 47(1), 53-76.
13. Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 39(1), 146-170.
14. Botetzagias, I., Dima, A.-F., & Malesios, C. (2015). Extending the theory of planned behavior in the context of recycling: The role of moral norms and of demographic predictors. Resources, conservation and recycling, 95, 58-67.
15. Brick, C., & Lewis, G. J. (2016). Unearthing the “green” personality: Core traits predict environmentally friendly behavior. Environment and Behavior, 48(5), 635-658.
16. Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T., & Low, M. B. (2004). Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of business venturing, 19(2), 203-220.
17. Carlucci, D., Nocella, G., De Devitiis, B., Viscecchia, R., Bimbo, F., & Nardone, G. (2015). Consumer purchasing behaviour towards fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. Appetite, 84, 212-227.
18. Cavusoglu, H., Cavusoglu, H., Son, J.-Y., & Benbasat, I. (2015). Institutional pressures in security management: Direct and indirect influences on organizational investment in information security control resources. Information & Management, 52(4), 385-400.
19. Chang, Y.-Y., & Shih, H.-Y. (2019). Work curiosity: A new lens for understanding employee creativity. Human Resource Management Review, 29(4), 100672.
20. Chatterjee, S., Sarker, S., & Valacich, J. S. (2015). The behavioral roots of information systems security: Exploring key factors related to unethical IT use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(4), 49-87.
21. Cho, H., & Lee, J. S. (2015). The influence of self?efficacy, subjective norms, and risk perception on behavioral intentions related to the H1N1 flu pandemic: A comparison between K orea and the US. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18(4), 311-324.
22. De Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal of environmental psychology, 42, 128-138.
23. Dicke, T., Elling, J., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2015). Reducing reality shock: The effects of classroom management skills training on beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 1-12.
24. Do Paço, A., Ferreira, J. M., Raposo, M., Rodrigues, R. G., & Dinis, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial intentions: is education enough? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(1), 57-75.
25. Dudin, M., Lyasnikov, N., Kuznecov, A., & Fedorova, I. (2013). Innovative transformation and transformational potential of socio-economic systems. Economic Systems, 17(10), 1434-1437.
26. Efendi, R., Indartono, S., & Sukidjo, S. (2019). The Mediation of Economic Literacy on the Effect of Self Control on Impulsive Buying Behaviour Moderated by Peers. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 9(3), 98.
27. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research policy, 29(2), 313-330.
28. Farooq, M. S., Jaafar, N., Ayupp, K., Salam, M., Mughal, Y. H., Azam, F., & Sajid, A. (2016). Impact of entrepreneurial skills and family occupation on entrepreneurial intentions. Science International-Lahore, 28(3), 3145-3148.
29. Farrukh, M., Alzubi, Y., Shahzad, I. A., Waheed, A., & Kanwal, N. (2018). Entrepreneurial intentions: The role of personality traits in perspective of theory of planned behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 399-414.
30. Fayolle, A., & Liñán, F. (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 663-666.
31. Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S., & Janamian, T. (2016). Achieving research impact through co?creation in community?based health services: literature review and case study. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(2), 392-429.
32. Gu, J., He, C., & Liu, H. (2017). Supervisory styles and graduate student creativity: the mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 721-742.
33. Haws, K. L., Davis, S. W., & Dholakia, U. M. (2016). Control over what? Individual differences in general versus eating and spending self-control. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(1), 37-57.
34. Heidenreich, M. (2012). The social embeddedness of multinational companies: a literature review. Socio-Economic Review, 10(3), 549-579.
35. Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2017). Entrepreneurship education and training: the issue of effectiveness. Routledge.
36. Higgs, S. (2015). Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite, 86, 38-44.
37. Hussain, A., & Norashidah, D. (2015). Impact of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intentions of Pakistani Students. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation, 2(1), 43-53.
38. Ip, C. Y., Liang, C., Wu, S.-C., Law, K. M. Y., & Liu, H.-C. (2018). Enhancing social entrepreneurial intentions through entrepreneurial creativity: A comparative study between Taiwan and Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 132-142.
39. Javed, A., Yasir, M., & Majid, A. (2018). Psychological factors and entrepreneurial orientation: Could education and supportive environment moderate this relationship? Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 12(2), 571-597.
40. Krueger, N. F. (2017). Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: Long live entrepreneurial intentions. In Revisiting the entrepreneurial mind (Vol. 35, pp. 13-34). Springer.
41. Lee, J. W. (2013). The contribution of foreign direct investment to clean energy use, carbon emissions and economic growth. Energy Policy, 55, 483-489.
42. 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.
43. Maggino, F. (2015). Subjective well-being and subjective aspects of well-being: Methodology and theory. Rivista internazionale di scienze sociali, 123(1), 89-121.
44. Martins, I., Monsalve, J. P. P., & Martinez, A. V. (2018). Self-confidence and fear of failure among university students and their relationship with entrepreneurial orientation: Evidence from Colombia. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 31(3), 471-485.
45. Maydiantoro, A., Ridwan, Tusianah, R., Kesuma, T. A. R. P., Isnainy, U. C. A. S., & Zainaro, M. A. (2021). Entrepreneurship in Higher Education Curriculla: Evidence from Indonesia. Psychology and Education Journal, 58(3), 936-949.
46. McGee, J. E., & Peterson, M. (2019). The long?term impact of entrepreneurial self?efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 720-737.
47. Nowi?ski, W., Haddoud, M. Y., Lan?ari?, 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.
48. Paul, J., Hermel, P., & Srivatava, A. (2017). Entrepreneurial intentions—theory and evidence from Asia, America, and Europe. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 15(3), 324-351.
49. Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. (2015). Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self?efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 970-985.
50. Qi, X., & Ploeger, A. (2019). Explaining consumers' intentions towards purchasing green food in Qingdao, China: The amendment and extension of the theory of planned behavior. Appetite, 133, 414-422.
51. Rana, J., & Paul, J. (2017). Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A review and research agenda. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 157-165.
52. Robledo, J. L. R., Arán, M. V., Sanchez, V. M., & Molina, M. Á. R. (2015). The moderating role of gender on entrepreneurial intentions: A TPB perspective. Intangible capital, 11(1), 92-117.
53. Rosique-Blasco, M., Madrid-Guijarro, A., & García-Pérez-de-Lema, D. (2018). The effects of personal abilities and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(4), 1025-1052.
54. Santos, S. C., & Liguori, E. W. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions: Outcome expectations as mediator and subjective norms as moderator. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(3), 400-415.
55. 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.
56. Shabbir, M. S., Shariff, M. N. M., & Shahzad, A. (2016). Mediating role of perceived behavioral control and stakeholders’ support system on the relationship between entrepreneurial personal skills and entrepreneurial intentions of it employees in Pakistan. International Business Management, 10(9), 1745-1755.
57. Shah, I. A., Amjed, S., & Jaboob, S. (2020). The moderating role of entrepreneurship education in shaping entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Economic Structures, 9(1), 1-15.
58. Shi, L., Yao, X., & Wu, W. (2019). Perceived university support, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, heterogeneous entrepreneurial intentions in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 12(2), 205-230.
59. Shropshire, J., Warkentin, M., & Sharma, S. (2015). Personality, attitudes, and intentions: Predicting initial adoption of information security behavior. Computers & Security, 49, 177-191.
60. Stephan, U., & Drencheva, A. (2017). The person in social entrepreneurship: A systematic review of research on the social entrepreneurial personality. The Wiley handbook of entrepreneurship, 205-229.
61. Teixeira, S. J., Casteleiro, C. M. L., Rodrigues, R. G., & Guerra, M. D. (2018). Entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurship in European countries. International Journal of Innovation Science, 10(1), 22-42.
62. Tornikoski, E., & Maalaoui, A. (2019). Critical reflections–The Theory of Planned Behaviour: An interview with Icek Ajzen with implications for entrepreneurship research. International Small Business Journal, 37(5), 536-550.
63. Tsai, K.-H., Chang, H.-C., & Peng, C.-Y. (2016). Extending the link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention: a moderated mediation model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 445-463.
64. Wu, W., Wang, H., Zheng, C., & Wu, Y. J. (2019). Effect of narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism on entrepreneurial intention—the mediating of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 360.
65. Yousaf, U., Shamim, A., Siddiqui, H., & Raina, M. (2015). Studying the influence of entrepreneurial attributes, subjective norms and perceived desirability on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 7(1), 22-34.
66. Zabelina, E., Deyneka, O., & Tsiring, D. (2019). Entrepreneurial attitudes in the structure of students’ economic minds. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(8), 1621-1633.
67. Zhu, Y.-Q., Gardner, D. G., & Chen, H.-G. (2018). Relationships between work team climate, individual motivation, and creativity. Journal of Management, 44(5), 2094-2115.