Amofah and Saladrigues  Journal of Innovation and

Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00197-5 Entrepreneurship

RESEARCH Open Access

Impact of attitude towards entrepreneurship

education and role models on entrepreneurial
intention
Kwaku Amofah1,2* and Ramon Saladrigues2,3*

*Correspondence:
[email protected]; ramon. Abstract
[email protected] In this paper, we investigate entrepreneurial intention by applying the Theory of
1
Law and Business
Administration, University Planned Behaviour (TPB) by Ajzen (1991). We specifically examine the role of gender
of Lleida, Lleida, Spain on entrepreneurial education and role models or parental self-employment (PSE), by
2
Sunyani Technical carrying out a multi-group analysis (MGA). We used a web-based questionnaire to col-
University, Sunyani, Ghana
Full list of author information lect information from 216 students at a Spanish university. Data are analysed with the
is available at the end of the help of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)–Partial Least Square (PLS). We conducted a
article tripartite analysis on Complete, Male, and Female Models. Regarding the Complete and
Male Models, all the primary hypotheses (5 in total) were accepted, compared with four
for the Female Model. In this study, the primary hypotheses focus on the core variables
of the TPB. We recommend the institutionalization of traineeship, elective courses,
conference and workshops on entrepreneurship to boost the entrepreneurial spirit
of students. Though this study has confirmed the applicability of the TPB model to
entrepreneurial intention, we did not find a significant relationship between Males and
Females about their entrepreneurial intentions for some relationships. However, this
study suggests that the relationship between PSE and perceived behavioural control
(PBC) is stronger for Males than Females Our results have implications for entrepreneur-
ship education scholars, program evaluators, and policymakers.
Keywords: Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Entrepreneurial intention, Students,
Parental self-employment (PSE)

Introduction
Entrepreneurship is an individual’s ability to turn ideas into action (European Com-
mission, 2020). Though the transformative power of entrepreneurship has been widely
documented, only 37% of Europeans aspire to be entrepreneurs, compared to 51% of
people in the US and China, respectively. The European Commission’s initiative pro-
moting entrepreneurship, as summarized in the January 2013 Entrepreneurship Action
Plan aims to reignite Europe’s entrepreneurial spirit by educating young people about
entrepreneurship, highlighting opportunities for women and other groups, easing
administrative requirements and making easier to attract investors. The European Com-
mission (2020) professes that ‘young people still struggle to find jobs but remain more in

© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​
creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 2 of 30

education and training’. The youth unemployment rate in Spain increased to 30.90% in
February from 30.80% in January of 2020. Accordingly, a key action plan in the Spanish
Strategy on Social Economy (2017–2020) revolves around the ‘support for employment
and entrepreneurship’ (European Commission, 2020).
Over the years, researchers have established a relationship between entrepreneurship
and economic growth and transformation (Audretsch et al., 2009; Stoica et al., 2020).
Due to the positive outcomes associated with entrepreneurial activity, researchers and
policymakers alike are motivated in the quest to acquire an in-depth knowledge of entre-
preneurial intention. Entrepreneurial intention (EI) is considered to be the most criti-
cal ingredient for the future formation of entrepreneurial ventures (Nguyen et al., 2019).
Previous studies have examined student entrepreneurship and the impact of entrepre-
neurship courses. Universities are required to play an important role in an environment
that propels entrepreneurship and boosts students to pursue career alternative. Some
researchers have analysed the role played by entrepreneurship education in shaping
entrepreneurial intentions of students, (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Souitaris et al.,
2007). Thus, the relationship between university culture and student’s entrepreneurial
intentions needs to be examined (Liñán et al. 2011b).
Entrepreneurship Education (EE) may interact with other factors to generate a more
appropriate environment for entrepreneurship or it may have an influence on other fac-
tors (e.g., gender) (Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2016). According to Davidsson (1995), personal
factors such as age, gender, education, vicarious experience, and experiences of change
to a variety of attributes influence conviction and entrepreneurial intentions. However,
the role of universities as provider and enabler of an environment conducive to nur-
ture entrepreneurial intention, leading to new venture creation, has not been studied
(Trivedi, 2016). Empirical studies exploring university support factors and entrepreneur-
ship promotion among university students are limited (Walter et al., 2006). Turker and
Selcuk (2009) posited that entrepreneurship education and university education play a
major role in shaping entrepreneurial intention among students. Kraaijenbrink et. al.
(2010) proposed that as universities support students in diverse means, it is necessary to
understand the effect of such measures and the extent to which they could impact stu-
dents’ entrepreneurial careers. Previous studies have provided empirical evidence about
entrepreneurial intention among students from various perspectives (Trivedi, 2016;
Zhang et al., 2014). Some researchers argue that entrepreneurial motivation can be nur-
tured with specific entrepreneurship education (Souitaris et al., 2007), whereas others
disagree, questioning whether teaching can propel entrepreneurial motivation (Colette
et al., 2005).
This paper uses the theory of planned behavior (TPB) proposed by Ajzen (1991) as the
basic framework to understand the entrepreneurial intention of students and then modi-
fied the same by integrating Attitude Towards Entrepreneurship Education (ATEE) and
Role Models or Parental Self-Employment (PSE) as antecedents of TPB to understand
their influence on intention Previous studies have used and supported the effective-
ness of TPB in predicting entrepreneurial intention (Krueger et al., 2000; Moriano et al.,
2012). Besides, numerous scholars (e.g., Amofah et al., 2020; Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2016;
Fayolle et al., 2006; Ohanu & Shopide, 2021; Trivedi, 2016, 2017) have modified the TPB
by introducing different antecedents in diverse studies.
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 3 of 30

From the foregoing, we advance some questions: What are the entrepreneurial inten-
tions among university students? What is the relationship between PSE and Attitude
Towards Entrepreneurship (ATE) and perceived behavioural control (PBC)? What is the
effect of ATEE on ATE and PBC? To what extent do the relationships between Males and
Females differ? Following Entrialgo and Iglesias (2017), we examine the effect of PSE and
ATEE on the antecedents of the TPB and also analyse the role of gender in these rela-
tionships. Thus, the main objective of this study is to examine the role played by ATEE
and PSE in fostering entrepreneurial intention among students.
To test the validity of the model, samples were drawn from students from a university
in Catalonia, Spain. According to Liñán et. al. (2011b) Catalonia has a reputation for
having a hard-working population, entrepreneurial spirit, and a dynamic economy.
To our best knowledge, this is a novel approach and may encourage future research
in this area. A contribution of this paper is the provision of a better understanding of
the role of EE and PSE and their impact on entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, the
outcomes of this study could be beneficial to policymakers to understand not only the
pattern of relationships among intention antecedents but also its implications for inter-
ventions and developing entrepreneurial intention. Our paper extends the studies of
Trivedi (2016) by introducing Role Model or PSE and ATEE as antecedents of the TPB
and the role of gender.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section, the literature
on entrepreneurial intention in line with TPB along with the university environment and
support (which we operationalize as ATEE) is outlined. This is followed by the meth-
odology. Finally, the results of the study and their practical implications have been pro-
vided along with direction for future research and conclusion.

Theoretical framework and hypothesis development

Entrepreneurial intention and the theory of planned behaviour
Bird (1988, p. 442) defined intention as ‘a state of mind directing a person’s attention
toward a specific object (goal) or path to achieve something (means)’. According to Bae
et. al. (2014) entrepreneurial intentions are the willingness to own or venture into a busi-
ness. The concept of intention and its antecedents have received immerse attention in
entrepreneurship research for its importance in predicting entrepreneurial behavior.
The TPB (Ajzen, 1991, 2002) is perhaps one of the most popular models that has
caught the attention of researchers in these contemporary times. Thus among the many
models (e.g., Shapero & Sokol, 1982; Bird, 1988) used to explain entrepreneurial inten-
tions, none have had as much impact as Ajzen’s TPB (Ajzen, 1991; Krueger et al., 2000;
Liñán & Chen, 2009). As of April 2020, the TPB (Ajzen, 2012) has been subject to empir-
ical analysis in more than 4200 papers referenced in the Web of Science bibliographi-
cal database, making it one of the popular theories in the social and behavioral sciences
(Bosnjak et al., 2020). They further revealed that the TPB has gained enormous attention
in disciplines such as health sciences, environmental science, business and management,
and educational research. In this study, the TPB is used as a basic framework to under-
stand students’ entrepreneurial intentions. The TPB model has often been used to study
the intention to start a venture in a couple of research setting (Krueger, 1993; Trivedi,
2016) and it has proven that Ajzen’s TPB was an appropriate research framework for
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 4 of 30

assessing intentions in the choice of employment (Iakovleva & Kolvereid, 2009; Kolver-
eid, 1996). According to the TPB, human behavior is guided by three kinds of reflections,
beliefs about the likely consequences of the behavior (behavioural beliefs), beliefs about
the normative expectations of others (normative beliefs), and beliefs about the presence
of factors that may ease or impede performance of the behavior (control beliefs) (Bosn-
jak et al., 2020).

Attitude towards entrepreneurship

Ajzen (1991) conceptualized attitude as the extent to which an individual has a positive
or negative evaluation of the behavior in question. In the context of this paper, this refers
to how a student thinks and feels about entrepreneurship. Behavioural Attitudes may
be split into Affective and Instrumental. Affective attitude refers to whether an individ-
ual perceives behavior to be enjoyable or not. Instrumental attitude on the other hand,
refers to whether the behavior is beneficial or harmful. The attitude towards the behav-
ior (entrepreneurship) is an important component concerning the perception of desir-
ability that affects entrepreneurial intention. According to Santos et al., (2016) and Liñán
et. al. (2011a), ATE has a positive impact on EI.

Subjective norm (SN)

According to Ajzen (1991), the opinion of important reference groups such as parents,
spouses, friends, and relatives may also influence the behavior of a person to perform
or not perform certain actions. Social norms refer to the perceived social pressure from
family, friends, or significant others to perform an entrepreneurial behavior (Ajzen,
1991). Social norms tend to contribute more weakly to intention (Kolvereid & Isaksen,
2006) for individuals with a strong internal inner locus of control (Ajzen, 2002) com-
pared to those with a strong action orientation (Bagozzi, 1992). Some studies did not
establish any significant direct correlation between subjective norms (SN) and EI (Krue-
ger et al., 2000; Liñán & Chen, 2009; Santos et al., 2016). Most studies have established
that subjective norms favorably affect ATE and the PBC (Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2016;
Liñán & Chen, 2009; Liñán et al. 2011a; Liñán & Santos, 2007; Trivedi, 2017). Some
empirical studies (Scherer et al., 1989; Matthews & Moser, 1995; Trivedi, 2016, 2017)
have asserted that SN influence attitude and PBC and thus indirectly EI.

Perceived behavioral control

The third and most important determinant identified by Ajzen (1991) is the perceived
behavioural control. PBC examines the perceived feasibility of performing behaviour
and its closely related to the perception of self-efficacy (Krueger et al., 2000). PBC is the
perceived easiness or difficulty of becoming an entrepreneur (Ajzen, 1991). Although
some researchers have considered PBC as similar to self-efficacy, Ajzen (2002) speci-
fies that it is a wider construct, since it encompasses and perceived controllability of the
behavior. According to Santos et. al. (2016) and Liñán et. al. (2011a), PBC has a posi-
tive impact on EIs. In general, the more favorable the attitude and SN, and the greater
the perceived control, the stronger should be the individual’s intention to perform the
behavior in question (Bosnjak et al., 2020).
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 5 of 30

Entrepreneurship education and support

Entrepreneurship education refers to education for entrepreneurial attitudes and
skills (Bae et al., 2014). It consists of ‘any pedagogical program or process of education
for entrepreneurial attitudes and skills (Fayolle et al., 2006, p. 702). The debate about
whether entrepreneurship can be promoted through education or not persist because
of inconsistencies in previous studies. Whilst some empirical studies have found a posi-
tive impact from EE (Block et al., 2013; Iakovleva & Kolvereid, 2009; Kolvereid & Moen,
1997; Souitaris et al., 2007; Valliere, 2016; Walter & Dohse, 2012), others reported a sta-
tistically insignificant or negative relationship (Oosterbeek et al., 2010; von Graevenitz
et al., 2010). Bae et. al. (2014) in their meta-analysis suggested that EE is positively
related to entrepreneurial intentions.
According to Upton et. al. (1995), 40% of those who pursued entrepreneurship courses
started their own businesses. Liñán (2008) posits that EE can nurture a student’s atti-
tudes and intentions, as well as the establishment of a new firm. Previous studies suggest
that certain university support policies and practices can promote entrepreneurial activ-
ities among students, in areas such as technology transfer offices and faculty consultants
(Mian, 1996); university incubators and physical resources (Mian, 1997); and university
venture funds (Lerner, 2005). Entrepreneurship Education program and the entrepre-
neurial support provided by universities are effective ways of obtaining the requisite
knowledge about entrepreneurship and motivating young people to seek an entrepre-
neurial career (Henderson & Robertson, 1999; Lin & Si, 2014). The impact of education
and university environment on the creation of prospective entrepreneurs and the rela-
tionship between university assistance and support and the set of new businesses have
gained attention in the academic circles (Trivedi 2014). Trivedi (2016) established that
the university environment and support positively affect PBC. Zhang et. al. (2014) found
a positive correlation between EE and entrepreneurial intention among students.

Role models/parental self‑employment

Entrepreneurial family background refers to those people whose parent(s) or family
member(s) is (are) involved in self-employment (Bae et al., 2014). According to Stephens
(2007) parents play a major role in how their children turn out. Parents are powerful role
models for children and they can influence their children’s entrepreneurial intentions.
Zellweger et al. (2011) argued that entrepreneurship education is less probable to pro-
mote entrepreneurial intentions of students who come from an entrepreneurial family
background. According to Bae et al. (2014), EE may be less effective on entrepreneurial
intentions for students from an entrepreneurial family compared to students without an
entrepreneurial family background. In fact, they failed to support the hypothesis that,
the positive link between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions
will be weaker in people from an entrepreneurial family background than for those who
do not come from one.

The role of gender

Most studies claim that gender plays a major role in measuring entrepreneurial and
self-employment career choice intentions (Verheul et al., 2012). Gender differences
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 6 of 30

Table 1 Hypotheses (primary and secondary)

No. Description

Primary hypotheses
1 ATE positively influences entrepreneurial intention
2 PBC positively influences entrepreneurial intention
3 SN positively influences entrepreneurial intention
4 SN positively influences ATE
5 SN positively influences perceived behavioral control
Secondary hypotheses
6 ATEE positively influences ATE
7 ATEE positively influences PBC
8 ATEE is positively related to entrepreneurial intention
9 PSE positively influences ATE
10 PSE positively influences PBC
11 PSE are positively related to entrepreneurial intentions
12 The relationship between PSE and ATE is stronger for males than for females
13 The relationship between PSE and PBC is stronger for males than for females
14 The relationship between ATEE and ATE is stronger for males than for females
15 The relationship between ATEE and PBC is stronger for males than for females
NB: the primary hypotheses were analyzed along three thematic areas: complete/combined, males and females

Attitude towards
Entrepreneurship
Attitude Towards
Entrepreneurship
Education
Subjective Entrepreneurial
Norms Intention

Role Perceived
Behavioural Control
Models/Parental
(Self - efficacy)
Self-employed

GENDER

Fig. 1 Conceptual framework

in entrepreneurship are extensively reported in the literature (Gatewood et al., 2003;

Reynolds et al., 2004). The presence of a gap between males and females in entrepre-
neurship has long been recognized, (de Bruin et al., 2007; Díaz-García & Jiménez-
Moreno, 2010; Hughes et al., 2012). Males have higher entrepreneurial intentions
than females (Crant, 1996; Haus et al., 2013; Hindle et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2004;
Zhao et al., 2005). Bae et. al. (2014) failed to support the hypothesis that the positive
link between EE and entrepreneurial intentions will be weaker in males than females.
Gupta et. al. (2009) and Kristiansen and Indarti (2004) found no significant difference
between males and females respondents on entrepreneurial intentions.
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 7 of 30

From the foregoing, the following hypotheses (see Table 1) are proposed and the con-
ceptual framework for this study is depicted in Fig. 1.

Methodology
Following Engidaw (2021), Liñán (2008) and Ndofirepi (2020), the study is developed in
a single country, institution, and culture. Thus, the empirical analysis of this survey was
carried out among university students in a Spanish university in the Catalonia region.
We used a structured online questionnaire. Convenience sampling technique was used,
because it is a popular tool in entrepreneurship research (Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger et al.,
2000; Fayolle and Gailly 2015). In addition, a study by Bosma et. al. (2008) established
that young graduates (25–34 years) display the highest entrepreneurial propensity. We
applied the SEM–PLS technique to examine the constructs of the paper and the rela-
tionship among them.

Sample size
We used a sample size of 216, because according to Hoyle (1995), 100 to 200 respond-
ents is usually a good starting point in conducting path modelling. In addition, Partial
Least Squares (PLS) is suitable when exploratory studies are conducted and relatively
small samples are used (Sánchez-Franco & Roldán, 2005).

Measurement variables
The questionnaire was divided into the following sections: demographic, independent
(ATE, SN, and PBC), dependents variables (entrepreneurial intention), and Attitude
Towards Entrepreneurship Education and Parental Self-employment. The study adopted
the Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (EIQ) proposed by Liñán and Chen (2009)
to measure ATE, PBC, and SNs. Variables were tested using a five-point Likert scale
from ‘Strongly Agree’ to Strongly Disagree. Attitude Towards Entrepreneurship Educa-
tion/University environment and support scale originally developed by Kraaijenbrink
et al. (2009) and revised by Trivedi (2016) was also used in this study. Eighteen items
make up the ATEE Scale and are classified into two categories; General Education Sup-
port (check items 38–44 on Appendix A) and Targeted Cognitive and Non-cognitive
Support (check items 27–37 on Appendix A). ATE, SN, PBC, and ATEE constructs were
measured through reflective indicators. The other constructs were measured by nominal
scales due to their qualitative nature: Parental Self-employed (PSE) and gender. For PSE,
we asked the respondents if their mothers or fathers were entrepreneurs. It was a binary
YES/NO variable. Regarding Role Models, we asked the students if, at least, one of their
parents was an entrepreneur. It was a binary Yes/No variable.

Data analysis
Structural equation modeling–Partial Least Square (SEM–PLS) was used to test the pro-
posed model which hypothesizes a relationship between entrepreneurial intention, ATE,
SN, PBC, and ATEE. Hypotheses H12 to H15 were tested using multi-group analysis
(MGA).
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 8 of 30

Results
Profile of respondents
The number of respondents was 216, out of which 110 (50.9%) were males and
106 (49.1%) were females. Regarding Parental Self-employment, 110 (50.9%) of the
respondents’ parents were business owners, whereas 106 (49.1%), whereas 110
(50.9%) reported on the contrary. About 97.4% of the respondents were undergradu-
ate students, 88.2% of whom were not in employment. The majority of the students
fall within 20–24 ages (71.8%) category.

PLS–SEM results
In this section, we present the results of the PLS–SEM analysis. According to Hair
et al. (2010), a two-dimensional method can be applied for Structural Equation Mod-
elling (SEM); first, a measurement model analysis and second, a structural model
analysis. This two-step process guarantees scale validity and reliability.

Measurement model assessment

According to Roldán and Sanchez-Franco (2012), the first stage of the measurement
model assessment consists of observing the indicator loading values of the model (in
our case, the three models: Complete, Male-M, and the Female-F). Table 2 depicts
the parameters. It can be seen that Composite reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, and Aver-
age Variance Extracted (AVE) exceed 0.7, 0.7, and 0.5, respectively, hence meeting the
recommended values in literature (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Though reliability analy-
sis may be conducted using item loadings of above 0.707, Sánchez-Franco and Roldán
(2005) opined that for newly developed measures, a lower threshold of 0.6 may be
accepted. In general, the measurement model of this study was investigated following
four criteria’s, i.e., (a) Item reliability, (b) Internal consistency, (c) Convergent valid-
ity, and (d) Discriminant validity. As shown in Table 2, almost all the values support
the convergent validity of the composite scales for the Male and Female models, but
fully for the Complete model. Prior to this, the analysis of the measurement model
for the full sample found low loadings (check Appendix A) for some items and were
removed, and the PLS algorithm was run again. Scores regarding item reliability, con-
struct reliability and convergent, and discriminant validity is satisfactory (see Tables 2
and 3). Figures 2, 3 and 4 depict the PLS–SEM results for Complete, Female and Male,
respectively.

Explanation of target endogenous variable variance The coefficient of determination

R2 is 0.712 for the EI endogenous latent variable for the Complete model. This implies
that the three latent variables (ATE, SN and PBC) explain 71.2% of the variance in EI as
shown in Table 4. The coefficient of determination for Males and Females is also shown
in Table 4. According to Höck and Ringle (2006) results above the cutoffs 0.67, 0.33,
and 0.19 are ‘substantial’, ‘moderate’, and ‘weak’, respectively. Thus the results for the
three models are ‘substantial’. These findings are consistent with the study by Trivedi
(2016) who found 69% of the variance in the explanation of entrepreneurial intention.
Table 2 Full-sample measurement model (reliability indicators)/composites and measures
Items Loadings Composite reliability AVE Cronbach’s Alpha
Complete M F Complete M F Complete M F Complete M F

ATE 0.928 0.913 0.933 0.764 0.724 0.779 0.874 0.872 0.905
ATE2 0.892 0.833 0.918
ATE3 0.850 0.793 0.882
ATE4 0.859 0.917 0.813
ATE5 0.895 0.854 0.913
EI 0.940 0.936 0.933 0.724 0.710 0.703 0.922 0.917 0.912
EI 1 0.716 0.784 0.613
EI 2 0.871 0.847 0.878
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship

EI 3 0.912 0.895 0.926

EI 4 0.893 0.898 0.873
EI 5 0.810 0.728 0.845
EI 6 0.886 0.889 0.858
PSE 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
(2022) 11:36

PBC 0.895 0.873 0.909 0.588 0.538 0.626 0.859 0.824 0.880
  PBC 1 0.735 0.650 0.792
  PBC 2 0.832 0.847 0.805
  PBC 3 0.847 0.835 0.841
  PBC 4 0.709 0.638 0.784
  PBC 5 0.740 0.673 0.775
  PBC 6 0.729 0.729 0.747
SN 0.914 0.931 0.882 0.780 0.817 0.714 0.859 0.888 0.801
SN 1 0.866 0.878 0.845
SN 2 0.888 0.924 0.802
SN 3 0.896 0.909 0.886
Page 9 of 30
Table 2 (continued)
Items Loadings Composite reliability AVE Cronbach’s Alpha
Complete M F Complete M F Complete M F Complete M F
ATEE 0.944 0.935 0.953 0.607 0.568 0.672 0.936 0.926 0.948
ATEE1 0.838 0.826 0.830
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship

ATEE2 0.824 0.737 0.900

ATEE3 0.863 0.800 0.923
ATEE5 0.799 0.803 0.825
ATEE6 0.833 0.882 0.832
ATEE7 0.715 0.765 0.754
(2022) 11:36

ATEE8 0.763 0.715 0.774

ATEE9 0.674 0.626 0.715
ATEE11 0.680 0.635 0.673
ATEE12 0.787 0.749 0.845
ATEE18 0.772 0.709 0.806
Page 10 of 30
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 11 of 30

Table 3 Discriminant validity (complete)

ATE ATEE EI PBC PSE SN

ATE 0.874
ATEE 0.109 0.779
EI 0.791 0.36 0.851
PBC 0.517 0.188 0.615 0.767
PSE − 0.137 − 0.125 − 0.189 − 0.337 1.000
SN 0.525 0.306 0.620 0.514 − 0.295 0.883
Female
ATE 0.882
ATEE 0.120 0.810
EI 0.799 0.155 0.838
PBC 0.480 0.108 0.535 0.791
PSE − 0.086 0.049 − 0.142 − 0.347 1.000
SN 0.522 0.271 0.546 0.390 − 0.208 0.845
Male
ATE 0.851
ATEE 0.114 0.753
EI 0.767 0.127 0.842
PBC 0.521 0.294 0.668 0.734
PSE − 0.122 − 0.275 − 0.163 − 0.289 1.000
SN 0.518 0.367 0.663 0.604 − 0.276 0.904
The bolden part throws more light on the concept

Fig. 2 PLS–SEM results for complete

Structural model analysis

Using a two-tailed t test with a significance level of 5%, the path coefficient is significant
if the T-statistics is larger than 1.96. Regarding the Complete model, it can be observed
that three out of the nine relationships are not significant as depicted in Table 5. For
the Male model, five of the hypotheses are accepted and four are rejected (see Table 6).
Whereas, four of the hypotheses associated with the Females are accepted and five
rejected as depicted in Table 7.
Figure 5 shows the variance explained (R square) in the dependent constructs and the
path coefficients (b) for the complete model. Consistent with Chin (1998), bootstrap-
ping (5000 re-samples) was used to generate standard errors and T-statistics. Bootstrap
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 12 of 30

Fig. 3 PLS–SEM results for female

Fig. 4 PLS–SEM results for male

Table 4 R square
Complete Male Female

ATE 0.278 0.274 0.273

EI 0.712 0.723 0.683
PBC 0.310 0.384 0.231

represents a non-parametric approach for estimating the accuracy of PLS estimation.

This helps in the assessment of the statistical significance of the path coefficients. The
Complete model, Male model, and Female model explain 71.2%, 72.3%, and 68.3%,
respectively, of the variance in entrepreneurial intention based on SN, ATE, and PBC.
These results are encouraging, since most previous research typically explains less than
40%.

Collinearity assessment Collinearity is a potential issue in the structural model and that
variance inflation factor (VIF) value of 5 or above typically indicates such a problem (Hair
et al., 2011). The collinearity assessment results for the Combined Model are summarized
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 13 of 30

Table 5 (Complete): structural model results

Construct (O) (M) STDEV T statistics P values Hypothesis

ATE → EI 0.559 0.559 0.059 9.497 0.000 ACCEPT

ATEE → ATE − 0.077 − 0.060 0.116 0.662 0.508 REJECT
ATEE → PBC 0.026 0.043 0.128 0.200 0.841 REJECT
PBC → EI 0.219 0.220 0.073 2.991 0.003 ACCEPT
PSE → ATE − 0.024 − 0.023 0.084 0.287 0.774 REJECT
PSE → PBC − 0.228 − 0.218 0.084 2.699 0.007 ACCEPT
SN → ATE 0.551 0.543 0.084 6.594 0.000 ACCEPT
SN → EI 0.210 0.210 0.068 3.103 0.002 ACCEPT
SN → PBC 0.423 0.423 0.092 4.589 0.000 ACCEPT
Original sample (O), sample mean (M), standard deviation (STDEV)

Table 6 Male: structural model results

Construct (O) (M) STDEV T statistics P values Hypothesis

ATE → EI 0.511 0.513 0.088 5.825 0.000 ACCEPT

ATEE → ATE − 0.077 − 0.040 0.154 0.502 0.615 REJECT
ATEE → PBC 0.061 0.097 0.145 0.420 0.675 REJECT
PBC → EI 0.249 0.258 0.105 2.378 0.017 ACCEPT
PSE → ATE 0.028 0.043 0.131 0.213 0.831 REJECT
PSE → PBC − 0.154 − 0.143 0.130 1.185 0.236 REJECT
SN → ATE 0.588 0.569 0.132 4.446 0.000 ACCEPT
SN → EI 0.247 0.235 0.114 2.175 0.030 ACCEPT
SN → PBC 0.507 0.492 0.125 4.059 0.000 ACCEPT
Original sample (O), sample mean (M), standard deviation (STDEV)

Table 7 Female: structural model results

Construct (O) (M) STDEV T statistics P values Hypothesis

ATE → EI 0.610 0.605 0.087 7.045 0.000 ACCEPT

ATEE → ATE − 0.077 − 0.044 0.163 0.473 0.636 REJECT
ATEE → PBC 0.108 0.059 0.254 0.424 0.672 REJECT
PBC → EI 0.199 0.194 0.126 1.581 0.114 REJECT
PSE → ATE − 0.034 − 0.042 0.127 0.270 0.787 REJECT
PSE → PBC − 0.285 − 0.258 0.121 2.359 0.018 ACCEPT
SN → ATE 0.517 0.502 0.124 4.171 0.000 ACCEPT
SN → EI 0.141 0.154 0.094 1.500 0.134 REJECT
SN → PBC 0.305 0.327 0.140 2.182 0.029 ACCEPT
Original sample (O), sample mean (M), standard deviation (STDEV)

in Table 8. It can be observed that all VIF values are lower than 5, signifying that there is
no indicative collinearity between each set of predictor variables.

Measurement invariance of composite models

Measurement invariance of composite models (MICOM) is a logically necessary step
before conducting MGA. Hult et. al. (2008, p. 1028) posit that: ‘failure to establish data
equivalence is a potential source of measurement error (i.e., discrepancies of what is
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 14 of 30

Fig. 5 Bootstrapping (complete)

Table 8 Outer VIF values

Items VIF

ATE2 2.898
ATE3 2.198
ATE4 2.358
ATE5 2.841
EI 1 1.689
EI 2 3.170
EI 3 4.258
EI 4 3.508
EI 5 2.410
EI 6 3.610
PSE 1.000
PBC 1 1.840
PBC 2 2.595
PBC 3 2.504
PBC 4 1.773
PBC 5 2.108
PBC 6 1.665
SN 1 1.889
SN 2 2.338
SN 3 2.608
ATEE1 3.597
ATEE2 4.051
ATEE3 4.705
ATEE5 2.817
ATEE6 3.724
ATEE7 2.154
ATEE8 2.124
ATEE9 2.368
ATEE11 2.189
ATEE12 2.793
ATEE18 2.325
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 15 of 30

intended to be measured and what is actually measured), which accentuates the preci-
sion of estimators, reduces the power of statistical tests of hypothesis, and provides mis-
leading results’.
The MICOM procedure provides the method for studying the invariance before the
multi-group analysis. After confirming the existence of invariance, the next is to apply
the MGA, comparing the explained variance of each group. MICOM involves a three-
step process:

a. Configural invariance,
b. Compositional invariance and
c. Scalar invariance (equality of composite means and variances).

According to Garson (2016), running MICOM in SmartPLS normally automatically

establishes configural invariance. Thus, since statistical output does not apply to the first
step, we did not show it. However, steps 2 and 3 are discussed below. It must be noted
that in running the MICOM, outer loadings that were insignificant were deleted. This
accounts for the difference in the Algorithm figure for the MGA.

Compositional invariance
Compositional invariance is a test of the invariance of indicator weights for measure-
ment (outer) paths between groups (Garson, 2016). According to Henseler et. al. (2016),
if the results of MICOM’s Steps 1 and 2 (but not step 3) show that there is lack of meas-
urement invariance, partial measurement has been established. This result allows for
the comparison of the standardized path coefficients across the groups by performing
a multi-group analysis. If the analysis and tests on different required levels do not sup-
port full measurement invariance, applied research typically focusses on the least partial
fulfillment of measurement invariance (Hair et al., 2010). A result of non-significance
means that compositional invariance may be assumed. This implies the correlations are
not significantly lower than 1.0, as depicted in Table 9. Compositional invariance has
been fulfilled, because the Original Correlation is equal or greater than 5% quantile.

Scalar invariance (equality of composite means and variances)

Following Henseler et. al. (2016), we tested for scalar invariance in a way comparable to
that explained in Step 2. Permutation p value tests for Male and Female differences in
means and variances for each of the inner model constructs. As shown in Table 10, the

Table 9 MICOM step 2

Items Original correlation Correlation permutation 5.0% Permutation
mean p values

ATE 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.190

ATEE 0.981 0.956 0.820 0.371
EI 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.635
PBC 1.000 0.999 0.996 0.841
PSE 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.506
SN 0.999 0.999 0.996 0.396
Table 10 MICOM step 3
Items Mean—original Mean—permutation mean 2.5% 97.5% Permutation Variance—original Variance—permutation 2.5% 97.5% Permutation
difference (male– difference (male–female) p-values difference (male– mean difference (male– p values
female) female) female)
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship

ATE 0.468 − 0.004 − 0.274 0.265 0.001 − 0.286 0.005 − 0.389 0.396 0.160
ATEE 0.171 − 0.001 − 0.266 0.266 0.218 − 0.184 0.001 − 0.437 0.434 0.415
EI 0.604 − 0.005 − 0.276 0.263 − 0.029 0.005 − 0.361 0.362 0.879
PBC 0.434 0.266 0.002 0.025 0.005 0.403 0.906
(2022) 11:36

− 0.002 − 0.269 − 0.393

PSE − 0.296 0.002 − 0.259 0.260 0.036 − 0.010 0.000 − 0.008 0.011 0.055
SN 0.322 − 0.001 − 0.279 0.267 0.019 0.261 0.000 − 0.364 0.367 0.162
Page 16 of 30
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 17 of 30

Fig. 6 MGA algorithm

Fig. 7 MGA female

permutations p values for Mean Original Difference are significant. However, the per-
mutations p values for the Variance original difference are all non-significant. From the
forgoing, we can assume Partial invariance.

Multi‑group analysis
Having established configural and compositional invariance in Steps 1 and 2, we could
compare the path coefficients of Males and Females using a multi-group analysis. The
MGA uses independent samples t tests to compare paths between groups (Keil et al.,
2000). In this study, we divided the sample into two groups: males (110) and females
(106). This section presents the results of the MGA for the two groups (Males and
Females). According to Becker et. al. (2013) researchers who failed to consider this
potential issue may draw incorrect conclusions.
We start by first running the PLS Algorithm to determine whether the results for the
group’s specific model estimation differ. Using the ‘Use Relative Values’, stronger path
relationships have thicker lines and smaller path coefficients have thinner lines. As
shown in Fig. 6, we can apply this representation to compare the results for Males and
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 18 of 30

Fig. 8 MGA male

Fig. 9 Complete

Females. From the figure, we can see that the group specific PLS coefficients differ (e.g.,
ATE–EI, SN–ATE, and PBC–EI). Since there are differences in the group specific PLS
path model estimations, we need to find out if these differences are significant by run-
ning the PLS–MGA.
Figures 7, 8 and 9 show the absolute values, outer loadings, path coefficients, and the
R Square values of Males, Females and Complete. The MGA report provides path coeffi-
cients separately for the Male and Female groups, along with bootstrap-estimated stand-
ard deviations, t values, and significance p values as well as confidence intervals. From
Figs. 7, 8 and 9, we can see differences in the regression weights or beta coefficients.
However, to ascertain whether the differences are significant we have to apply the boot-
strap t test in the output section on the confidence intervals. From Table 11, it can be
seen that the path from ATE–EI, SN–ATE, and SN–PBC confidence intervals overlap.
This implies that at the 0.05 significance level, there is no difference in path coefficients
between Male and Female samples. Thus, the paths in the structural model (ATE–EI,
Table 11 Bootstrapping results (for MGA)
Items Path coefficients Path Path Path STDEV (female) STDEV (male) t value (female) t value (male) p value (female) p value (male)
original (female) coefficients coefficients coefficients
original (male) mean (female) mean (male)

0.625 0.470 0.623 0.469 0.064 0.072 9.774 6.543 0.000 0.000
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship

ATE → EI
ATEE → ATE − 0.028 − 0.109 − 0.003 − 0.094 0.166 0.104 0.166 1.048 0.868 0.295
ATEE → PBC 0.129 0.081 0.108 0.102 0.171 0.095 0.754 0.855 0.451 0.393
PBC → EI 0.143 0.259 0.141 0.266 0.072 0.079 1.999 3.290 0.046 0.001
PSE → ATE − 0.050 − 0.060 − 0.055 − 0.049 0.085 0.095 0.580 0.634 0.562 0.526
(2022) 11:36

PSE → PBC − 0.324 − 0.084 − 0.313 − 0.076 0.072 0.093 4.475 0.899 0.000 0.368
SN → ATE 0.494 0.472 0.485 0.468 0.068 0.105 7.319 4.512 0.000 0.000
SN → EI 0.203 0.286 0.206 0.278 0.060 0.075 3.371 3.818 0.001 0.000
SN → PBC 0.279 0.467 0.291 0.461 0.081 0.092 3.440 5.069 0.001 0.000
Page 19 of 30
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 20 of 30

Table 12 PLS–MGA
Items Path coefficients-diff (male– p value original 1-tailed (male p value new
female) vs. female) (male vs.
female)

ATE → EI − 0.156 0.947 0.105

ATEE → ATE − 0.081 0.668 0.664
ATEE → PBC − 0.048 0.651 0.697
PBC → EI 0.116 0.131 0.263
PSE → ATE − 0.011 0.537 0.927
PSE → PBC 0.240 0.022 0.043
SN → ATE − 0.023 0.564 0.872
SN → EI 0.083 0.191 0.382
SN → PBC 0.189 0.063 0.126

Table 13 F square
ATE ATEE EI PBC PSE SN

ATE 0.724
ATEE 0.004 0.001
EI
PBC 0.101
PSE 0.000 0.065
SN 0.348 0.101 0.253

SN–ATE, and SN–PBC) are significant for both Males and Females, as depicted in the
p values columns. However, for the MGA, we focus on Hypotheses H12, H13, H14, and
H15. From Table 12, it can be noted that there is significant relationship between PSE
and PBC but no significant relationship between the other variables; hence hypotheses
H13 is accepted but H12, H14 and H15 are rejected.
According to H12, the relationship between PSE and ATE is stronger for men than
women. However, there are no significant relationships between both groups, hence
this hypothesis is rejected. According to H13, the relationship between PSE and PBC
is stronger for men than women, hence this hypothesis is accepted. According to H14,
‘The relationship between ATEE and ATE is stronger for Males than for Females’. From
Table 11, it can be seen that the relationship is not significant for both groups, hence
we reject this hypothesis. Regarding H15, the relationship between ATEE and PBC is
stronger for Males than Females. However, results reveal that the relationship between
the Male and Female groups was insignificant. Hence we reject this hypothesis.

F square
The f-square equation expresses how large a proportion of unexplained variance is
accounted for by R2 change (Hair et al., 2014). The effect size is assessed with a tool
known as F square indicated in Table 13 and Fig. 8. Following Cohen (1988) an F square
value of above 0.35 is considered large effect size; values ranging from 0.15 to 0.35 are
medium effect size; values between 0.02 and 0.15 are considered small effect and values
less than 0.02 are considered NO effect size. From Fig. 104, it can be observed that the
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 21 of 30

Fig. 10 F square

Table 14 PLSc algorithm total indirect effects

ATE ATEE EI PBC PSE SN

ATE
ATEE − 0.028
EI
PBC
PSE − 0.050
SN 0.404

Table 15 PLSc algorithm specific indirect effects

Specific
indirect
effects

ATEE → ATE → EI − 0.032

PSE → ATE → EI − 0.003
SN → ATE → EI 0.308
ATEE → PBC → EI 0.005
PSE → PBC → EI − 0.046
SN → PBC → EI 0.095

ATE–EI relationship is the highest, i.e., 0.724. This is followed by SN–ATE and SN–PBC,
respectively (Fig. 10).

Mediation analysis
According to Aguinis et. al. (2017), mediation refers to the presence of an intermediate
variable or mechanism that transmits the effect of an antecedent variable to an outcome.
The framework (Fig. 1) for this study called for multiple mediation analysis. As shown
in Table 14, there are three Total Indirect Effects. However, the Specific Indirect Effects
were six as depicted in Table 15. Tables 14 and 15 reveal the running of the Consist-
ent Algorithm. To identify which of the variables were significant we run the Consistent
Bootstrapping. The results are found in Tables 16 and 17. As shown in Table 17 it can be
seen that SN → ATE → EI and SN → PBC → EI are significant.
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 22 of 30

Table 16 Bootstrapping (c) total indirect effects

Original Sample Standard T statistic P values

ATE → EI
ATEE → ATE
ATEE → EI − 0.037 − 0.026 0.080 0.466 0.642
ATEE → PBC
PBC → EI
PSE → ATE
PSE → EI − 0.063 − 0.062 0.060 1.047 0.295
PSE → PBC
SN → ATE
SN → EI 0.400 0.397 0.067 6.008 0.000
SN → PBC

Table 17 Bootstrapping (c) specific indirect effects

Original Sample Standard T statistic P values

ATEE → ATE → EI − 0.043 − 0.033 0.066 0.650 0.516

PSE → ATE → EI − 0.013 − 0.013 0.047 0.286 0.775
SN → ATE → EI 0.308 0.303 0.056 5.535 0.000
ATEE → PBC → EI 0.006 0.007 0.030 0.187 0.852
PSE → PBC → EI − 0.050 − 0.049 0.027 1.825 0.068
SN → PBC → EI 0.093 0.094 0.040 2.310 0.021

Discussion
The main claim of the TPB is that intention is influenced by three variables, i.e., ATE,
SNs, and PBC. This exposition of the Ajzen model lays the foundation for the hypoth-
eses which tested the validity of the model in the present paper. Specifically, we inves-
tigated the effect of gender on ATEE and Role Models by applying the TPB (1991).
Though empirical studies in entrepreneurship have produced contradictory results, we
proceeded to apply the TPB to examine students’ entrepreneurial intention, because it
is probably one of the most tried and tested theories in entrepreneurial research. We
explored the extent to which PSE and EE impact entrepreneurial intentions. We formu-
lated two categories of hypotheses; primary and secondary and conducted a tripartite
analysis for Complete, Male and Female models.
This study underscored ATE as one of the important determinants of our framework.
The paper exhibited a strong and highly significant relationship between ATE and entre-
preneurial intention. This confirms the findings of Krueger et al. (2000) and Mahfud
et al. (2020) who reported that ATE has a significant direct relationship with entrepre-
neurial intention.
Regarding the Complete and Male Models, all the primary hypotheses were accepted.
However, with the Female Model four out of the primary hypotheses were accepted.
These results are in line with previous studies (Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2016; Liñán & San-
tos, 2007; Liñán et al., 2011a) which found that SNs have a significant positive correla-
tion with ATE and PBC.
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 23 of 30

The relationship between ATEE and EI, and PSE and EI were both insignificant. Bae
et. al. (2014), in their paper, reported a statistically significant but small positive relation-
ship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions.
With regards to the relationship between PSE/Role Models, the results points out
that having a parent who is an entrepreneur positively influence a student’s PBC (for the
Complete and Female models). In addition, according to BarNir et. al. (2011), this has the
probability of increasing one’s knowledge, mastery, or general set of ability with regard
to engaging in tasks required for becoming an entrepreneur. Interestingly, there was an
insignificant relationship between PSE/Role Models and PBC for the male respondents.
According to this study the relationship between PSE and PBC is stronger for Males
than Females, hence H13 is accepted. According to Wilson et. al. (2004) women tend to
shy away from entrepreneurial activity more frequently than men due to a lower per-
ception of perceived self-efficacy in carrying out entrepreneurial tasks. Verheul et. al.
(2003) buttress this by emphasizing that females less frequently perceive themselves as
entrepreneurs.
This study fails to fully support previous studies, on how exposure to entrepreneurial
education and role models impact on Males and Females. Thus hypotheses H12, H14
and H15 were not supported. We established non-significant effects for gender and
parental self-employment. These results are in line with a paper by Bae et. al. (2014),
when they conducted a meta-analytic review of 73 studies. The influence of ATEE on
PBC was also not significant. These findings are consistent with those of Entrialgo and
Iglesias (2017).
This study has confirmed the applicability of the TPB model to entrepreneurial inten-
tion and the role of gender. However, we did not find a significant relationship between
Males and Females concerning their entrepreneurial intentions for H12, H14 and H15.
Therefore, gender had no significance on the path coefficients. That means the gender
of a student doesn’t affect the relationship between ATEE and EI. The finding further
revealed that gender has no influence on the relationship between attitude and inten-
tion, which was supported by Nowinski et. al. (2019) and (Jena, 2020). These results
are inconsistent with those of Santos et. al. (2016) who found that Males display higher
entrepreneurial intentions than Females.

Implications and direction for future research

This study has some interesting implications. First, ATE came out as the most important
variable of the model and this implies that entrepreneurial attitudes may be influenced
by the relevant stakeholders in academic circles. Though we did not establish a positive
correlation between PSE and ATE, influential role models can support nascent entrepre-
neurs. We recommend the institutionalization of traineeship, elective courses, confer-
ence and workshops on entrepreneurship to boost the entrepreneurial spirit of students.
In addition, policy-makers can motivate students by providing some fiscal incentives to
allow individual and business angel investments in the seed stage of their entrepreneur-
ial activities as proposed by the European Commission (2020).
Our paper extends the studies of Trivedi (2016) by introducing Role Model or Paren-
tal Self-employment as an additional antecedent and the role of gender. This study also
proximately mirrors the study by Entrialgo and Iglesias (2017), though our study used
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 24 of 30

a Likert scale to measure entrepreneurial education instead of a dichotomous variable.

The findings also contribute to research on parental self-employment (PSE). The results
indicate that role model or parental self-employment impact on PBC for the Complete
and the Female models. However, there was an insignificant relationship between paren-
tal self-employed and PBC for the Male model.
Though we found no significant relationship for ATEE on EI, we suggest that educa-
tors and the relevant stakeholders focus on how to stimulate entrepreneurial intentions
through education. According to Urbano and Guerrero (2013), it is expedient to expand
the scope of the university from the conventional or old-fashioned mode of knowledge
to an entrepreneurial ecosystem leading to the concept of an entrepreneurial university.
Notwithstanding the importance of entrepreneurship education in the development of
entrepreneurial intentions, this paper revealed that ATEE has no significant impact on
ATE and PBC. This probably call for early engagement of the students to expose them to
entrepreneurial education (Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2017).

Limitations
In considering the generalizability of this paper, it is important to highlight some limita-
tions. First, the respondents were sampled from a single university in Spain. It will be
exciting to replicate the study with a multi-country sample to identify the dynamics of
ATEE and PSE in those countries. In addition, the majority of the students were from
the Faculty of Law and Business Administration, leading to skewness of the sample char-
acteristics. Furthermore, the insufficient number of samples in the subgroups (Male and
Female) has the potential of reducing the power of analysis, leading to sampling error
(Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).

Conclusions
The main objective of this study is to examine the role of gender on entrepreneurial
education and role models or parental self-employment, by carrying out a multi-group
analysis. The paper has contributed to the existing literature on the multi-group analy-
sis of gender on entrepreneurial intentions among university students. Although the dif-
ferences between Males and Females were not significant for three of the relationships
(H12, H14 and H15), the applicability of the TPB to measure entrepreneurial intentions
has been supported. This paper has reinforced attitude as one of the most important
variable in the study model.

Appendix A

1 Gender Male [ ] Female [ ] Prefer not to say [ ] Other [ ]

2 How old are you? [ ] Less than 20 years [ ] 20–24 years [ ] 25–29 years
3 Are your parents currently [ ] YES [ ] NO
self-employed?
Based on your opinion, please indicate the most appropriate response with the scale given below. (1)
SD = Strongly Disagree (2) D = Disagree (3) N = Neutral (4) A = Agree (5) SA = Strongly Agree
Attitude towards entrepreneurship
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 25 of 30

4 Being an entrepreneur implies 1 2 3 4 5

more advantages than disad-
vantages to me
5 A career as an entrepreneur is 1 2 3 4 5
attractive for me
6 If I had the opportunity and 1 2 3 4 5
resources, I’d like to start a firm
7 Being an entrepreneur would 1 2 3 4 5
entail great satisfactions for me
8 Among various career options, 1 2 3 4 5
I’d rather be an entrepreneur
Perceived behavioral control
9 Start a firm and kept it working 1 2 3 4 5
would be easy for me
10 I am prepared to start a viable 1 2 3 4 5
firm
11 I can control the creation pro- 1 2 3 4 5
cess of a new firm
12 I know the necessary practical 1 2 3 4 5
details to start a firm
13 I know how to develop an 1 2 3 4 5
entrepreneurial project
14 If I tried to start a firm, I would 1 2 3 4 5
have a high probability of suc-
ceeding
Entrepreneurial intentions
15 I am ready to do anything to be 1 2 3 4 5
an entrepreneur
16 My professional goal is to be an 1 2 3 4 5
entrepreneur
17 I will make every effort to start 1 2 3 4 5
and run my own enterprise
18 I am determined to create a 1 2 3 4 5
firm in the future
19 I have very seriously thought of 1 2 3 4 5
starting a firm
20 I have got the firm intention to 1 2 3 4 5
start a company some day
Attitude towards entrepreneurship education
21 My university helps students 1 2 3 4 5
to build required network for
starting a firm
22 My university has well-function- 1 2 3 4 5
ing infrastructure to support
the new start-up firms
23 My university arranges for men- 1 2 3 4 5
toring and advisory services for
would-be entrepreneurs
24 My university uses its reputation 1 2 3 4 5
to support students that start a
new business
25 My university provides creative 1 2 3 4 5
atmosphere to develop ideas
for new business start-ups
26 My university provides students 1 2 3 4 5
with ideas to start a new busi-
ness firm
27 My university provides students 1 2 3 4 5
with the financial means
needed to start a new business
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 26 of 30

28 My university motivates stu- 1 2 3 4 5

dents to start a new business
29 My university provides students 1 2 3 4 5
with the knowledge needed to
start a new business
30 My university arranges lectures 1 2 3 4 5
of successful entrepreneurs for
experience-sharing
31 My university creates awareness 1 2 3 4 5
of entrepreneurship as a pos-
sible career choice
32 My university brings entrepre- 1 2 3 4 5
neurial students in contact with
each other
33 My university offers project 1 2 3 4 5
work focused on entrepreneur-
ship
34 My university offers traineeship 1 2 3 4 5
study in entrepreneurship
35 My university offers elective 1 2 3 4 5
courses on entrepreneurship
36 My university offers a bachelor 1 2 3 4 5
or master study in entrepre-
neurship
37 My university arranges confer- 1 2 3 4 5
ences and workshops on
entrepreneurship
38 My university organizes busi- 1 2 3 4 5
ness plan competitions and
case teaching for entrepreneur-
ship
Subjective norm
39 My closest family members 1 2 3 4 5
think that I should pursue a
career as an Entrepreneur
40 My closest friends think that I 1 2 3 4 5
should pursue a career as an
entrepreneur
41 People who are important to 1 2 3 4 5
me think that I should pursue a
career as an entrepreneur

Abbreviations
TPB: Theory of Planned Behaviour; PSE: Parental self-employment; MGA: Multi-group analysis; SEM: Structural Equation
Modelling; PLS: Partial Least Square; PBC: Perceived behavioural control; EI: Entrepreneurial intention; EE: Entrepreneur-
ship education; ATEE: Attitude Towards Entrepreneurship Education; ATE: Attitude Towards Entrepreneurship; SN: Subjec-
tive norm; EIQ: Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire; AVE: Average Variance Extracted; M: Male; F: Female; VIF: Variance
inflation factor; O: Original sample; M: Sample mean; STDEV: Standard deviation; MICOM: Measurement invariance of
composite models.

Acknowledgements
The authors have no support to report.

Authors’ contributions
Conceptualisation and idea by KA and RS; study design and methods by KA and RS; data collection by KA; analysis and
interpretation by KA; manuscript preparation/draft writing by KA and RS and critical review of the intellectual content by
KA and RS. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding
The authors have no funding to report.

Availability of data and materials

The data sets and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
request.
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 27 of 30

Declarations
Competing interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Author details
1
Law and Business Administration, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain. 2 Sunyani Technical University, Sunyani, Ghana.
3
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Law and Economics, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain.

Received: 2 December 2020 Accepted: 12 January 2022

References
Aguinis, H., Edwards, J. R., & Bradley, K. J. (2017). Improving our understanding of moderation and mediation in strategic
management research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 665–685. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10944​28115​
627498
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 50(2), 179–211.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0749-​5978(91)​90020-T.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Behavioral interventions based on the theory of planned behavior. Research Policy, 2011, 1–6. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​respol.​2007.​07.​006
Ajzen, I. (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In P. A. M. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of
theories of social psychology 1 (pp. 438–459). London, United Kingdom: SAGE.
Amofah, K., Akwaa-Sekyi, E., & Saladrigues, R. (2020). Entrepreneurial intentions among MBA students. Cogent Business &
Management, 7(1), 1–23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​23311​975.​2020.​18324​01
Audretsch, D., Horst, R. Van Der, & Thurik, R. (2009). First section of the annual report on EU small and medium-sized
enterprises.
Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial
intentions: A meta-analytic review. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​
etap.​12095
Bagozzi, P. R. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204.
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.
Becker, J., Ringle, C. M., & Hreats, A. V. V. A. T. (2013). Discovering unobserved heterogeneity in structural equation models
to avert validity threats. MIS Quarterly, 37(September), 665–694.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3),
442–453. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amr.​1988.​43069​70
Block, J. H., Hoogerheide, L., & Thurik, R. (2013). Education and entrepreneurial choice: An instrumental variables analysis.
International Small Business Journal, 31(1), 23–33. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02662​42611​400470
Bosma, N., Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., Coduras, A. & Levie, L. (2008). Global entrepreneurship monitor executive report. Babson
Park, Santiago, London.
Bosnjak, M., Ajzen, I. & Schmidt, P. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Selected recentadvances and applications.
Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 352–356. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5964/​ejop.​v16i3.​3107.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16.
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Colette, H., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught? Educa-
tion + Training, 47(3), 158–169.
Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business
Management, 34(3), 42–49.
Davissson, P. (1995). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. Paper presented at the RENT IX, Piacenza, November
23–24.
de Bruin, A., Brush, C. G. & Welter, F. (2007). Advancing a framework for coherent research on women’s entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory And Practice, 323–339.
Díaz-García, M. C., & Jiménez-Moreno, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention: The role of gender. International Entrepreneur-
ship and Management Journal, 6(3), 261–283. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11365-​008-​0103-2
Engidaw, E. A. (2021). Exploring entrepreneurial culture and its socio-cultural determinants: In case of Woldia Uni-
versity graduating students. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(12), 1–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s13731-​021-​00155-7
Entrialgo, M., & Iglesias, V. (2016). The moderating role of entrepreneurship education on the antecedents of entrepre-
neurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(4), 1209–1232. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11365-​016-​0389-4
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), 1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1515/​erj-​2017-​0013
European Commission. (2020). Social enterprises and their ecosystems In Europe. Available at http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​social/​
easi. Accessed 22 Aug 2021.
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). On entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Busi-
ness Management, 53(1), 75–93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jsbm.​12065
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 28 of 30

Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: A new
methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​03090​59061​07150​22
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.
Garson, G. D. (2016). Partial least squares: Regression & structural equation models. G. David Garson and Statistical Associates
Publishing.
Gatewood, E. J., Carter, N. M., Brush, C. G., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. (2003). Women entrepreneurs, their ventures, and the
venture capital industry: An annotated bibliography. ESBRI.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs
and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2), 397–417.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis, a global perspective, 7th ed. Pearson
Education.
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.
Henderson, R., & Robertson, M. (1999). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a
career. Education + Training, 41(5), 236–245. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​00400​91991​02799​73
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20.
Hindle, K., Klyver, K., & Jennings, D. F. (2009). Understanding the entrepreneurial mind. Springer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
978-1-​4419-​0443-0
Höck, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2006). Strategic networks in the software industry: An empirical analysis of the value contin-
uum. IFSAM VIIIth World Congress, Berlin 2006. Retrieved 12/24/2020 from http://​www.​ibl-​unihh.​de/​IFSAM​06.​pdf.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE Publications,Inc.
Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hughes, K. D., Jennings, J. E., Brush, C., Carter, S., & Welter, F. (2012). Extending women’s entrepreneurship research in new
directions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36(3), 429–442. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2012.​00504.x
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., Griffith, D. A., Finnegan, C. A., Gonzalez-padron, T., Harmancioglu, N., Huang, Y., & Talay, M. B.
(2008). Data equivalence in cross-cultural international business research: Assessment and guidelines. Journal of
International Business Studies, 39, 1027–1044. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1057/​palgr​ave.​jibs.​84003​96
Iakovleva, T., & Kolvereid, L. (2009). An integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions. International Journal of Business and
Globalisation, 3(1), 66. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1504/​IJBG.​2009.​021632
Jena, R. K. (2020). Measuring the impact of business management student’s attitude towards entrepreneurship educa-
tion on entrepreneurial intention: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 107(January), 106275. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​chb.​2020.​106275
Keil, M., Tuunainen, V., Tan, C, Y. B., Wassenaar, A., Wei, K. K. & Saarinen, T. (2000). A cross-cultural study on escalation of
commitment behavior in software projects. MIS Quarterly, 24(2), 299–325.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47–57.
Kolvereid, L., & Isaksen, E. (2006). New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment. Journal of Business
Venturing, 21(6), 866–885. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2005.​06.​008
Kolvereid, L., & Moen, Ø. (1997). Entrepreneurship among business graduates: Does a major in entrepreneurship make a
difference? Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(4), 154–160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​03090​59971​01714​04.
Kraaijenbrink, J., Bos, G. & Groen, A. (2009). What do students think of the entrepreneurial support given by their univer-
sities? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 9(1), 110–125.
Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.-C., & Groen, A. J. (2010). The resource – based view: A review and assessment of its critiques.
Journal of Management, 36(1), 349–372. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01492​06309​350775.
Kristiansen, S., & Indarti, N. (2004). Entrepreneurial intention among Indonesian and Norwegian students. Journal of
Enterprising Culture, 12, 55–78.
Krueger, N. F. (1993). Growing up entreprenereurial? Some developmental consequences of early exposure to entrepre-
neurship. In Academy of Management Proceedings, (pp. 80–84). Academy of Management.
Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 15(5), 411–432. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0883-​9026(98)​00033-0
Lerner, J. (2005). The university and the start-up: Lessons from the past two decades. Journal of Technology Transfer,
30(1–2), 49–56. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10961-​004-​4357-8
Lin, S. & Si, S. (2014). Factors affecting peasant entrepreneurs’ intention in the Chinese context. International Entrepreneur-
ship and Management Journal, 10(4), 803–825.
Liñán, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: How do they affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, 4(3), 257–272. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11365-​008-​0093-0
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepre-
neurial intentions Francisco. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33, 593–617.
Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011a). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A
role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 195–218. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11365-​010-​0154-z
Liñán, F., & Santos, F. J. (2007). Does social capital affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Advances in Economic
Research, 13(4), 443–453. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11294-​007-​9109-8
Liñán, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011b). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of
university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(3–4), 187–215. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
08985​62090​32339​29
Mahfud, T., Bruri, M., Sudira, P., & Mulyani, Y. (2020). The influence of social capital and entrepreneurial attitude orientation
on entrepreneurial intentions: The mediating role of psychological capital. European Research on Management and
Business Economics, 26, 33–39.
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 29 of 30

Matthews, C. H. & Moser, S. B. (1995). Family background and gender: Implications for interest in small firm ownership.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 7, 365–377.
Mian, S. A. (1996). Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firm.
Research Policy, 25(3), 325–335.
Mian, S. A. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Jour-
nal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 251–285. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0883-​9026(96)​00063-8
Moriano, J. A., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U., & Zarafshani, K. (2012). A cross-cultural approach to understand-
ing entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Career Development, 39(2), 162–185. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​08948​45310​
384481
Ndofirepi, M. T. (2020). Relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial goal intentions:
Psychological traits as mediators. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s13731-​020-​0115-x
Nguyen, A. T., Do, T. H. H., Vu, T. B. T., Dang, K. A., & Nguyen, H. L. (2019). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions among
youths in Vietnam. Children and Youth Services Review, 99(November), 186–193. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​child​youth.​
2019.​01.​039
Nowinski, W., Haddoud, M. Y., Lancaric, D., Dana, E., & Czegledi, C. (2019). The impact of entrepreneurship education,
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad coun-
tries. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 361–379.
Ohanu, B. I., & Shodipe, O. T. (2021). Influence of the link between resources and behavioural factors on the entrepreneur-
ial intentions of electrical installation and maintenance work students. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
10(13), 1–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13731-​021-​00154-8
Oosterbeek, H., van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship
skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3), 442–454. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​euroe​corev.​2009.​08.​002
Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entre-
preneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 129–144.
Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W., & Autio, E. (2004). GEM 2003 executive report. Babson College, London Business School, and
Kauffman Foundation.
Roldán, J. L., Sánchez-Franco, M.J., (2012). Variance-based structural equation modeling: guidelines for using partial least
squares in information systems research. In Mora, M., Gelman, O., Steenkamp, A. L. and Raisinghani, M. (Eds) Research
methodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering and information systems (pp. 193–221).
IGI Global: Hershey, PA.
Sánchez-Franco, M. J., & Roldán, J. L. (2005). Web acceptance and usage model: A comparison between goal-directed
and experiential web users. Internet Research, 15(1), 21–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​10662​24051​05770​59
Santos, F. J., Roomi, M. A., & Liñán, F. (2016). About gender differences and the social environment in the development of
entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 49–66. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jsbm.​12129
Scherer, R. F., Adams, J. S., Carley, S. S., & Wiebe, F. A. (1989). Role model performance effects on development of entre-
preneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(3), 53–72. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10422​58789​
01300​306
Shapero, A. & Sokol, L. (1982). Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L.Sexton, K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Ency-
clopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of sci-
ence and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4),
566–591. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2006.​05.​002
Stephens, K. (2007). Parents are powerful role models for children.
Stoica, O., Roman, A., & Rusu, V. D. (2020). The nexus between entrepreneurship and economic growth: A comparative
analysis on groups of countries. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(3), 1–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su120​31186.
Trivedi, R. (2016). Does university play significant role in shaping entrepreneurial intention? A cross-country com-
parative analysis. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(3), 790–811. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
JSBED-​10-​2015-​0149
Trivedi, R. H. (2014). Are we committed to teach entrepreneurship in business school?: An empirical analysis of lecturers
in India, Singapore andMalaysia. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 8(1),
71–81.
Trivedi, R. H. (2017). Entrepreneurial-intention constraint model: A comparative analysis among post-graduate manage-
ment students in India, Singapore and Malaysia. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(4),
1239–1261. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11365-​017-​0449-4.
Turker, D., & Selcuk, S. S. (2009). Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? Journal of European
Industrial Training, 33(2), 142–159. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​03090​59091​09390​49
Upton, N., Sexton, D., & Moore, C. (1995). Have we made a difference? An examination of career activity of entrepreneur-
ship majors since 1981. In Frontiers of entrepreneurship research: Proceedings of the 15th annual entrepreneurship
research conference. Babson Park, MA: Babson College.
Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial universities: Socioeconomic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a
European region. Gender and Society, 27(1), 40–55. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​08912​42412​471973
Valliere, D. (2016). Measuring regional variations of entrepreneurial intent in India. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(2),
111–128. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09713​55716​650362
Verheul, I., Thurik, R., Grilo, I., & Van der Zwan, P. (2012). Explaining preferences and actual involvement in self-employ-
ment: Gender and the entrepreneurial personality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(2), 325–341. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​joep.​2011.​02.​009
Verheul, I., Uhlaner, L., & Thurik, R. (2003). Business accomplishments, gender and entrepreneurial self image. SCALES
(Scientific Analysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs)-paper No. 200312, EIM Business and Policy Research.
von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D., & Weber, R. (2010). The effects of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Economic Behavior
and Organization, 76(1), 90–112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jebo.​2010.​02.​015
Amofah and Saladrigues Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2022) 11:36 Page 30 of 30

Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university
spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541–567. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2005.​02.​005
Walter, S. G., & Dohse, D. (2012). Why mode and regional context matter for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development, 24(9–10), 807–835. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​08985​626.​2012.​721009
Wilson, F., Marlino, D., & Kickul, J. (2004). Our entrepreneurial future: Examining the diverse attitudes and motivations of
teens across gender and ethnic identity. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9(3), 177–197.
Zellweger, T., Sieger, P., & Halter, F. (2011). Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5), 521–536. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2010.​04.​001
Zhang, Y., Duysters, G., & Cloodt, M. (2014). The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor of university students’
entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(3), 623–641. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11365-​012-​0246-z
Zhao, H., Hills, G. E., & Seibert, S. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial inten-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265–1272. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-​9010.​90.6.​1265

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.