Risk-taking, knowledge, and mindset: unpacking the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) claims that attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control may accurately anticipate intentions to undertake various types of behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). TPB assumes that when individuals confront a plethora of issues vs. alternative options, they may choose to react or not react based on a prior evaluation of the behavior. The second is perceived feasibility, an individual’s self-assessed capacity to launch an entrepreneurial enterprise, commonly measured in terms of self-efficacy but originally stated as perceived behavioral control in early versions of TPB (Ajzen, 1991). The third component is social norms, which pertain to the perceived level of normative societal pressure and attitudes about partaking in such activity (Ajzen, 2005; Ajzen & Cote, 2008; Krueger et al., 2000). This conceptual ordering predicts entrepreneurial activity based on the influence of these variables on intentions, which may be gained from individual antecedent factors such as demographic features or personality qualities, as well as merely environmental conditions. In summary, the TPB is used in this study to explain the impact of risk-taking, entrepreneurial knowledge, and entrepreneurial mindset on entrepreneurial intention through the lens of cognitive antecedents.

Social cognitive theory (SCT) is one of the most widely used theories of health behavior (Baranowski et al., 2002). SCT proposes a reciprocal deterministic relationship between the individual, his or her environment, and behavior; all three elements interact dynamically and reciprocally to form the foundation for behavior, as well as potential interventions to change it (Bandura, 1986, 2001). According to Bandura (1989, 2006), learning, motivation, and behavioral processes are the result of a reciprocal and bidirectional interaction between environmental inputs, personality traits, and behavioral outcomes. Furthermore, if an individual has strong feelings/emotions (i.e., passion), they may decide for an entrepreneurial career based on their traits that would lead to a desired conclusion (Nwosu et al., 2022; Kyriakopoulos et al., 2024). We adopt SCT to explain how personal and motivational elements (risk-taking, entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial knowledge) are related to behavioral outcomes (entrepreneurial intention) via the lens of cognitive antecedents complementing existing research that combines SCT with the entrepreneurial intentions model to deepen the understanding of intentions going beyond fixed characteristics and also considering developable competencies (Palmer et al., 2021).

The entrepreneurial event theory (Shapero & Sokol, 1982) defines the creation of a company as the result of the interplay of contextual circumstances, which would function through their effect on the individual’s perceptions. Ajzen (2001) identifies three cognitive elements that drive behavior, as follows: (1) perceived behavioral elements would be defined as the perception of the easiness or difficulty in the fulfillment of the behavior of interest, similar to perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), and to Shapero and Sokol’s (1982) vision about perceived feasibility; (2) attitude towards behavior relates to the degree to which the individual feels a positive or negative personal appraisal about becoming an entrepreneur; (3) perceived social norms measure the perceived societal pressure to carry out—or not carry out—that entrepreneurial behavior.

Entrepreneurs, it is believed, must be willing to accept risks as launching a new business means making and taking decisions under uncertainty (Gürol & Atsan, 2006). As defined by Hisrich et al. (2005), entrepreneurial risk-taking entails “assuming the financial, mental, and social risk” that comes with the entrepreneurial process. Previous studies have discovered a favorable association between risk-taking and entrepreneurship (Ahmed et al., 2020; Nowiński et al., 2020). Drawing on this information and the TPB, we formulate the following hypothesis.

The propensity for risk-taking is traditionally viewed as a personality trait generally associated with entrepreneurs. Earlier research considered risk-taking as the antecedent to TPB dimensions stressing its role in enhancing entrepreneurial intentions (Scafarto et al., 2019). Social norms, meaning ‘the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior’ (Ajzen, 1991, p. 188) are also positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. Considering that a risk-taking behavior is a common trait of entrepreneurial path (Begley & Boyd, 1987; Knight, 1921; Mill, 1848), we propose the following:

The interplay between self-efficacy and risk-taking propensities among entrepreneurs has garnered significant attention, although research provides mixed results. On the one hand, scholars posit that any discernible risk aversion among entrepreneurs can be attributed to their notably pronounced self-efficacy (Densberger, 2014). On the other hand, empirical evidence suggests that entrepreneurs with an elevated sense of self-efficacy exhibit a heightened inclination to embrace risks, as discussed by Memon et al. (2019) who identified a robust positive correlation between risk propensity and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Based on these insights, we propose the following hypothesis:

Entrepreneurial knowledge is a construct that represents the entrepreneurial experience learned from others (vicarious experience) (Holcomb et al., 2009). It plays a part in developing a person’s cognitive abilities and improving one’s efficacy in entrepreneurship (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Zhao et al., 2005). Entrepreneurial knowledge plays a crucial role in enhancing entrepreneurial activity as discussed by Miralles et al. (2015), who discovered that those who have gained entrepreneurial knowledge through job experience and/or education would also have a higher entrepreneurial attitude. This result is also confirmed in the study proposed by Tomy and Pardede (2020) who discussed the importance of higher education in fostering entrepreneurial awareness and entrepreneurship selection. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

In the intricate landscape of entrepreneurial behavior, the role of knowledge emerges as a cornerstone. Liñán et al. (2013) postulate that entrepreneurs armed with more comprehensive knowledge could gain a sharper and more accurate perception of the entrepreneurial vocation. Such clarity not only enhances the allure of the entrepreneurial pathway but could also boost social approval from influential stakeholders, given the supportive ecosystems. Individuals fortified with in-depth knowledge, especially from academic environments or specialized entrepreneurship programs, often exhibit unwavering intentions and clarity of vision. This resolute mindset can resonate with their immediate social circles, such as friends and family, thereby potentially alleviating entrenched biases against budding enterprises. Such a dynamic could serve to nurture entrepreneurial spirit and diminish societal pressures. In line with this vision, Gilaninia and Alipour (2013) affirmed a notable link between entrepreneurial knowledge and prevailing social norms. Building upon the arguments, we propose the subsequent hypothesis:

Previous research has indicated that knowledge significantly affects entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Andriani et al., 2018; Zarefard and Beri 2018); and Ripollés and Blesa (2023) state that the acquisition of entrepreneurial knowledge through entrepreneurship education will assist and promote students’ aspirations to launch their own businesses. In this study, authors argue that people who are equipped with specialized knowledge from universities or those who learned from work experience tend to be more confident in the process of establishing a company. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

An entrepreneurial mindset is defined as “a cognitive perspective that enables an individual to create value by recognizing and acting on opportunities, making decisions with limited information, and remaining adaptable and resilient in conditions that are often uncertain and complex” (Daspit et al., 2021, p.17). Having a good entrepreneurial mindset means equipping entrepreneurs with the necessary knowledge. This could be learned via their own company experience or gained through a shift in thinking in areas such as law, accounting, and management, among others. This knowledge will increase attitude toward entrepreneurship, which then leads them to choose appropriate business strategies. Hence, we suggest the following hypothesis:

The entrepreneurial mindset generally refers to a state of mind that directs human behavior toward entrepreneurial activities and outcomes. It is often considered a way of thinking grounded in a cognitive perspective (Naumann, 2017). Moreover, entrepreneurial mindset is flexible and can evolve over time through an individual’s interactions with their environment (Mathisen & Arnulf, 2013). Previous research conceptualizes entrepreneurial mindset as making use of different factors, including networking and resource leveraging (Cui & Bell, 2022). Networking, from a social capital perspective, is defined as the structure of an individual’s contact networks that connect various people with whom they have ties (Raider and Burt, 1996). It is based on social interaction skills and involves creating and maintaining contacts with people outside one’s immediate circle. Given that entrepreneurship is a socio-economic activity, networking becomes a crucial strategy for recognizing and utilizing entrepreneurial opportunities. Resource leveraging is defined as the ability to access and exploit resources that one does not own or control to achieve one’s goals (Morris et al., 2013). Resources are essential assets in transforming a novel idea into action. Considering that social support is also based on networking and resource leveraging, we propose the following:

The relationship between entrepreneurial mindset and self-efficacy has been recently investigated. For example, Jiatong et al. (2021) conducted research on the entrepreneurial mindsets of 365 university students, revealing a significant positive correlation between an entrepreneurial mindset and self-efficacy. The researchers advocate that fostering an entrepreneurial mindset among educators, steered by university leadership, can bolster their confidence in pursuing advanced education, ultimately leading to augmented outcomes. Subsequent research by Liao et al. (2022b) elucidates that self-employed entrepreneurs exhibit a higher propensity for success when they demonstrate the capacity to critically assess a situation, evaluate pivotal contemporaneous data, and make an informed decision to advance. Delving into self-efficacy emerges as a strategic avenue for entrepreneurs, facilitating a deeper grasp of their drives, proficiencies, and boundaries. Thus, we pose the following hypothesis:

Social norms particularly apply to the notion that “reference individuals” would either disapprove or approve of the intention to become an entrepreneur (Ajzen, 2001). The higher the perceived importance of entrepreneurship as a career path, the more likely entrepreneurs are to perceive positive social norms in their surrounding context. Previous studies indicated that social norms strongly influence attitude towards entrepreneurship (Aloulou, 2016). Based on empirical evidence, the following hypothesis is developed:

In the domain of entrepreneurship, observed disparities in entrepreneurial activities across different societies suggest underlying social determinants. Stemming from this observation, our research postulates that social norms operate both as a metric and a cognitive reservoir, which influence the self-assurance of prospective entrepreneurs. Recent scholarship, including findings by Pérez-Pérez et al. (2021), underscores the profound impact of social norms on self-efficacy. Therefore, we forward the subsequent hypothesis:

Ajzen (1991) articulates that attitudes are reflective of an individual’s beliefs concerning specific objects or behaviors. Further delineating this idea, it is suggested that beliefs regarding any entity or behavior arise from certain characteristics associated with that entity or behavior. Consequently, individuals cultivate attitudes towards specific behaviors anchored in deeply held convictions. Engle et al. (2010) propose that entrepreneurial attitude has the highest effect on entrepreneurial intention among the three dimensions of TPB. In line with this finding, Anjum et al. (2022), have evidenced a positive correlation between attitudes and entrepreneurial intentions. Notably, this relationship often emerges as a predominant influencer in individuals’ aspirations to inaugurate new ventures.

A compelling affirmation of this connection is the study by Phong et al. (2020), which identifies the attitude toward entrepreneurship as a paramount predictor of entrepreneurial intention. The research explains that a predominant faction of students are keen on entrepreneurial pursuits, largely driven by their veneration for entrepreneurs who hold consequential societal roles. Hence, we put forth the following hypothesis:

According to Ephrem et al. (2019), psychological capital is influenced by social norms and accounts for a major amount of the variation in entrepreneurial intention. They propose that taking purposeful measures to emphasize the entrepreneurial success of prior start-ups throughout social media stories will favor entrepreneurs’ self-confidence, thereby increasing their capacity to start up. Previous studies have found a significant link between social norms and entrepreneurial intent (Abbas et al., 2020). However, other research found a lower significant or not significant effect of social norms on entrepreneurial intent when compared with other dimensions of TPB (e.g., personal attitude, self-efficacy, Gorgievski et al., 2017; Phong et al., 2020; Rana et al., 2021). Hence, we posit the following hypothesis:

Self-efficacy as an individual develops in his or her abilities is one of the most important factors in an individual’s decision to perform or not perform an activity (for example, starting a new business or becoming an entrepreneur instructor, Nikou et al., 2023). Such a perspective is echoed in multiple studies that recognize self-efficacy as a pivotal factor shaping students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship (Pfeifer et al., 2016; Sukavejworakit et al., 2018;) In light of the empirical findings, we present the subsequent hypothesis:

Entrepreneurial mindset is a person’s commitment to entrepreneurial activities (Kuratko et al., 2020). Previous research has found that entrepreneurial mindset plays a crucial role in the development of entrepreneurial intents (Cui et al., 2019; Liao et al., 2022a, b). Entrepreneurship education and activities in colleges foster entrepreneurial mindset, which motivates students to pursue careers as entrepreneurs (Jiatong et al., 2021). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Entrepreneurial competencies are presented as competency, or the aspects of a person such as their knowledge and skills that enable them to be competent (Mitchelmore & Rowley, 2010). Ability to recognize and seize opportunities, the capacity to create a business vision and engage others, and the capacity to coordinate resources for the exploration of business opportunities, are also all signs of entrepreneurial competencies (Secundo et al., 2020). Considering that we postulate that an entrepreneurial mindset is positively related to attitude towards entrepreneurship, we believe that an entrepreneurial mindset will also enhance the development of specific competencies related to the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Therefore, we postulate:

Previous studies have shown that personality influences a person’s desire to become a business owner, as well as the relationship between entrepreneurship and emotional intelligence. For example, individuals with higher levels of emotional competencies have a more favorable attitude toward entrepreneurship and believe they are better suited to become entrepreneurs (Fernández-Pérez et al., 2019; Wegner et al., 2020). Firstly, unlike intellect and skills, competencies reveal that within certain settings, an individual is capable of transforming potential into actuality. Second, schooling may have an impact on such competencies and other cognitive characteristics. Various research carried out in educational contexts has indicated that training in entrepreneurial competencies may be advantageous to individuals (Velástegui & Chacón, 2021). Based on the above arguments, we posit the following hypothesis:

Entrepreneurial passion is a “consciously accessible intense positive feelings experienced by engagement in entrepreneurial activities associated with roles that are meaningful and salient to the self-identity of the entrepreneur” (Cardon et al., 2009, p. 517)., Philippe et al. (2010) described it simply as a strong desire to engage in certain behaviors. Creating a firm requires a high degree of skill to overcome the many barriers and issues that arise along the route (Biraglia & Kadile, 2016) As a result, entrepreneurial self-efficacy may be seen as a mediator in the relationship between entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intent. The positive and significant association discovered between entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial self-efficacy provides a new determinant factor to previously identified elements that cause people to become entrepreneurs. Based on those arguments and empirical shreds of evidence, we propose the following hypothesis.

An integrated framework is shown in Fig. 1 and the portrayal of the mechanism of entrepreneurial mindset is shown in Fig. 2.

Hair et al. (2016) suggest that the sampling size rule should be as follows: the sample size should be 10 times larger than, or similar to, the largest numbers of path directions of a specific construct in a certain structural model. To achieve these criteria, during the first quarter of 2022, data were collected via a self-administered online survey to examine students’ entrepreneurial mindset, personal characteristics, entrepreneurial knowledge, cognitive antecedents, entrepreneurial competencies, and entrepreneurial intention. The survey began in January and ended at the end of March. Four hundred and seventy students who took entrepreneurship training were recruited from management college in Taiwan. It was emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers, and that all information provided by respondents would be kept confidential and anonymous (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Spector, 2006). A total of 422 questionnaires were returned, yielding an 89.78% response rate. The majority of respondents were male (59.24%). In terms of age, 51.19% were younger than 22 years (18–22), while 32.70% were between 23 and 25 years old. The remaining two groups comprised 10.66% (ages 26–30) and 5.45% (over 30). Regarding educational level, 61.37% of respondents were pursuing a bachelor’s degree, 31.28% were pursuing a master’s degree, and the smallest group, 7.35%, were pursuing a doctoral degree. In terms of work experience, 68.25% had short-term work experience, while 31.75% had long-term experience. As for family background, 63.74% of respondents came from business-related families, compared with 36.26% from non-business families.

The operational definitions and measurement items for each construct were also specified. A questionnaire was used to acquire data for this study. We adapted existing scales to measure the major concepts of interest since they were previously proven valid and reliable. A seven-point Likert scale was used in all items of the questionnaire, ranging from “1 = strongly disagree” to “7 = strongly agree.”

Firstly, to measure risk-taking, we used a six-item scale created by Sun et al. (2020) and Ahmed et al. (2020). Secondly, to assess entrepreneurial knowledge, the authors adopted a four-item scale from Liñán and Chen (2006). Thirdly, for measuring entrepreneurial mindset, the author used the six-item scale created by Handayati et al. (2020). To examine attitude toward entrepreneurship, we used a four-item scale developed by Liñán et al. (2011). In addition, to measure social norms, the authors utilized a three-item scale developed by Liñán and Chen (2006). We used a six-item scale from De Noble et al. (1999) and Liñán (2008) to assess entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

Next, we utilized four items from Man et al. (2008) to measure entrepreneurial competencies. Additionally, we used six items from Liñán et al. (2011) to measure entrepreneurial intention. Finally, we utilized a five-item scale developed by Biraglia and Kadile (2016) to assess entrepreneurial passion. These items are shown in Table 1.

To estimate the measurement model, we employed the four approaches given by Hair et al. (2021) as follows: internal consistency, composite reliability, indicator reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity. First, composite dependability ratings were more than 0.70 minimal thresholds and showed internal consistency (Hair et al., 2021). Second, to determine convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) of each concept was evaluated using a 0.50 threshold value (Hair et al., 2021). The AVE values in this research varied from 0.796 for attitude toward entrepreneurship to 0.611 for social norms, indicating that convergent validity is supported for this research. The results of the measurement model estimation are presented in Table 2.

The Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio (Hair et al., 2019) were used to assess discriminant validity, and it was discovered that all AVEs on the diagonals were greater than the corresponding row and column values in Table 3, indicating that measures were discriminant. Following the 0.85 cut-off value for proving discriminant validity, all HTMT ratio values in this investigation were less than 0.85, as can be seen in Table 4.

The software WarpPLS was used to perform a comprehensive collinearity test, as described by Kock and Lynn (2012), and to analyze both vertical and lateral collinearity simultaneously, as proposed by Kock and Gaskins (2014). Table 5 illustrates the Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) obtained from a comprehensive collinearity test for each of the latent variables in this study’s models. All the resulting VIFs are less than 3.3, indicating successful detection of common method bias based on the overall collinearity test approach.

Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to examine the main hypotheses. The structural model was validated by reporting the coefficient of determination (R²), path coefficient (β), p-values, effect size (f²), and t-values using a bootstrapping approach with 5000 sub-samples as indicated by Hair et al. (2019). R² has values between zero and 1, with a higher value suggesting more forecasting accuracy. R² values of 0.19, 0.33, and 0.67 in PLS-SEM are perceived as weak, medium, and strong, respectively (Hair et al., 2017). The impact size (f²) of the exogenous component is defined as the change in R² value (Hair et al., 2017). Small, medium and large impacts are defined as f² values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35, respectively.

The R² values for the three endogenous latent constructs are 0.437 for attitude towards entrepreneurship, 0.168 for social norms, 0.408 for entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and 0.133 for entrepreneurial competencies, all of which are considered moderate and acceptable (Hair et al., 2016). Table 6 below shows the results of our analysis, indicating that all hypotheses are supported with the exception of H1b, H3b, and H8b. In terms of the impact of risk-taking on cognitive antecedents, H1a hypothesis asserts that risk-taking is positively associated with attitude towards entrepreneurship. As predicted, risk-taking was found to have a considerable influence on attitude towards entrepreneurship (β = 0.265, f² = 0.109, t = 3.948 p < .001). Thus, H1a is confirmed. However, it stated that it has no significant effect of risk-taking on social norms (β = 0.012, f² = 0.000, t = 0. 193). Hence, H1b is not confirmed as previously said. Furthermore, as noted in the association between risk-taking and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the findings revealed that risk-taking had a significant influence on entrepreneurial self-efficacy (β = 0.260, f² = 0.118, t = 3.864 p < .001). Thus, H1c is confirmed.

In terms of the influence of entrepreneurial knowledge on cognitive factors, H2a reveals that entrepreneurial knowledge is positively associated with attitude towards entrepreneurship (β = 0.253, f² = 0.174, t = 4.298, p < .001). Hence, H2a is confirmed. Similarly, entrepreneurial knowledge influences social norms positively (β = 0.198, f² = 0.038, t = 2.919, p < .001) and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (β = 0.248, f² = 0.082, t = 4.105, p < .001). Thus, H2b and H2c are confirmed. These findings indicate a strong relationship between entrepreneurial knowledge, attitude towards entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, while social norms show a lower coefficient compared to the other cognitive antecedents, as shown in Table 6.

In terms of the association between entrepreneurial mindset and cognitive factors, entrepreneurial mindset has a positive effect on attitude towards entrepreneurship (β = 0.153, f² = 0.037, t = 2.296, p < .01). Thus, H3a is confirmed. In contrast, the findings found that entrepreneurial mindset has no significant influence on social norms (β = 0.105, f² = 0.002, t = 1.914). Hence, H3b is only marginally supported. In addition, entrepreneurial mindset was discovered to be significantly positive to entrepreneurial self-efficacy (β = 0.319, f² = 0.182, t = 4.224, p < .001). Therefore, H3c is confirmed. This finding indicates that an entrepreneurial mindset has the strongest positive effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

In terms of the link between social norms and attitude towards entrepreneurship, H4a suggested that social norms are positively related to attitude towards entrepreneurship. As expected, social norms were found to significantly affect attitude towards entrepreneurship (β = 0.313, f² = 0.109, t = 4.811, p < .001). Thus, H4a is confirmed. Furthermore, the study found that social norms significantly influence entrepreneurial self-efficacy (β = 0.195, f² = 0.48, t = 3.105, p < .001). Therefore, H4b is confirmed.

With respect to the link between cognitive factors and entrepreneurial intention, attitude toward entrepreneurship has a strongly positive effect on entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.397, f² = 0.179, t = 5.212, p < .001). Thus, H5 is confirmed. Similarly, social norms have a significant positive influence on entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.173, f² = 0.035, t = 2.467, p < .01). Hence, H6 is confirmed. Furthermore, the findings revealed that entrepreneurial self-efficacy significantly influenced entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.283, f² = 0.142, t = 4.522, p < .001). Therefore, H7 is confirmed. Based on these findings, the authors state that social norms have the lowest correlation with entrepreneurial intention when compared with other cognitive antecedents.

With regards to the association between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intention, we discovered that entrepreneurial mindset is positively related to entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.156, f² = 0.092, t = 2.215, p < .01). Hence, H8a is confirmed. These findings suggest that entrepreneurial mindset indirectly affects entrepreneurial intention via the lens of cognitive antecedents (attitude toward entrepreneurship, social norms, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy) and has a direct effect on entrepreneurial intention. However, we found that entrepreneurial mindset has no significant effect on entrepreneurial competencies (β = 0.052, f² = 0.000, t = 0.907). Thus, H8b is not confirmed. Lastly, this study indicates that entrepreneurial competencies are positively related to entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.207, f² = 0.165, t = 3.868, p < .001). Hence, H9 is confirmed.

The moderating effect of entrepreneurial passion on the link between cognitive variables and entrepreneurial intention was investigated. As shown in Table 7, the findings verified the hypothesis that entrepreneurial passion serves as a positive moderator in the relationship between attitude toward entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.148, t = 3.115, 95% bias-corrected CI = [0.066, 0.293]). Thus, H10a is confirmed. However, the results reveal that entrepreneurial passion has no moderating influence on the link between social norms and entrepreneurial intention (β = −0.035, t = 0.443, 95% bias-corrected CI = [−0.019, 0.021]). Hence, H10b is not confirmed. Finally entrepreneurial passion has a significant moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.126, t = 2.841, 95% bias-corrected CI = [0.051, 0.177]). Therefore, H10c is confirmed.

The findings resonate with the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) tenets. It postulates that when armed with robust self-efficacy, a compelling desire, cognitive resources, and a well-mapped strategy, individuals are better poised to craft and pursue business aspirations. This empirical corroboration with SCT further accentuates the intricate interplay between cognitive factors like mindset and external environments, revealing a positive correlation with student entrepreneurial ambitions.

This study has several academic and managerial implications. From a theoretical point of view, we firstly enrich existing literature on risk-taking and entrepreneurial intention by arguing that entrepreneurs must accept stepping out of their comfort zone and taking risks since it affects the survival of the business in the age of constantly developing digital technology. For example, Kodak was once a dominant player in the global photographic market, controlling nearly 80% of the market in the mid-20th century. However, its downfall in 2012 was due to ignoring new technologies and failing to adapt to market changes. Kodak resisted digital cameras, fearing they would harm its film business, highlighting the argument that greater risk-taking increases the chances of success. Future research could expand the relationship between risk-taking and entrepreneurial intention.

Secondly, we also expand upon the work of Liñán (2004); Liao et al. (2022b) by providing an insight into the differences between formal and informal entrepreneurial knowledge. We argue that entrepreneurs acquire formal entrepreneurial knowledge through courses (classrooms, online courses, seminars, e-learning portals, etc.) or training programs in an organization or workplace (on-the-job training, workshops, mentoring, coaching, job shadowing, etc.). Formal knowledge is an important but insufficient criterion since it only gives entrepreneurs fundamental knowledge during the start-up period. The difference between ordinary entrepreneurs and those who achieve great success in society is informal entrepreneurial knowledge (family, mass media, social networking, prior experience, et, c). Informal entrepreneurial knowledge is a critical notion; it helps entrepreneurs remain aware of rapid technical and economic developments, and it also reflects the steps in developing a successful career.

Thirdly, we suggest that an entrepreneurial mindset plays an important role in altering cognitive antecedents since it unlocks the entrepreneur’s power within. It promotes personal traits by providing positive thinking and self-confidence for pursuing entrepreneurial intention. Individuals with higher entrepreneurial mindset have a willingness to fail, learn, and adapt. Additionally, we extend the work of Liao et al. (2022a, b) by portraying the effect mechanism of entrepreneurial mindset in three folds: (1) entrepreneurs establish a cognitive strategy via creativity, innovation, confidence, and forward-thinking approaches to accomplishing things; (2) recognizing and pursuing possibilities; (3) being adaptive and resilient in coping with unanticipated settings.

Next, we agreed with Mirakyan and Berezka (2020) that entrepreneurial competencies are vital to develop a sustainable business. We propose that entrepreneurial competencies are a set of skills (financial management, risk management, leadership, social networking, technology, market strategy, etc.). However, it is crucial to recognize the proper skills that flourish and compete in an age of rapidly changing technologies. In addition, we add literature on entrepreneurial intention by proposing that entrepreneurs should acquire a sum of entrepreneurial skills in the short term. In the long term, entrepreneurs should concentrate on specialist skills to make sustainable growth possible for their enterprises.

Our work is also beneficial for practitioners and policymakers. In line with previous research, we confirmed the role of entrepreneurial knowledge in promoting and sustaining entrepreneurial intentions. Therefore, entrepreneurs should dedicate part of their time to training. Our study reveals that formal knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. To make a difference and compete in the era of digital evolution, entrepreneurs need to arm themselves with informal knowledge that can be learned outside of the college or via prior experience to raise their ability to endure pressure, challenges, and patience. The outcomes of this research carry pragmatic ramifications also for educational policymakers and curriculum designers. A focused emphasis on entrepreneurial knowledge, both theoretical and experiential, could potentially serve as a catalyst for fostering a new generation of adept entrepreneurs. Therefore, government agencies and educational institutions should consider this evidence when designing initiatives aimed at nurturing entrepreneurial spirit among youth, ensuring they are equipped with the requisite cognitive tools and knowledge base.

Our study also illustrates the positive effect of risk-taking behavior both on attitudes towards entrepreneurship and self-efficacy, suggesting that the ability to take risks can sometimes be a key to entrepreneurial success. However, the fear of failure often holds individuals back from taking risks. To address this, institutions and universities should work together to foster a culture where failure is accepted as part of the learning process. By normalizing failure and encouraging resilience, these environments can empower people to take risks without fear, ultimately driving innovation and entrepreneurial growth.

Our work is not without limitations, which offers opportunities for future research. Firstly, our study is based on self-reported data, focused solely on entrepreneurial students from a single country, Taiwan. While this provides valuable insights, it also limits the generalizability of our findings. Future research could broaden our framework by including actual entrepreneurs as participants, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of entrepreneurial behavior. Additionally, cross-country comparisons would provide further insight into how cultural and economic differences influence the relationships between entrepreneurial attitudes, self-efficacy, and intention, offering a more global perspective on these dynamics. This is in line with recent results showing that country plays a moderating role in the relationships between personality traits and entrepreneurial intentions (Kryeziu et al., 2024).

Secondly, our model includes entrepreneurial students which could represent potential future entrepreneurs but limit our analysis in terms of entrepreneurial characteristics. In line with recent studies that highlight the importance of entrepreneurial life cycles (Mbena et al., 2023), future research could propose our model to real entrepreneurs at different business stages. Entrepreneurial competencies are likely to vary across these stages, and we believe that the psychological antecedents discussed in our model—such as risk-taking, self-efficacy, and social norms—would also play different roles depending on the stage of the entrepreneurial journey. Researching these dynamics further would benefit universities and government bodies, enabling them to tailor entrepreneurial courses to be as specific as possible to the type of entrepreneur and the phase of business development.

Lastly, while this study has shed light on the intricate interplay of TPB and SCT in the realm of entrepreneurial intentions, future investigations could delve deeper into the moderating and mediating roles of other cognitive and demographic factors, as discussed by recent studies such as Palmer et al. (2021) who incorporate the effects of role modelling from childhood on competence beliefs. To conclude, longitudinal studies could provide insights into the evolution of entrepreneurial intentions over time and the sustainability of educational interventions in fostering these intentions.