Exploring The Mediating Effect of Personality Trai

PLOS ONE
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Exploring the mediating effect of personality

traits in the relationship between
entrepreneurial intentions and academic
performance among students
Smita Panda ID, Vasumathi Arumugam ID*
VIT Business School, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
* avasumathi@vit.ac.in
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111 Abstract
a1111111111
This study explores the mediating effect of personality traits in the relationship between
entrepreneurial intentions and student academic performance. The sample comprised 175
students from a top-ranked Tamil Nadu, India university. Data was collected using a survey
questionnaire as the research instrument. A descriptive research design was employed to
OPEN ACCESS
understand the variables under investigation comprehensively. Partial Least Squares Struc-
Citation: Panda S, Arumugam V (2023) Exploring
tural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and SPSS v25 was utilized as the statistical analysis
the mediating effect of personality traits in the
relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and tool. This study used the Theory of Planned Behaviour as a theoretical framework to explore
academic performance among students. PLoS the mediating effect of personality traits in the relationship between entrepreneurial inten-
ONE 18(11): e0293305. https://doi.org/10.1371/ tions and academic performance among university students. The study’s findings revealed
journal.pone.0293305
essential insights into the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions, personality traits,
Editor: Remya Lathabhavan, IIM Bodh Gaya: Indian and academic performance. The results showed that personality traits significantly mediate
Institute of Management Bodh Gaya, INDIA
the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and academic performance. This finding
Received: July 28, 2023 suggests that a student’s personality traits influence the impact of entrepreneurial intentions
Accepted: October 9, 2023 on academic performance. Furthermore, the study found that while entrepreneurial inten-
Published: November 8, 2023 tions did not have a significant direct effect on academic performance, they did have a sub-
stantial indirect effect through personality traits. This indicates that personality traits act as a
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the
benefits of transparency in the peer review crucial mechanism through which entrepreneurial intentions can influence academic perfor-
process; therefore, we enable the publication of mance among students.
all of the content of peer review and author
responses alongside final, published articles. The
editorial history of this article is available here:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305
Copyright: © 2023 Panda, Arumugam. This is an

open access article distributed under the terms of 1 Introduction
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
Entrepreneurship has emerged as a crucial catalyst of economic growth, innovation, and job
reproduction in any medium, provided the original creation. It has been recognized as an essential area of research in business and management
author and source are credited. [1–3]. Entrepreneurial intentions refer to individuals’ actions, attitudes, and activities in pur-
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
suing entrepreneurial goals and opportunities [4–6]. It encompasses the behavioral aspects of
within the paper and its Supporting Information entrepreneurship, including decision-making processes, risk-taking propensity, proactiveness,
files. innovation, and opportunity recognition exhibited by entrepreneurs and individuals engaged
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 1 / 27

PLOS ONE Impact of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention and student academic performance
Funding: The authors received no specific funding in entrepreneurial activities [7]. Personality traits are significantly related to entrepreneurial
for this work. The institute will pay the article intentions, predicting behaviors of entrepreneurship [8]. Personality traits are enduring pat-
processing charge.
terns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that shape individuals’ responses to different situa-
Competing interests: The authors have declared tions [9]. In the context of entrepreneurial intention, several studies have examined how
that no competing interests exist. specific traits relate to the likelihood of engaging in entrepreneurial activities [10, 11].
On the other hand, academic performance is a significant concern for students, educational
institutions, parents, and society [12]. Academic performance predicts future success and con-
tributes to developing a strong and competitive workforce [13]. Therefore, understanding the
association between personality traits, entrepreneurial intentions, and academic performance
can provide valuable insights into how to better prepare students for entrepreneurship and
academic success.
Many researchers identified a positive connection between personality traits and entrepre-
neurial intentions [14]. However, it is still being determined whether the extent to which per-
sonality traits mediate the association between entrepreneurial intentions and academic
performance is less studied. Very scant studies suggested that personality traits may influence
the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and academic performance [15]. Still,
more empirical evidence is needed to support this claim. The mediating role of personality
traits between entrepreneurial intention and student academic performance is an emerging
area of research. While these two domains might seem distinct, personality traits provide a
potential link. Entrepreneurial intention, driven by traits like self-confidence and risk-taking,
can influence academic performance through motivational factors, learning strategies, and
time management [16]. The present study aims to fill this research gap by exploring the medi-
ating effect of personality traits in the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and aca-
demic performance among university students. This study is significant as it will provide a
more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing university students’ academic
performance and entrepreneurial intentions.
Understanding the interplay among personality traits, entrepreneurial intentions, and aca-
demic performance is important in entrepreneurship and education [17, 18]. To address the
existing research gap, this study aims to investigate the mediating role of personality traits in
the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and academic performance among univer-
sity students. Building upon the Theory of Planned Behavior foundation, this research explores
how personality traits may shape the association between entrepreneurial intentions and aca-
demic performance. The findings of this study will not only contribute to the existing body of
knowledge but also offer practical implications for educational institutions and policymakers,
guiding them in designing effective strategies to enhance students’ entrepreneurial intentions
and academic achievements.
1.1 Research questions

RQ1. Do entrepreneurial intentions impact the student’s academic performance?
RQ2. Do personality traits mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and
students’ academic performance?
RQ3. Does the financial background of the students have an impact on their entrepreneurial
intentions?
1.2 Research objective

1. To investigate how students’ entrepreneurial intentions affect their academic performance.

2. To analyze whether personality traits mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial

intentions and students’ academic performance.
3. To ascertain the potential influence of students’ pocket money on shaping their entrepre-
neurial intentions.
2 Literature review
2.1 Entrepreneurial intention
Entrepreneurial intention received considerable attention in the literature as a predictor of
behaviors related to entrepreneurship [19, 20]. University students represent an essential
group for studying entrepreneurial intention due to their potential to become entrepreneurs in
the future [21, 22]. Several studies have identified various factors that influence entrepreneurial
intention among university students. These factors include personal characteristics such as
gender, age, prior experience with entrepreneurship, and environmental factors such as social
norms, cultural values, and economic conditions [23].
Personal characteristics such as self-efficacy, risk-taking propensity, and innovativeness
positively related to entrepreneurial intention among university students [24]. Similarly, expo-
sure to entrepreneurship education and prior entrepreneurial experience positively related to
entrepreneurial intention among university students [25].
While entrepreneurial intention is a necessary precursor to behaviors related to entre-
preneurship, not all individuals with entrepreneurial intentions engage in entrepreneurial
activities. The relationship between entrepreneurial intention and behavior is the subject of
considerable debate in the literature. A model of entrepreneurial intentions was proposed by
eminent researchers that includes two distinct pathways: the attitude-behavioral intention
pathway and the subjective norm-behavioral intention pathway [26]. The attitude-behavioral
intention pathway posits that entrepreneurial intention leads directly to behaviors related to
entrepreneurship. In contrast, the subjective norm-behavioral intention pathway suggests that
social norms and external pressures influence behaviors related to entrepreneurship. Individ-
ual factors such as self-regulation and self-control may moderate the relationship between
entrepreneurial intention and behavior [27]. Moreover, the relationship may vary across dif-
ferent contexts, such as the type of entrepreneurial activity and the level of support from the
external environment [28].
Policymakers and educators have recognized the importance of promoting entre-
preneurship among university students to foster economic growth and innovation [29, 30].
Accordingly, many universities implemented entrepreneurship education programs to fos-
ter entrepreneurial intention and behavior among students. Research has shown that entre-
preneurship education promotes entrepreneurial intention and behavior among university
students [31]. However, the effectiveness of such programs may be moderated by individual
and contextual factors such as prior experience, personality traits, and cultural values [32,
33].
Entrepreneurial intention among university students is a complex phenomenon influenced
by various individual and contextual factors [34–36]. While entrepreneurial intention is a nec-
essary precursor to behaviors related to entrepreneurship, the relationship between the two
could be more complex and influenced by individual and contextual factors [37]. Promoting
entrepreneurship among university students has important implications for education and
policy, and entrepreneurship education programs may be effective in fostering entrepreneurial
intention and behavior among students.

2.2 Student academic performance

Academic performance is an essential outcome for university students [38, 39] and is the sub-
ject of extensive research in the literature. Several factors include personal characteristics such
as intelligence, motivation, and self-regulation and environmental factors such as social sup-
port, teaching quality, and academic culture [40, 41]. Richardson et al. (2012) found that moti-
vation and self-regulation positively related to academic performance among university
students. However, Kuh et al. (2006) found that social support and academic culture were sig-
nificant predictors of academic performance.
Academic performance is related to various other outcomes, such as career success, health,
and well-being [42]. Research has shown that academic performance is positively associated
with career success, earnings [43], and physical and mental health [44]. Moreover, academic
performance may be influenced by factors outside the academic domain, such as extracurricu-
lar activities and part-time work [45]. They have also found that part-time work negatively
affects academic performance among university students.
Policymakers and educators have recognized the importance of promoting academic per-
formance among university students to foster human capital and economic growth. Accord-
ingly, many universities have implemented various policies and programs to improve
academic performance among students [46, 47]. Research has shown multiple interventions,
such as mentoring, academic support, and students. However, the effectiveness of such inter-
ventions may be moderated by individual and contextual factors such as prior academic
achievement, socioeconomic status, and institutional culture [48, 49].
Various individual and contextual factors influence academic performance among univer-
sity students and are related to other outcomes, such as career success and health [50]. Promot-
ing academic performance has important implications for education and policy, and various
interventions may effectively improve academic performance among university students [51].
2.3 Personality traits

The concept of personality traits has been extensively studied by psychologists, with different
models proposed over the years [52–54]. Research has shown that personality traits can influ-
ence numerous facets of an individual’s life, including academic and work performance, rela-
tionships, and health [55]. Understanding the relationship between personality traits and
different outcomes can help individuals and organizations make better decisions [56]. Person-
ality traits are an enduring pattern of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that make an individual
unique [57, 58].
The concept of personality traits has been studied extensively by psychologists, with differ-
ent theories and models proposed over the years [59]. Some of the most influential models
include the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) [60], the Five-Factor Model (FFM) [61, 62],
and the HEXACO model [63]. Personality traits are an essential factor that can influence vari-
ous aspects of a university student’s life, including risk tolerance, employment preference,
need for achievement, locus of control, and entrepreneurial alertness [64].
Personality traits can influence an individual’s employment preferences. Students with high
openness to experience and conscientiousness were likelier to self-employment than tradi-
tional employment [65]. Similarly, other studies have shown that students with high levels of
extraversion and risk-taking tend to choose jobs that provide opportunities for creativity and
innovation [66]. A person’s locus of control is a psychological feature related to their belief in
their power to influence their life occurrences [67]. According to research, students with a
greater internal locus of control do better academically and are more willing to seek out com-
plex challenges [68].

Similarly, individuals with a high external locus of control may be less likely to take risks
and pursue entrepreneurial opportunities. The need for achievement is a personality charac-
teristic that describes a person’s ambition to achieve success and mastery in their endeavors
[69, 70]. Individuals with a high need for achievement tend to be more persistent and focused
[71]. These individuals are also more likely to seek challenging opportunities and have higher
entrepreneurial alertness [64, 72, 73]. Risk tolerance is a personality trait that refers to an indi-
vidual’s willingness to take risks [74–76]. According to research, individuals with a high-risk
tolerance are more likely to participate in entrepreneurial activities [77, 78].
Similarly, individuals with low-risk tolerance may be more likely to avoid entrepreneurial
activities and seek out traditional employment opportunities [79]. Entrepreneurial alertness
refers to a person’s ability to recognize and identify entrepreneurial opportunities [80, 81].
Research has shown that individuals with higher entrepreneurial alertness are most likely to be
engrossed in entrepreneurial activities and pursue entrepreneurial opportunities [82, 83]. Sim-
ilarly, individuals with low entrepreneurial alertness may be less likely to recognize entrepre-
neurial opportunities and pursue entrepreneurial activities [84].
Personality traits are essential in influencing various aspects of a university student’s life,
including their employment preference, locus of control, need for achievement, risk tolerance,
and entrepreneurial alertness. Understanding the relationship between these personality traits
and different outcomes can help individuals and institutions make better decisions.
2.4 Relationship between entrepreneurial intention and personality traits

Several studies have suggested that personality traits are critical in shaping an individual’s
entrepreneurial intentions [85, 86]. Moreover, research has also indicated that personality
traits significantly predict entrepreneurial intention among university students [87]. The locus
of control, need for achievement, and risk-taking propensity were significant predictors of
entrepreneurial intention among university students in China [88].
Furthermore, several studies have highlighted the significance of entrepreneurial alertness
as a personality trait influencing entrepreneurial intention among university students [72].
Entrepreneurial alertness refers to an individual’s ability to identify and exploit entrepreneurial
opportunities [89]. Entrepreneurial alertness was positively related to entrepreneurial inten-
tion among university students in China [90].
In addition to the above, research has shown gender variations in personality characteristics
and entrepreneurial intention among university students. Women had lower levels of
entrepreneurial intention than men, and the relationship between personality traits and
entrepreneurial intention differed between men and women [91].
H1: Entrepreneurial intention and personality traits are significantly related.
2.5 Relationship between personality traits and student academic

performance
Personality traits have long been studied to predict individual outcomes, including academic
performance [92, 93]. University students, in particular, are a unique population with diverse
personality traits that can impact their academic performance [94]. This literature review
explores the relationship between personality traits and student academic performance among
university students. Personality traits have been found to impact employment preference
among university students [95]. Locus of control is another personality trait that refers to an
individual’s belief about how much they can control events. Students with an internal locus of
control had higher GPAs than those with an external locus of control [96].

Moreover, the need for achievement is a trait that refers to an individual’s desire to excel
and achieve goals [97]. Students who scored high on the need for achievement were found to
have higher GPAs than those who scored low on this trait. Finally, risk tolerance refers to an
individual’s willingness to take risks [98]. Students who scored high on risk tolerance were
found to have lower GPAs than those who scored low on this trait [99].
H2: There is a relationship between personality traits and student academic performance.
2.6 Relationship between entrepreneurial intention and student academic

performance
Entrepreneurship has significantly contributed to economic growth, innovation, and job crea-
tion in many countries worldwide [100]. Several studies have explored the relationship
between entrepreneurial intention and student academic performance. Entrepreneurial inten-
tion positively impacted academic performance and found that students with higher entrepre-
neurial intentions performed better academically than those with lower entrepreneurial
intentions [101].
Furthermore, researchers have indicated that students with entrepreneurial intentions had
higher GPAs and academic achievements than those without entrepreneurial intentions [102,
103]. However, other studies have reported mixed findings regarding the relationship between
entrepreneurial intention and academic performance. There is no significant association
between entrepreneurial intention and student’s academic performance [91]. Additionally,
researchers revealed that although entrepreneurial intention positively affected academic per-
formance, it was not statistically significant [104]. The mixed findings in the literature may be
due to several factors, including the sample size, measurement of variables, and the study con-
text. It is also evident that the association between entrepreneurial intention and academic per-
formance was stronger among female students than male students [105]. Moreover,
conscientiousness and emotional stability were positively related to academic performance
[106]. A study revealed that openness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability were posi-
tively associated with academic performance [107].
Furthermore, students’ academic performance was positively related to their need for
achievement, locus of control, and self-efficacy [108]. A positive relationship between aca-
demic performance and risk-taking propensity [109].
H3: There is a significant relationship between entrepreneurial intention and student academic
performance.
2.7 The mediation role of personality traits

Personality traits have been extensively studied due to their significant impact on various out-
comes, including academic performance, job performance, mental and physical health, and
social relationships [110]. In recent years, researchers have shown increasing interest in under-
standing the mediating effect of personality traits, which refers to the idea that personality
traits can influence other variables through an intervening variable [111]. Extraversion may
lead to increased job performance, but conscientiousness may mediate this relationship [112].
Several well-studied personality traits have been found to have mediating effects. Employment
preference mediated the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intentions
[113]. This suggests that personality traits such as extraversion and openness to experience
lead to a choice for entrepreneurship, influencing entrepreneurial intentions.

Similarly, research has studied that employment preference mediated the relationship
between personality traits and entrepreneurial self-efficacy [114]. Conscientiousness and
agreeableness led to a preference for traditional employment, resulting in lower levels of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Locus of control has also been identified as a mediating variable
between personality traits and entrepreneurial intentions. Studies have found that personality
traits such as extraversion and openness to experience lead to an internal locus of control,
influencing entrepreneurial intentions [115]. An extended study of this finding demonstrated
that locus of control mediated the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial
self-efficacy [116]. Specifically, conscientiousness and agreeableness were found to influence
an internal locus of control, leading to higher levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Additionally, the need for achievement is another mediating variable between personality
traits and entrepreneurial intentions. Additionally, the need for achievement is another medi-
ating variable between personality traits and entrepreneurial intentions. Personality traits such
as extraversion and openness to experience lead to a high need for achievement, subsequently
influencing entrepreneurial intentions [117]. Some studies further expanded this finding,
revealing that the need for achievement mediates the relationship between personality traits
and entrepreneurial self-efficacy [118]. Conscientiousness and agreeableness were associated
with a high need for achievement, resulting in higher levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Furthermore, risk tolerance has been identified as a mediating variable between personality
traits and entrepreneurial intentions [119]. The study showed that personality traits influence
risk tolerance, influencing entrepreneurial intentions.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the mediating effects of various personality traits on
different variables related to entrepreneurship. These findings highlight the complex relation-
ships and underlying mechanisms involved in the relationship between personality traits and
entrepreneurial outcomes. Understanding these mediating effects can provide valuable
insights for individuals, educators, and policymakers interested in promoting behaviors related
to entrepreneurship and success.
H4: Personality traits mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and student
academic performance.
3 Theoretical backgrounds
The theory of Planned Behavior offers a suitable theoretical foundation for exploring the inter-
connection among entrepreneurial intentions, personality traits, and academic competence
[120]. According to this theory, individuals’ intentions to engage in a particular behavior, such
as entrepreneurship, are influenced by three key factors: attitudes, subjective norms, and per-
ceived behavioral control. Attitudes refer to individuals’ thoughts and evaluations of the activ-
ity, while subjective norms consider the influence of social factors and the expectations of
others. Perceived behavioral control pertains to individuals’ beliefs about their ability to carry
out the behavior. This study introduces personality traits as potential mediators in the relation-
ship between entrepreneurial intentions and academic success. They are seen as factors that
can potentially influence the strength or direction of the relationship between entrepreneurial
intentions and academic performance.
By employing the Theory of Planned Behavior as the theoretical framework, this research
aims to understand how personality traits may mediate the relationship between entrepreneur-
ial intentions and academic success. The theory systematically examines the factors that shape
individuals’ intentions and behavior, considering their attitudes, social influences, and self-
perceived control. Personality traits that can impact one’s attitudes, social norms, and

perceived control are hypothesized to mediate this relationship. By incorporating personality

traits as mediators, the study seeks to uncover the underlying mechanisms through which
entrepreneurial intentions may influence academic achievement, shedding light on the com-
plex dynamics at play.
4 Model framework
Fig 1 explains the conceptual model pertains to the impact of entrepreneurial intentions on
the student academic performance with the mediating role of personality traits. Here, attitude
towards entrepreneurship, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, perceived educa-
tional support, propensity to act are the most cited dimensions used to describe entrepreneur-
ial intentions [26]. Student’s self-efficacy, self-set goals, academic competence, ability and time
management explains the student academic performance. Employee preference, locus of con-
trol, need for achievement, risk tolerance and entrepreneurial alertness are the most cited
dimensions for personality traits [64].
5 Methodology
The foundation of this study rests on adopting an explanatory design that draws on quantita-
tive methods and hypotheses. Primary data was gathered through a well-structured survey
questionnaire, and subsequent statistical tests were performed meticulously to analyze [121].
The survey questionnaire was distributed amongst students in esteemed universities renowned
for their academic excellence.
5.1 Type of research

This study aims to investigate a specific phenomenon within a particular time and location,
exploring the mediating effect of personality traits in the relationship between entrepreneurial
intentions and academic performance among university students. Given the nature of the
Fig 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305.g001

research objective and the need to gather comprehensive and detailed information about the
variables of interest, the descriptive research design was deemed appropriate for the study.
Descriptive research involves the systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data
to describe the characteristics of a particular population or phenomenon [122]. This study
examines the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions, personality traits, and academic
performance among university students. By employing a descriptive research design, the study
provides a detailed and accurate portrayal of these variables within the specific time and loca-
tion under investigation.
One of the primary advantages of using a descriptive research design is its ability to provide
a comprehensive overview of the studied variables. This design allows researchers to collect
data from various sources, including surveys, interviews, and existing records, enabling a more
thorough exploration of the phenomenon [123]. In the case of this study, data was collected
through self-report measures of entrepreneurial intentions, personality traits, and academic
performance to provide a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between these
variables.
Moreover, the descriptive research design enables the researcher to examine the phenome-
non naturally without imposing manipulations or interventions [123]. By adopting this
approach, the study can capture university students’ real-world experiences and behaviors
regarding their entrepreneurial intentions, personality traits, and academic performance. This
allows for a more authentic representation of the variables under investigation, enhancing the
validity and ecological validity of the study findings.
5.2 Sample size

Given the challenges of determining the standard deviation and population mean, the
researchers implemented a snowball sampling technique to overcome these obstacles. The sur-
vey was conducted among students enrolled in a prestigious university in Tamil Nadu, India,
known for its high academic standing and student population nationwide. The size of the sam-
ple is 175 students in the top-ranked university.
5.3 Research instrument

This study is entirely based on empirical evidence, so the researchers exclusively utilized a
questionnaire for data collection. The reason for using a questionnaire was its cost-effective-
ness and convenience. The questionnaire was divided into two sections: Part I focused on the
participant’s demographic information like age, gender, educational qualification, pocket
money, total number of members in the family, occupation of parents, no. of siblings, and the
number of dependents on parents, while Part II comprised questions devised by the researcher
to measure entrepreneurial intentions [124], personality traits [64], and academic performance
[125].
5.4 Data analysis procedures

The data collected through questionnaires were entered and analyzed using Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and SPSS v25 for statistical analysis. While
all scales were conceptually validated separately, the researchers also aimed to ensure their sta-
tistical distinctiveness for this study.
This empirical study aims to predict and elaborate on latent variables based on contempo-
rary theory. In recent times, one of the most persuasive techniques that have revolutionized
the field is PLS-SEM, widely adopted to test the effectiveness of structural modeling in explain-
ing and evaluating constructs [126]. Furthermore, it is recognized as an adaptive model

assessment technique [127]. PLS-SEM was chosen for this study due to its lower sample size
requirement than Amos and data normality requirements [128], enabling the researchers to
overcome normality and sample size constraints. The researchers utilized the PLS algorithm
and bootstrapping technique to ascertain factor loadings, evaluate construct validity, and
assess internal consistency reliability [129]. This technique tests hypotheses by analyzing path
coefficients and significance levels. The measurement model is initially computed, followed by
an evaluation of the structural model in subsequent assessments [130].
The rationale for adopting the variance-based Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM) approach is expounded in this study. The fundamental motivation
behind choosing PLS-SEM lies in its capability to simultaneously assess the relationships
between latent constructs through the structural model and the associations between indica-
tors and their corresponding latent constructs through the measurement model. This
approach comprehensively examines the relationships between variables [131, 132]. Addition-
ally, the variance-based PLS-SEM method was considered suitable for this study as it provides
statistically consistent estimates of indirect effects in simple mediation models, employing
bootstrapping techniques that utilize standard errors for path coefficients. This ensures robust-
ness in estimating the indirect effects [111, 133–135].
To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the measurement instruments used in this study,
the researchers employed various criteria, including Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability
(CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). The findings reported in Table 1 demonstrate
that the alpha values range from 0.880 to 0.930, while the CR values range from 0.507 to 0.619.
These results establish the reliability of the measures, surpassing the threshold of 0.50, thereby
confirming their convergent validity [136]. By employing these rigorous criteria, the study
ensures the trustworthiness and robustness of the measurement instruments.
Moreover, it is generally recommended that the AVE for each underlying construct exceeds
0.50 [137, 138]. As illustrated in Table 1, the AVE values for each latent construct surpass the
0.50 threshold, providing further evidence of satisfactory convergent validity [139].
5.4.1 Measurement model. The standardized factor loadings indicate the strength of the
relationship between each observed variable and its corresponding latent construct. In Table 1,
the observed variable "SAPTM7" has a factor loading of 0.879, strongly related to the latent
construct "student academic performance."
5.4.1.1 Construct reliability and validity. Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consis-
tency, which indicates how well the items in a scale measure the same construct [140]. Compos-
ite reliability is a measure of overall reliability that considers the intercorrelations between all
items on a scale [141]. The average variance extracted (AVE) is a measure of convergent valid-
ity, which indicates how much variance in the construct is captured by the items in the scale.
As indicated in Table 2, three variables have Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability
scores above the recommended threshold of 0.7, indicating good internal consistency. The
AVE scores for all three variables are also above the recommended threshold of 0.5, indicating
good convergent validity. The results of this analysis suggest that the three variables, EI, PT,
and SAP, are all reliable and valid measures of their respective constructs.
5.4.1.2 Discriminant validity. The measures’ discriminant validity was evaluated using the
Fornell-Larcker criterion, as presented in Table 3. Discriminant validity is established when
each latent construct’s average variance explained (AVE) exceeds the squared correlation with
any other construct [136]. Table 3 compares the square root of the AVEs and the squared cor-
relations between the latent variables with the values in boldface. As indicated in the table, the
AVE for each latent construct exceeded the squared correlation with any other construct, con-
firming the presence of satisfactory discriminant validity [136].

Table 1. Results of the measurement model.

EI PT SAP
PTEA3 0.799
EIATE2 0.629
EIATE3 0.741
EIPBC4 0.696
EIPBC5 0.654
EIPBC6 0.746
EIPES1 0.756
EIPES2 0.729
EISN1 0.699
EISN4 0.624
EISN5 0.649
PTNFA2 0.649
PTEA6 0.689
PTEP1 0.710
PTEP6 0.745
PTLOC2 0.800
PTLOC5 0.621
PTNFA3 0.674
PTRT2 0.681
PTRT4 0.727
SAPAB2 0.814
SAPAB4 0.858
SAPAC1 0.685
SAPAC2 0.608
SAPSSE2 0.808
SAPSSE3 0.810
SAPSSG1 0.791
SAPSSG3 0.779
SAPTM1 0.802
SAPTM7 0.879
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305.t001
Table 3 reveals that the AVE for each variable was greater than all squared correlation val-
ues with other constructs, based on the recommendation given by the study [136]. This finding
indicates that the measurement instruments used in the study are distinct and appropriate for
assessing the intended model [139].
Fig 2 illustrates the initial model that served as a guide to demonstrate the relationship
between impact of the entrepreneurial intentions on the student academic performance. The
model is composed of three latent variables and 30 indicators. The observed values shown for
each indicator were measured using the items included in the questionnaire.
Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.

Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
EI 0.880 0.902 0.581
PT 0.891 0.911 0.507
SAP 0.930 0.942 0.619

Table 3. Discriminant validity.

Fornell-Larcker Criterion
EI PT SAP
EI 0.694
PT 0.585 0.712
SAP 0.622 0.608 0.787
5.4.2 Structural model. The structural model is described in the Fig 3 and the following
analysis has been done based on the model.
5.4.2.1 Hypotheses testing. To assess the hypotheses, the present study used the bootstrap-
ping technique, a resampling method involving iteratively drawing samples from the original
dataset 5,000 times. The acceptance or rejection of the hypotheses was determined based on
various statistical measures, including the t-value, p-value, and bias-corrected confidence
interval. The bootstrap resampling technique was employed to evaluate the hypotheses’ signifi-
cance further.
Upon examining the results presented in Table 4, it is evident that the hypotheses of the
relationship between entrepreneurial intention and personality traits, as well as personality
traits and student academic performance, were supported. This finding suggests a statistically
significant mediating effect of personality traits in the relationship between entrepreneurial
intention and student academic performance. The coefficient (β) value of 0.738, the t-value of
5.231, and the p-value of 0.000 provide empirical evidence to support this conclusion.
Utilizing the bootstrapping technique in this study allowed for a rigorous examination of
the hypotheses. The results indicated a significant mediating role of personality traits in the
relationship between entrepreneurial intention and student academic performance. These
findings contribute to understanding the complex interplay between entrepreneurial inten-
tion, personality traits, and student academic performance.
Fig 2. Measurement model.


Fig 3. Structural model.

5.4.2.2 Q2 predictive relevance. The Q2 analysis provides insights into the predictive rele-
vance of a model. A Q2 value greater than 0 indicates the model’s good predictive relevance. In
the given analysis, we can refer to Table 5 to examine the Q2 values associated with personality
traits and student academic performance. The table shows that the Q square value for EI is
0.000, meaning that the variable has no predictive power; the Q2 value for personality traits is
calculated to be 0.366, while the Q2 value for student academic performance is determined to
be 0.483. Both values surpass the threshold of 0, indicating that the model exhibits good pre-
dictive relevance concerning these variables. Therefore, based on the obtained Q2 values of
0.366 for personality traits and 0.483 for student academic performance, we can conclude that
the predictive relevance of the model in this analysis is deemed suitable. The Q2 value for stu-
dent academic performance is the highest, suggesting that this variable has the strongest pre-
dictive power. These values suggest that the model can effectively predict and explain
variations in personality traits and student academic performance.
Table 4. Hypotheses testing of direct relationships.

Beta Mean STDEV T value P Values 2.5% 97.5% Decision
H1 Entrepreneurial intention>Personality Traits 0.885 0.897 0.022 39.858 0.000 0.854 0.942 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial Intention>Student Academic Performance 0.083 0.107 0.168 0.495 0.621 -0.228 0.431 Not
supported
H3 Personality Traits>Student Academic Performance 0.835 0.815 0.154 5.421 0.000 0.496 1.106 Supported
H4 Entrepreneurial intention>Personality Traits> Student Academic 0.738 0.731 0.141 5.231 0.000 0.440 1.022 Supported
Performance

Table 5. Q2 predictive relevance.

SSO SSE Q2 (= 1-SSE/SSO)
EI 750.000 750.000
PT 750.000 475.380 0.366
SAP 750.000 387.542 0.483
Table 6. F2 effect size.

Constructs F Square p-value
EI 3.603 0.051
PT 0.152 0.696
SAP 0.872 0.352
5.4.2.3 F2 effect size. The F2 value measures the explanatory power of a variable in a
PLS-SEM model. It is calculated by dividing the explained variance by the residual variance
[142]. The p-value is the probability of obtaining the observed F2 value by chance. In Table 6,
the F2 value for EI is the highest, suggesting that this variable has the strongest explanatory
power. The F2 values for PT and SAP are relatively small, suggesting that these variables do
not explain a large amount of variance in the dependent variable. The p-values for all three var-
iables are above 0.05, suggesting that the observed F2 values are not statistically significant.
This means we cannot be confident that the observed relationships between the variables are
not due to chance. The results of this F2 table suggest that the model does not explain a large
amount of variance in the dependent variable. However, there are some significant effects
between the variables. Further research may be needed to determine the causal relationships
between the variables.
5.4.2.4 Goodness of fit index. The goodness of fit index (GFI) measures how well the model
fits the data. A higher GFI indicates a better fit. The threshold value for a small effect is 0.10, a
medium effect is 0.25, and a large effect is 0.36 [143]. In this example, the GFIs for all three
constructs are above the threshold values for small effects. This suggests that the model fits the
data well. However, the GFI for SAP is the highest, suggesting that this construct best fits the
data. The effect size measures the strength of the relationship between a construct and the
dependent variable. A higher effect size indicates a stronger relationship. Here, in Table 7, the
effect sizes for all three constructs are above the threshold value for a small effect. This suggests
that all three constructs have a significant relationship with the dependent variable. The results
of this goodness of fit table suggest that the model fits the data well and that all three constructs
have a significant relationship with the dependent variable.
5.4.3 Discriminant validity (Attribute-based perceptual mapping). Wilk’s lambda is a
statistical measure that ranges between 0 and 1, providing insights into the model’s ability to
discriminate between different groups. When Wilk’s lambda value is closer to 0, it indicates a
higher discrimination power of the model. In other words, a smaller lambda value suggests
Table 7. Goodness of fit index.

Constructs Goodness of Fit index Threshold value
EI 0.561 0.10- Small effect
PT 0.625 0.25- Medium effect
SAP 0.642 0.36- Large effect

Table 8. Wilks’ lambda.

Test of Function(s) Wilks’ Lambda Chi-square df Sig.
1 through 2 .651 39.699 36 .309
2 .850 15.029 17 .593
Table 9. Functions at group centroids.

Functions at Group Centroids
Pocket money Function
1 2
1 0.060 0.298
2 0.535 -0.637
3 -1.407 -0.413
that the model can effectively distinguish and classify the groups under consideration. On the
other hand, if the value is closer to 1, it implies a reduced discrimination power, indicating
that the model struggles to differentiate between the groups. In Table 8, the Wilk’s lambda
value is calculated to be 0.850 in the specific case of the analysis conducted. This value falls
closer to 1, which signifies the model’s lower discrimination power. It suggests that the model
might face challenges in accurately distinguishing and classifying the groups based on the
examined variables or factors.
This has been drawn separately in Excel using the data from Table 9 (function group cen-
troids for different pocket money) and Table 10 (standardized discriminant function coeffi-
cients of each attribute on each function), also plotted in Fig 4.
Table 10. Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients.

Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients
Function
1 2
ATE1 0.168 -0.277
ATE2 0.741 -0.387
ATE3 -0.307 0.017
PBC1 -0.707 -0.258
PBC2 -0.245 -0.104
PBC5 0.090 0.557
SN1 0.466 0.230
SN2 0.292 0.252
SN3 -0.074 0.336
PES1 -0.333 -0.110
PES5 -0.301 -0.132
PES6 0.277 -0.232
PTA1 0.390 -0.186
EP2 -0.686 0.217
EP4 0.048 0.581
EP5 0.416 -0.866
PTA3 -0.081 0.088
PTA4 -0.079 0.322

Fig 4. Attribute-based perceptual map.

The above attribute-based perceptual map in Fig 4 explains represent values of entrepre-
neurial intention are plotted using two distinct dimensions, with each discriminant function
symbolizing a separate dimension. The first dimension consists of students receiving pocket
money ranging from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 10000. This group prefers pursuing an entrepreneurial
career over other options. They find the idea of being an entrepreneur appealing, and if they
come across an excellent business opportunity, they exhibit a strong inclination to act upon it.
Furthermore, their university actively supports students with entrepreneurial intentions by
providing networking opportunities. Moreover, these students are inclined to seek employ-
ment where they can engage in creative and innovative activities.
Moving on to the second dimension, we have students who receive pocket money of less
than Rs. 5000. Within this group, their primary motivation for pursuing a career as self-
employed individuals lies in the opinions of their closest friends. They genuinely care about
what their friends think when deciding to embark on a self-employed career. Like the first
dimension, they find the prospect of being an entrepreneur attractive. When presented with a
good business opportunity, they display eagerness and enthusiasm to seize it. Additionally,
they prefer jobs that allow them to work independently.
Finally, the third dimension encompasses students who receive pocket money exceeding
Rs. 10,000. These individuals are highly motivated and prepared to establish a viable business.
They consider self-employment as a relatively effortless endeavor. They actively pursue a
career as self-employed individuals and genuinely desire to start a business if provided with
the necessary resources and opportunities. Their university recognizes their entrepreneurial
aspirations, offers elective courses on entrepreneurship, and arranges conferences and work-
shops related to entrepreneurship.
6 Result and discussion

The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the relationship between entrepre-
neurial intention, personality traits, and student academic performance. The results indicate
that personality traits mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and student

academic performance, thus supporting H1. This suggests that the influence of entrepreneurial
intention on academic performance is channelled through the individual’s personality traits.
Individuals with certain personality traits like employment preference and locus of control
tend to exhibit better academic performance due to their entrepreneurial intentions.
However, the study also reveals that entrepreneurial intention alone does not significantly
affect student academic performance, indicating that H2 is unsupported. This finding implies
that while entrepreneurial intention may indirectly influence academic performance through
personality traits, it does not directly impact academic performance. Other factors, such as the
actual implementation of entrepreneurial activities or specific strategies, may be necessary to
translate entrepreneurial intention into academic performance outcomes.
Furthermore, the study highlights the significant impact of personality traits on Student
academic performance, providing support for H3. This suggests that certain personality traits
positively influence academic performance among university students. Personality traits shape
students’ behaviors, study habits, and motivation, ultimately contributing to academic success.
Interestingly, the study also reveals that entrepreneurial intention substantially impacts stu-
dent academic performance by mediating personality traits, supporting H4. This implies that
individuals with higher entrepreneurial intentions tend to exhibit certain personality traits
that positively influence their academic performance. The entrepreneurial intention may foster
self-motivation, perseverance, and goal orientation, which, in turn, enhance academic perfor-
mance outcomes.
The study’s findings suggest that focusing more intensively on specific dimensions, particu-
larly perceived behavioral control, educational support, and subjective norm, is critical to culti-
vating a robust entrepreneurial intention among students. Perceived behavioral control
denotes the individual’s confidence in their capability to execute entrepreneurial actions suc-
cessfully, and the study underscores its pivotal role in shaping the intention to embark on
entrepreneurial ventures. Similarly, the influence of perceived educational support, stemming
from guidance and resources provided by educational institutions, emerges as a critical factor
in nurturing students’ inclination toward entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the subjective
norm, which encapsulates the influence of social and peer expectations, plays a vital role in
molding students’ aspirations toward entrepreneurship.
Moreover, the study illuminates the potential of specific personality traits—notably, an
emphasis on employment preference and a strong locus of control—to be precursors to suc-
cessful entrepreneurial intentions. Students inclined towards entrepreneurship, who prioritize
the pursuit of self-employment over traditional employment, demonstrate a mindset condu-
cive to venturing into innovative and entrepreneurial pursuits. Similarly, those with a resolute
locus of control who believe in one’s capacity to influence outcomes through actions exhibit
qualities aligned with effective entrepreneurial intentions.
These identified personality traits encompass a range of attributes that extend beyond
entrepreneurial intentions and have profound implications for students’ holistic development.
Notably, the enhancement of abilities, encompassing cognitive and practical skills and aca-
demic competence, emerges as a direct outcome of these traits. Additionally, the cultivation of
self-efficacy—the belief in one’s capability to accomplish tasks—and adeptness in setting and
pursuing goals can be attributed to nurturing these personality traits. Equally significant is
honing time management skills, a trait closely linked to entrepreneurial success.
Ultimately, the study highlights the broader implications of these personality traits for stu-
dents’ overall academic performance. By cultivating these attributes, educational institutions
can empower students to navigate the academic landscape more effectively, leading to an
enhanced learning experience and improved performance. Therefore, the study’s findings not

only contribute to understanding the factors shaping entrepreneurial intentions but also hold
the potential to drive positive transformations in students’ academic journeys.
Finally, the study highlights the multifaceted nature of students’ entrepreneurial intentions
based on their pocket money amounts through discriminant validity analysis. While financial
circumstances differ, the appeal of entrepreneurship remains consistent across dimensions.
The study highlights the influence of peers, university support, and individual motivations in
shaping students’ entrepreneurial aspirations and behaviors. This subtle understanding
enhances strategies for nurturing and facilitating entrepreneurial activities among students,
irrespective of their financial support from family members.
7 Limitations and future scope of the study

This study is not without limitations. Using a descriptive research design in this study allows
for a detailed investigation of the mediating effect of personality traits in the relationship
between entrepreneurial intentions and academic performance among university students. A
comprehensive understanding of the variables can be obtained by employing various data col-
lection methods and focusing on the specific time and location of the study. While the descrip-
tive design does not establish causality, it provides valuable insights into the phenomenon. It is
a foundation for future research and practical implications in entrepreneurship and education.
Further limitations of the study are noted as follows:
7.1 Cross-sectional design

The study employs a cross-sectional design, capturing data at a single point in time. This limits
the ability to establish causality and observe changes in the relationship over time. A longitudi-
nal design would provide a more robust understanding of how personality traits mediate the
relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and academic performance.
7.2 Self-report measures

The study relies on self-report measures subject to response biases such as social desirability or
recall bias. Participants may provide answers that they perceive as favorable or reflect their
ideal self-image, potentially affecting the accuracy of the data collected.
7.3 Single institution or context

Although the institution considered to conduct this study has a student population from all
over the nation, it may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other settings. Different
academic environments, cultural contexts, or educational systems may influence the relation-
ship between entrepreneurial intentions, personality traits, and academic performance.
7.4 Mediating variable complexity

Personality traits, as a mediating variable, are complex constructs influenced by multiple fac-
tors such as genetics, environment, and individual experiences. The study may not capture the
full range of factors affecting personality traits and their mediating effect on the relationship
between entrepreneurial intentions and academic performance.
7.5 Measurement of entrepreneurial intentions

The study’s measurement of entrepreneurial intentions may be based on self-reported inten-
tions rather than actual behaviors related to entrepreneurship. While intentions are often used

as a proxy for behavior, there may be a discrepancy between individuals’ stated intentions and
their actual engagement in entrepreneurial activities.
Recognizing these limitations is crucial for understanding the scope and implications of the
study’s findings. Future research could address these limitations by utilizing more extensive
and diverse samples, employing longitudinal designs, integrating with the objective measures
of behaviors related to entrepreneurship, and considering a broader range of contextual factors
that may influence the relationship between personality traits, entrepreneurial intentions, and
academic performance.
8 Practical implications
The present study explored the mediating role of personality traits in the relationship between
entrepreneurial intentions and academic performance among university students. The litera-
ture review highlighted that personality traits are essential to entrepreneurial intentions and
academic performance. This study’s findings suggest a significant relationship between
entrepreneurial intentions, personality traits, and academic performance. Moreover, the medi-
ating effect of personality traits was found to play a crucial role in the relationship between
entrepreneurial intentions and academic performance. These findings are consistent with pre-
vious studies, which have established the link between personality traits, entrepreneurial inten-
tions, and student academic performance.
The results of this study have significant implications for educational institutions, policy-
makers, and entrepreneurs. Educational institutions should develop entrepreneurship educa-
tion programs targeting students’ personality traits to enhance their entrepreneurial intentions
and academic performance. Policymakers should also support implementing such programs
to foster the growth of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Furthermore, entrepreneurs can use this
information to understand the personality traits essential for success in entrepreneurship and
use it to select and develop their team members.
9 Conclusion
This study contributes to the existing literature by providing insights into the mediating role of
personality traits in the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and academic perfor-
mance. The findings highlight the importance of considering personality traits as essential predic-
tors influencing entrepreneurial intentions and academic performance. By recognizing the
mediating effect of personality traits, this study emphasizes the need for educational institutions,
policymakers, and entrepreneurs to consider these factors when designing entrepreneurship edu-
cation programs and formulating policies to support the growth of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The results of this study imply that personality traits play a crucial role in shaping students’
entrepreneurial intentions and subsequent academic performance. This suggests that students
with specific personality traits are likelier to exhibit higher entrepreneurial intentions, which
can positively influence their academic performance outcomes. By understanding the mediat-
ing role of personality traits, educators and policymakers can tailor their strategies to cultivate
and nurture these traits among students, enhancing both their entrepreneurial intentions and
academic achievements.
Furthermore, the implications of this study extend beyond the academic realm. The find-
ings emphasize the importance of fostering an entrepreneurial mindset and developing key
personality traits contributing to entrepreneurial success. This has implications for the broader
entrepreneurial ecosystem, as individuals with strong entrepreneurial intentions are more
likely to contribute to innovation, economic growth, and job creation. Policymakers and stake-
holders in entrepreneurship development can utilize these findings to design initiatives and

policies that promote cultivating specific personality traits, ultimately leading to a more vibrant
and robust entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Supporting information
S1 Dataset.
(PDF)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Smita Panda, Vasumathi Arumugam.
Formal analysis: Vasumathi Arumugam.
Methodology: Smita Panda, Vasumathi Arumugam.
Supervision: Vasumathi Arumugam.
Visualization: Smita Panda, Vasumathi Arumugam.
Writing – original draft: Smita Panda.
Writing – review & editing: Vasumathi Arumugam.
References
1. Pauca MAV, Vásquez MEZ, Acobo RYC, Gonzáles JLA. Factors that influence the decision of Peru-
vian women to become entrepreneurs. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia: RVG. 2022; 27(8):1036–47.
2. Thurik R, Wennekers S. Entrepreneurship, small business and economic growth. J Small Bus Enterp
Dev [Internet]. 2004; 11(1):140–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000410519173
3. Shane S, Venkataraman S. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad Manage Rev
[Internet]. 2000; 25(1):217–26. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
4. St-Jean E, Labelle F. Wanting to change the world, is it too much of a good thing? How sustainable ori-
entation shapes entrepreneurial behaviour. Int J Entrep Behav Res [Internet]. 2018; 24(6):1075–86.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-03-2018-0130
5. Baron RA. The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship’s basic "why"
questions. J Bus Venturing [Internet]. 2004; 19(2):221–39. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
s0883-9026(03)00008-9
6. Busenitz LW, Barney JB. Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations:
Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. J Bus Venturing [Internet]. 1997; 12(1):9–30. Avail-
able from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(96)00003-1
7. Al-Mamary YH, Alshallaqi M. Impact of autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, and
competitive aggressiveness on students’ intention to start a new venture. J Innov Knowl [Internet].
2022; 7(4):100239. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100239
8. Li C, Murad M, Shahzad F, Khan MAS, Ashraf SF, Dogbe CSK. Entrepreneurial passion to entrepre-
neurial behavior: Role of entrepreneurial alertness, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and proactive person-
ality. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2020; 11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01611
PMID: 32973593
9. Bleidorn W, Hopwood CJ, Lucas RE. Life events and personality trait change: Life events and trait
change. J Pers [Internet]. 2018; 86(1):83–96. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12286
10. Bergner S, Auburger J, Paleczek D. The why and the how: A nexus on how opportunity, risk and per-
sonality affect entrepreneurial intention. J Small Bus Manage [Internet]. 2021;1–34. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1934849
11. Ratten V. Entrepreneurial intentions of surf tourists. Tour Rev [Internet]. 2018; 73(2):262–76. Available
from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/tr-05-2017-0095
12. Griffin D, Galassi JP. Parent perceptions of barriers to academic success in a rural middle school. Prof
Sch Couns [Internet]. 2010; 14(1):2156759X1001400. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
2156759x1001400109

13. Kuncel NR, Hezlett SA, Ones DS. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the
Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychol
Bull [Internet]. 2001; 127(1):162–81. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.162
PMID: 11271753
14. Farrukh M, Khan AA, Shahid Khan M, Ravan Ramzani S, Soladoye BSA. Entrepreneurial intentions:
the role of family factors, personality traits and self-efficacy. World J Entrep Manag Sustain Dev [Inter-
net]. 2017; 13(4):303–17. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/wjemsd-03-2017-0018
15. Baird BN, Thomas H. The impact of entrepreneurial motivation on academic performance: Evidence
from a sample of undergraduate students. Journal of Education for Business. 2018; 93(7):292–9.
16. Mujahid S, Mubarik MS, Naghavi N. Developing entrepreneurial intentions: what matters? Middle East
Journal of Management. 2020; 7(1):41–59.
17. Duong CD. Exploring the link between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: the
moderating role of educational fields. Educ Train [Internet]. 2022; 64(7):869–91. Available from: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/et-05-2021-0173
18. Shahin M, Ilic O, Gonsalvez C, Whittle J. The impact of a STEM-based entrepreneurship program on
the entrepreneurial intention of secondary school female students. Int Entrep. Manag J [Internet].
2021; 17(4):1867–98. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00713-7
19. Gieure C, Benavides-Espinosa M del M, Roig-Dobón S. The entrepreneurial process: The link
between intentions and behavior. J Bus Res [Internet]. 2020; 112:541–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.088
20. Ambad SNA, Damit DHDA. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students
in Malaysia. Procedia Econ Finance [Internet]. 2016; 37:108–14. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/s2212-5671(16)30100-9
21. Liñán F, Chen Y-W. Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure
entrepreneurial intentions. Entrep. Theory Pr [Internet]. 2009; 33(3):593–617. Available from: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x
22. Kolvereid L. Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrep. Theory Pr [Internet]. 1996; 21
(1):47–58. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104225879602100104
23. Shinnar RS, Giacomin O, Janssen F. Entrepreneurial perceptions and intentions: The role of gender
and culture. Entrep. Theory Pr [Internet]. 2012; 36(3):465–93. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00509.x
24. Brás GR, Daniel A, Fernandes C. The effect of proximal personality traits on entrepreneurial intention
among higher education students. International Journal of Innovation Science. 2023.
25. Hassan A, Saleem I, Anwar I, Hussain SA. Entrepreneurial intention of Indian university students: the
role of opportunity recognition and entrepreneurship education. Educ Train [Internet]. 2020; 62(7/
8):843–61. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/et-02-2020-0033
26. Krueger NF Jr, Reilly MD, Carsrud AL. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J Bus Ventur-
ing [Internet]. 2000; 15(5–6):411–32. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(98)00033-
0
27. Kour S, Sharma M. Impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions: Role of self-regulation and
education. Sustainable Business Practices for Rural Development: The Role of Intellectual Capital.
2020;169–89.
28. Hartono C, Hartono W, Hongdiyanto C, Ongkowijoyo G. The influence of entrepreneurship education
towards entrepreneurial intention mediated by attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral
control of business management students at Universitas Ciputra Surabaya. Proceeding of the Interna-
tional Conference on Family Business and Entrepreneurship [Internet]. 2021; 2(1). Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.33021/icfbe.v2i1.3581
29. Schmidt VA. Reinterpreting the rules’ by stealth’in times of crisis: a discursive institutionalist analysis
of the European Central Bank and the European Commission. West European Politics. 2016; 39
(5):1032–52.
30. Elfert M. UNESCO, the Faure report, the Delors report, and the political utopia of lifelong learning. Eur
J Educ [Internet]. 2015; 50(1):88–100. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12104
31. Jena RK. Measuring the impact of business management Student’s attitude towards entrepreneurship
education on entrepreneurial intention: A case study. Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2020; 107
(106275):106275. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106275
32. Obschonka M, Hakkarainen K, Lonka K, Salmela-Aro K. Entrepreneurship as a twenty-first century
skill: entrepreneurial alertness and intention in the transition to adulthood. Small Bus Econ [Internet].
2017; 48(3):487–501. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9798-6

33. Fayolle A, Gailly B, Lassas-Clerc N. Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education pro-
grammes: a new methodology. J Eur Ind Train [Internet]. 2006; 30(9):701–20. Available from: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590610715022
34. Aggarwal A, Chauhan K. Analysing individual entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial intention:
The moderating effect of educational support. FIIB Bus Rev [Internet]. 2022;231971452211210. Avail-
able from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23197145221121081
35. Nguyen TT. The impact of access to finance and environmental factors on entrepreneurial intention:
The mediator role of entrepreneurial behavioural control. Entrep Bus Econ Rev [Internet]. 2020; 8
(2):127–40. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.15678/eber.2020.080207
36. Pfeifer S, Šarlija N, Zekić Sušac M. Shaping the entrepreneurial mindset: Entrepreneurial intentions of
business students in Croatia. J Small Bus Manage [Internet]. 2016; 54(1):102–17. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12133
37. Shirokova G, Osiyevskyy O, Bogatyreva K. Exploring the intention–behavior link in student entre-
preneurship: Moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics. Eur Manag J [Inter-
net]. 2016; 34(4):386–99. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.007
38. Hellas A, Ihantola P, Petersen A, Ajanovski VV, Gutica M, Hynninen T, et al. Predicting academic per-
formance: a systematic literature review. In: Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Confer-
ence on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. New York, NY, USA: ACM;
2018.
39. Findley MJ, Cooper HM. Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature review. J Pers Soc
Psychol [Internet]. 1983; 44(2):419–27. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.2.419
40. Richardson M, Abraham C, Bond R. Psychological correlates of university students’ academic perfor-
mance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Bull [Internet]. 2012; 138(2):353–87. Avail-
able from: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838 PMID: 22352812
41. Kuh GD, Kinzie JL, Buckley JA, Bridges BK, Hayek JC. What matters to student success: A review of
the literature. Washington, DC; 2006.
42. Samuel R, Bergman MM, Hupka-Brunner S. The interplay between educational achievement, occupa-
tional success, and well-being. Soc Indic Res [Internet]. 2013; 111(1):75–96. Available from: http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9984-5
43. Judge TA, Bono JE. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-effi-
cacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-anal-
ysis. J Appl Psychol [Internet]. 2001; 86(1):80–92. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
86.1.80 PMID: 11302235
44. Ross CE, Mirowsky J. Social structure and psychological functioning: Distress, perceived control, and
trust. In: Handbook of social psychology. Springer; 2003. p. 411–47.
45. Côté JE, Allahar A. Lowering higher education: The rise of corporate universities and the fall of liberal
education. University of Toronto Press; 2011.
46. Allina B. The development of STEAM educational policy to promote student creativity and social
empowerment. Arts Educ Pol Rev [Internet]. 2018; 119(2):77–87. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/10632913.2017.1296392
47. Van Den Berg MN, Hofman WHA. Student success in university education: A multi-measurement
study of the impact of student and faculty factors on study progress. High Educ [Internet]. 2005; 50
(3):413–46. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6361-1
48. Yang C, Davis K, Head M, Huck NA, Irani T, Ovakimyan A, et al. Collaborative Learning Communities
with Medical Students as Teachers. J Med Educ Curric Dev [Internet]. 2023; 10. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205231183878 PMID: 37362582
49. Mccarthy M, Kuh GD. Are students ready for college? What student engagement data say. Phi Delta
Kappan. 2006; 87(9):664–9.
50. Wang M-T, Sheikh-Khalil S. Does parental involvement matter for student achievement and mental
health in high school? Child Dev [Internet]. 2014; 85(2):610–25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1111/cdev.12153 PMID: 24033259
51. Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, Schellinger KB. The impact of enhancing stu-
dents’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions: Social
and emotional learning. Child Dev [Internet]. 2011; 82(1):405–32. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
52. Thielmann I, Moshagen M, Hilbig B, Zettler I. On the comparability of basic personality models: Meta-
analytic correspondence, scope, and orthogonality of the Big Five and HEXACO dimensions. Eur J
Pers [Internet]. 2022; 36(6):870–900. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08902070211026793

53. Hofstede G, McCrae RR. Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture.
Cross Cult Res [Internet]. 2004; 38(1):52–88. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1069397103259443
54. McCrae RR, John OP. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J Pers [Internet].
1992; 60(2):175–215. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x PMID:
1635039
55. Liu M, Cai J, Chen H, Shi L. Association of personality traits with life and work of medical students: An
integrative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2022; 19(19):12376. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912376 PMID: 36231679
56. Bucher MA, Suzuki T, Samuel DB. A meta-analytic review of personality traits and their associations
with mental health treatment outcomes. Clin Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2019; 70:51–63. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.04.002 PMID: 30981042
57. Olver JM, Mooradian TA. Personality traits and personal values: a conceptual and empirical integra-
tion. Pers Individ Dif [Internet]. 2003; 35(1):109–25. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0191-
8869(02)00145-9
58. Mischel W. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychol Rev [Inter-
net]. 1973; 80(4):252–83. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035002 PMID: 4721473
59. Giles DC. Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psy-
chol [Internet]. 2002; 4(3):279–305. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0403_04
60. McCrae RR, Costa PT. Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs type indicator from the perspective of the five-
factor model of personality. J Pers [Internet]. 1989; 57(1):17–40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x PMID: 2709300
61. Mccrae RR. The five-factor model of personality traits: Consensus and controversy. The Cambridge
handbook of personality psychology. 2009;148–61.
62. Boyle GJ. Critique of the five-factor model of personality. In: The SAGE Handbook of Personality The-
ory and Assessment: Volume 1—Personality Theories and Models. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road,
London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2008. p. 295–312.
63. Sugiarto AP, Sahrah A, Anwar A. Psychometric properties of Indonesian HEXACO-100: A facet level
analysis. J Psikol [Internet]. 2022; 49(1):21. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.22146/jpsi.61198
64. Karabulut AT. Personality traits on entrepreneurial intention. Procedia Soc Behav Sci [Internet]. 2016;
229:12–21. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.109
65. Zhao H, Seibert SE. The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical
review. J Appl Psychol [Internet]. 2006; 91(2):259–71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.91.2.259 PMID: 16551182
66. Judge TA, Cable DM. When it comes to pay, do the thin win? The effect of weight on pay for men and
women. J Appl Psychol [Internet]. 2011; 96(1):95–112. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0020860 PMID: 20853946
67. Mueller SL, Thomas AS. Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control
and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing. 2001; 16(1):51–75.
68. Zimmerman BJ, Bandura A. Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. Am
Educ Res J [Internet]. 1994; 31(4):845–62. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00028312031004845
69. Koe Hwee Nga J, Shamuganathan G. The influence of personality traits and demographic factors on
social entrepreneurship start up intentions. J Bus Ethics [Internet]. 2010; 95(2):259–82. Available
from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0358-8
70. Komarraju M, Karau SJ, Schmeck RR. Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college stu-
dents’ academic motivation and achievement. Learn Individ Differ [Internet]. 2009; 19(1):47–52. Avail-
able from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.07.001
71. McClelland DC. Achieving society. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 1961.
72. Biswas A, Verma RK. Attitude and alertness in personality traits: A pathway to building entrepreneurial
intentions among university students. J Entrep [Internet]. 2021; 30(2):367–96. Available from: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/09713557211025656
73. Tang J, Tang Z, Lohrke FT. Developing an entrepreneurial typology: the roles of entrepreneurial alert-
ness and attributional style. Int Entrep. Manag J [Internet]. 2008; 4(3):273–94. Available from: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-007-0041-4
74. Vaibhav J, Mehak K. Impact of personality on risk tolerance. International Journal of Indian Psychȯl-
ogy. 2020; 8(4).

75. Czerwonka M. Cultural, cognitive and personality traits in risk-taking behaviour: evidence from Poland
and the United States of America. Econ Res-Ekon Istraž [Internet]. 2019; 32(1):894–908. Available
from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2019.1588766
76. Hvide HK, Panos GA. Do the (More) Risk Tolerant become Entrepreneurs? SSRN Electron J [Inter-
net]. 2012; Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2039498
77. Antonites AJ, Wordsworth R. Risk tolerance: A perspective on entrepreneurship education. Southern
African Business Review. 2009.
78. Caliendo M, Fossen F, Kritikos AS. Personality characteristics and the decisions to become and stay
self-employed. Small Bus Econ [Internet]. 2014; 42(4):787–814. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s11187-013-9514-8
79. Caliendo M, Fossen FM, Kritikos AS. Risk attitudes of nascent entrepreneurs–new evidence from an
experimentally validated survey. Small Bus Econ [Internet]. 2009; 32(2):153–67. Available from: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9078-6
80. Heinemann H, Mussel P, Schäpers P. Curious enough to start up? How epistemic curiosity and
entrepreneurial alertness influence entrepreneurship orientation and intention. Front Psychol [Inter-
net]. 2022; 13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1003866 PMID: 36312096
81. Neneh BN. From entrepreneurial alertness to entrepreneurial behavior: The role of trait competitive-
ness and proactive personality. Pers Individ Dif [Internet]. 2019; 138:273–9. Available from: http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.020
82. Awwad MS, Al-Aseer RMN. Big Five personality traits impact on entrepreneurial intention: the mediat-
ing role of entrepreneurial alertness. Asia Pac J Innov Entrep [Internet]. 2021; 15(1):87–100. Available
from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/apjie-09-2020-0136
83. Kirzner I. Competition and entrepreneurship (chicago, 1973), perception, opportunity, and profit. Stud-
ies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship. University o f Chicago Press; 1973.
84. Gaglio CM, Katz JA. The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness.
Small Business Economics. 2001; 16:95–111.
85. Elnadi M, Gheith MH. The role of individual characteristics in shaping digital entrepreneurial intention
among university students: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Think Skills Creat [Internet]. 2023; 47
(101236):101236. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101236
86. Bustamante C, Poblete C, Amorós JE. Entrepreneurial intentions in the context of a natural disaster.
Int J Emerg Mark [Internet]. 2022; 17(5):1198–217. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-10-
2019-0846
87. Fragoso R, Rocha-Junior W, Xavier A. Determinant factors of entrepreneurial intention among univer-
sity students in Brazil and Portugal. J Small Bus Entrep [Internet]. 2020; 32(1):33–57. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1551459
88. Sargani GR, Zhou D, Mangan T, Rajper H. Determinants of personality traits influence on entrepre-
neurial intentions among agricultural students evidence from two different economies. European Jour-
nal of Business and Management Research [Internet]. 2019; 4(5). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.
24018/ejbmr.2019.4.5.105
89. Baker T, Nelson RE. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial
bricolage. Adm Sci Q [Internet]. 2005; 50(3):329–66. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2189/asqu.
2005.50.3.329
90. Hu R, Wang L, Zhang W, Bin P. Creativity, proactive personality, and entrepreneurial intention: The
role of entrepreneurial alertness. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2018; 9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyg.2018.00951 PMID: 29962985
91. Kolvereid L, Isaksen E. New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment. J Bus Ven-
turing [Internet]. 2006; 21(6):866–85. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.06.008
92. Mammadov S. Big Five personality traits and academic performance: A meta-analysis. J Pers [Inter-
net]. 2022; 90(2):222–55. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12663 PMID: 34265097
93. Spengler M, Lüdtke O, Martin R, Brunner M. Personality is related to educational outcomes in late ado-
lescence: Evidence from two large-scale achievement studies. J Res Pers [Internet]. 2013; 47(5):613–
25. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.008
94. Yong C, Nor Zainudin Z, Mohd Anuar MA, Wan Othman WN. Personality traits and their effects
among university students in Malaysia: A systematic review. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci [Internet].
2022; 12(10). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v12-i10/14955
95. Potgieter I, Coetzee M. Employability attributes and personality preferences of postgraduate business
management students. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology. 2013; 39(1):1–10.

96. Park YS, Kim U. Locus of control, attributional style, and academic achievement: Comparative analy-
sis of Korean-Chinese, and Chinese students. Asian J Soc Psychol [Internet]. 1998; 1(2):191–208.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-839x.00013
97. Melinda R, Usman O. The Influence of Entrepreneurial Education, Need for Achievement and Self-
Effication Towards Intention of Entrepreneurs. Need for Achievement and Self-Effication Towards
Intention of Entrepreneurs. 2021.
98. Hakimi S, Hejazi E, Lavasani MG. The relationships between personality traits and students’ academic
achievement. Procedia Soc Behav Sci [Internet]. 2011; 29:836–45. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.312
99. Taylor MP. Are high-ability individuals really more tolerant of risk? A test of the relationship between
risk aversion and cognitive ability. J Behav Exp Econ [Internet]. 2016; 63:136–47. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2016.06.001
100. Kearney C, Hisrich RD. Entrepreneurship in developing economies: transformation, barriers and infra-
structure. Necessity Entrepreneurs: Microenterprise Education and Economic Development. 2014.
101. Zhang S-N, Li Y-Q, Liu C-H, Ruan W-Q. Critical factors identification and prediction of tourism and
hospitality students’ entrepreneurial intention. J Hosp Leis Sport Tour Educ [Internet]. 2020; 26
(100234):100234. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100234
102. Khan R, Anwar I, Thoudam P, Islam KMB, Saleem I. Entrepreneurial intention among female univer-
sity students: examining the moderating role of entrepreneurial education. J Int Bus Entrep Dev [Inter-
net]. 2020; 12(4):217. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/jibed.2020.10032497
103. Bae TJ, Qian S, Miao C, Fiet JO. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepre-
neurial intentions: A meta–analytic review. Entrep. Theory Pr [Internet]. 2014; 38(2):217–54. Available
from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/etap.12095
104. Nabi G, Liñán F, Fayolle A, Krueger N, Walmsley A. The impact of entrepreneurship education in
higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Acad Manag Learn Educ [Internet].
2017; 16(2):277–99. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026
105. Farooq MS, Salam M, ur Rehman S, Fayolle A, Jaafar N, Ayupp K. Impact of support from social net-
work on entrepreneurial intention of fresh business graduates: A structural equation modelling
approach. Educ Train [Internet]. 2018; 60(4):335–53. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/et-06-
2017-0092
106. Komarraju M, Karau SJ, Schmeck RR, Avdic A. The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and
academic achievement. Pers Individ Dif [Internet]. 2011; 51(4):472–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019
107. Poropat AE. A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psy-
chol Bull [Internet]. 2009; 135(2):322–38. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996 PMID:
19254083
108. Thurik AR, Audretsch DB, Block JH, Burke A, Carree MA, Dejardin M. The impact of entrepreneurship
research on other academic fields. 2023;1–25.
109. Schaefer HS, Farina AG, Cotting DI, Proctor ES, Cook CL, Lerner RM. The benefits and liabilities of
risk-taking propensity and confidence at the US military academy. Armed Forces & Society. 2022; 48
(2):410–39.
110. Roberts BW, Kuncel NR, Shiner R, Caspi A, Goldberg LR. The power of personality: The comparative
validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life out-
comes. Perspect Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2007; 2(4):313–45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1745-6916.2007.00047.x PMID: 26151971
111. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol [Internet]. 1986; 51(6):1173–
82. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173 PMID: 3806354
112. Mount MK, Barrick MR, Strauss JP. Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors. J
Appl Psychol [Internet]. 1994; 79(2):272–80. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.
2.272
113. Zhao H, Seibert SE, Lumpkin GT. The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and per-
formance: A meta-analytic review. J Manage [Internet]. 2010; 36(2):381–404. Available from: http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/0149206309335187
114. Fayolle A, Liñán F. The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. J Bus Res [Internet]. 2014; 67
(5):663–6. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.024
115. Chen CC, Greene PG, Crick A. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from
managers? J Bus Venturing [Internet]. 1998; 13(4):295–316. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
s0883-9026(97)00029-3

116. Uysal ŞK, Karadağ H, Tuncer B, Şahin F. Locus of control, need for achievement, and entrepreneurial
intention: A moderated mediation model. Int J Manag Educ [Internet]. 2022; 20(2):100560. Available
from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100560
117. McMullen JS, Shepherd DA. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the
entrepreneur. Acad Manage Rev [Internet]. 2006; 31(1):132–52. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.
5465/amr.2006.19379628
118. Rauch A, Frese M. Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the
relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. Eur J Work
Org Psychol [Internet]. 2007; 16(4):353–85. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13594320701595438
119. Carsrud AL, Brännback M. The relationship between personality traits, entrepreneurial intentions, and
start-up behavior: A conceptualization and test. Journal of Business Venturing. 2004; 19(2):285–308.
120. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process [Internet]. 1991; 50
(2):179–211. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
121. Oluwafemi A, Dastane DO. The impact of word of mouth on customer perceived value for the Malay-
sian restaurant industry. The East Asian Journal of Business Management. 2016; 6:21–31.
122. Neuman D. Qualitative research in educational communications and technology: a brief introduction to
principles and procedures. J Comput High Educ [Internet]. 2014; 26(1):69–86. Available from: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-014-9078-x
123. Creswell JW. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications. 2021.
124. Phuong NND, Van QNT, Dung ND. The effect of perceived educational support, self-efficacy and
planned behavior predictors on entrepreneurial intention of Ho Chi Minh City University students.
HCMCOUJS—ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Internet]. 2020; 10(1). Available
from: http://dx.doi.org/10.46223/hcmcoujs.econ.en.10.1.226.2020
125. Klomegah RY. Predictors of academic performance of university students: An application of the goal
efficacy model. College Student Journal. 2007; 41(2):407–16.
126. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM.
Eur Bus Rev [Internet]. 2019; 31(1):2–24. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ebr-11-2018-0203
127. Ringle CM, GGtz O, Wetzels M, Wilson B. On the use of formative measurement specifications in
structural equation modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study to compare covariance-based and par-
tial least squares model estimation methodologies. SSRN Electron J [Internet]. 2009; Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2394054
128. Hair J, Sarstedt JF, Matthews M, Ringle LM. Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with
FIMIX-PLS: part I-method. European Business Review. 2016; 28(1):63–76.
129. Rasoolimanesh SM, Ali F. Partial least squares-structural equation modeling in hospitality and tourism.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology. 2018; 9(3):238–48.
130. Naz S, Jamshed S, Nisar QA, Nasir N. Green HRM, psychological green climate and pro-environmen-
tal behaviors: An efficacious drive towards environmental performance in China. Curr Psychol [Inter-
net]. 2023; 42(2):1346–61. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01412-4
131. Hair J, Hair JF, Hult GT, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications. 2021.
132. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international
marketing. In: Advances in International Marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2009. p. 277–
319.
133. Hair JF Jr, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous appli-
cations, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plann [Internet]. 2013; 46(1–2):1–12. Avail-
able from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001
134. Kock N. Advanced mediating effects tests, multi-group analyses, and measurement model assess-
ments in PLS-based SEM. Int J E-Collab [Internet]. 2014; 10(1):1–13. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/
10.4018/ijec.2014010101
135. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods [Internet]. 2008; 40(3):879–91. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879 PMID: 18697684
136. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error: Algebra and statistics. J Mark Res [Internet]. 1981; 18(3):382. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/3150980
137. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci [Internet]. 1988;
16(1):74–94. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02723327

138. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J Acad
Mark Sci [Internet]. 2012; 40(1):8–34. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x
139. Lucas RE, Diener E, Suh E. Discriminant validity of well-being measures. J Pers Soc Psychol [Inter-
net]. 1996; 71(3):616–28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.3.616 PMID:
8831165
140. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika [Internet]. 1951; 16
(3):297–334. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555
141. Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Sharma S. Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. sage publica-
tions; 2003.
142. Fey CF, Hu T, Delios A. The measurement and communication of effect sizes in management
research. Manag Organ Rev [Internet]. 2023; 19(1):176–97. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
mor.2022.2
143. Cohen J. Set correlation and contingency tables. Appl Psychol Meas [Internet]. 1988; 12(4):425–34.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662168801200410

Exploring The Mediating Effect of Personality Trai

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring The Mediating Effect of Personality Trai

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLOS ONE

Exploring the mediating effect of personality

Copyright: © 2023 Panda, Arumugam. This is an

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 1 / 27

1.1 Research questions

1.2 Research objective

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 2 / 27

2. To analyze whether personality traits mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 3 / 27

2.2 Student academic performance

2.3 Personality traits

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 4 / 27

2.4 Relationship between entrepreneurial intention and personality traits

2.5 Relationship between personality traits and student academic

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 5 / 27

2.6 Relationship between entrepreneurial intention and student academic

2.7 The mediation role of personality traits

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 6 / 27

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 7 / 27

perceived control are hypothesized to mediate this relationship. By incorporating personality

5.1 Type of research

Fig 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 8 / 27

5.2 Sample size

5.3 Research instrument

5.4 Data analysis procedures

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 9 / 27

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 10 / 27

Table 1. Results of the measurement model.

Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 11 / 27

Table 3. Discriminant validity.

Fig 2. Measurement model.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 12 / 27

Fig 3. Structural model.

Table 4. Hypotheses testing of direct relationships.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 13 / 27

Table 5. Q2 predictive relevance.

Table 6. F2 effect size.

Table 7. Goodness of fit index.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 14 / 27

Table 8. Wilks’ lambda.

Table 9. Functions at group centroids.

Table 10. Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 15 / 27

Fig 4. Attribute-based perceptual map.

6 Result and discussion

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 16 / 27

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 17 / 27

7 Limitations and future scope of the study

7.1 Cross-sectional design

7.2 Self-report measures

7.3 Single institution or context

7.4 Mediating variable complexity

7.5 Measurement of entrepreneurial intentions

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 18 / 27

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 19 / 27

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 20 / 27

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 21 / 27

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 22 / 27

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 23 / 27

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293305 November 8, 2023 24 / 27