Understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial attitudes, and entrepreneurial intentions among engineering graduates: the moderating role of gender

Manpreet Kaur (Department of Humanities and Management, Dr BR Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, India)
Sonia Chawla (Department of Humanities and Management, Dr BR Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, India)

Journal of Work-Applied Management

ISSN: 2205-2062

Article publication date: 19 July 2023

Issue publication date: 27 September 2023




The current study assesses the contribution of entrepreneurship education (EE) in strengthening entrepreneurial attitudes (EAs) and entrepreneurial intentions (EIs) among engineering graduates in India.


Cross-sectional data were collected through an electronic questionnaire from 340 engineering students. Structural equation modeling was performed for hypothesis testing through SmartPLS4 software.


The findings demonstrated that EE, EA and EI are positively and significantly correlated. However, the moderation effect of gender on EE–EI linkage was found to be insignificant.

Research limitations/implications

The study provides comprehensive insights to understand EE effectiveness on students' EI and further opens the path for future researchers to investigate how the inclusion of other constructs in theory of planned behavior and human capital theory can raise the EI among students. Future research should target a larger sample size comprising students from diverse educational streams.

Practical implications

The findings of this research offer various practical contributions for educational establishments, policymakers and the government in formulating constructive educational interventions that fully trigger the student's EIs.


This study adds to the scarce theoretical examination of EE–EI using the human capital approach in developing countries. In addition, this study is highly relevant to the scarce theoretical and empirical support for investigating the contribution of EE in HEIs in India.



Kaur, M. and Chawla, S. (2023), "Understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial attitudes, and entrepreneurial intentions among engineering graduates: the moderating role of gender", Journal of Work-Applied Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 200-215. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-05-2023-0039



Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Manpreet Kaur and Sonia Chawla


Published in Journal of Work-Applied Management. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurs have invariably been acknowledged as the backbone of society for their enormous efforts to augment the standard of living embraced with innovativeness (Nowiński et al., 2019; Ratten and Jones, 2020; Sergi et al., 2019). In view of this, entrepreneurship education (EE) has now become the crucial educational intervention (Sánchez, 2013; Walter and Block, 2016), resulting in a radical growth in EE programs across HEIs along with an increase in scholarly work on the outcomes of EE (Bischoff et al., 2018; Hoang et al., 2021). EE enhances an individual's stock of knowledge, skills and competencies, thereby raising the entrepreneurial attitudes (EAs) and entrepreneurial intentions (EIs) among university graduates (Carpenter and Wilson, 2022; Uddin et al., 2022). It has also been asserted that a knowledge base is crucial to develop the entrepreneurial potential of an individual, and thus, EE can create more and more able entrepreneurs (Katz, 2007; Pittaway and Cope, 2007). Numerous studies have advocated a positive and significant EE–EI association (Pisoni, 2019; Saptono et al., 2020), while others found a negative linkage (Oosterbeek et al., 2010) and others reported no association (Huber et al., 2014; Varamaki et al., 2015). These divergent outcomes showed significant gaps in the literature, which motivated the present study. Owing to the dynamic and interdisciplinary nature of EE, the field is still emerging and needs more inquiry (Ratten and Jones, 2020).

EE context differs due to geographical, regional and cultural differences across nations worldwide, and consequently, the country's entrepreneurial activities and outcomes vary due to differences in the local system, culture and resources (Sergi et al., 2019). Thus, it calls for more exploration into socioeconomic development resulting from EE–EI association in developing economies such as the Philippines, India, Peru, Argentina, etc. (Morris et al., 2020; Santos et al., 2019). Thus, theoretical evidence provides much support to investigate the problem in the Indian context along with the fact that the infusion of EE into university education is relatively a young phenomenon in Indian HEIs (Chhabra et al., 2021; Mukesh et al., 2018). Statistics also support that India has the most favorable entrepreneurial ecosystem among developing economies along with a substantial increase in total early stage entrepreneurial activity from 5.30% in 2020-2021 to 14.4% in 2021-22 (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor India Report 2021/22, 2022). Hence, HEIs hold an immense role in sustaining a favorable entrepreneurial context by providing an inclusive entrepreneurial education framework in the country (Kennedy and Drennan, 2001; Roy et al., 2017).

Hence, to address the gap and strengthen the literature on EE–EI relationship, the present study provides an inclusive framework that is grounded in the human capital theory (HCT) (Becker, 1964) and theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). While gauging the literature, it was found that EE has got substantial recognition as a pathway to endorse attitudes, mindsets and intentions using the TPB framework (Cassol et al., 2022; Duong, 2022). The human capital approach of entrepreneurship, which is under searched area in EE literature especially in developing countries, is based on the belief that skills, knowledge and competencies make an individual efficient in starting and managing a business (Fayolle et al., 2006). Given this, EE is regarded as the most pervasive component of entrepreneurship specific human capital investment (Unger et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2013). In addition, entrepreneurship is a planned activity that needs some kind of attitudinal preparation or mindset towards entrepreneurship, considering it the most robust dimension of TPB (Arshad et al., 2016; Kautonen et al., 2013). Against this backdrop, the current study investigated the effect of two exogenous variables, i.e. EE and EA, on EIs. The selection of these exogenous variables endorses the casual connection considering EE as a starting point that transforms EA, which eventually leads to EI formation.

Furthermore, studies articulated that EI among males and females may be different (Pelegrini and Moraes, 2022; Taneja et al., 2023). Considering the gender-wise perspective, this study also explores how gender moderates EE–EI linkage. This gender issue is crucial as females are the underrepresented population in India, i.e. only 14% constitutes women's entrepreneurial population (Taneja et al., 2023); hence, this becomes a potential area to explore in the Indian scenario. Furthermore, it has also been observed that with the fast diffusion of EE across the world, the scope of EE has widened from merely a business school course to other educational streams (Karlsson and Moberg, 2013). It has been reported that engineering students are always interested in the creation of innovative and powerful companies in comparison to students from other streams (Roberts, 1991). They are primarily involved in technology-based startups that contribute substantially to new job creation and hence reduce the unemployment rates in the country (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo,2018). The extant literature also noted the paucity of studies exploring students EI among engineering studies as the majority of the prior studies were conducted on business students or undefined population (Maresch et al., 2016; Martin et al., 2013). Furthermore, Rauch and Hulsink (2015) also stated the need for more academic inquiry into EE–EI across students from diverse disciplines specifically from science and engineering background. The integration of EE into engineering curriculum is relatively a new endeavor across technical institutions, and the literature on the outcomes of EE among engineering graduates is very thin (Mukta, 2018; Nair et al., 2020). This also calls for investigating the EE and EI connect among the engineering students in India.

In light of this discussion, the current study seeks to address the following research questions:


How does entrepreneurship education influence students' EA and EIs across engineering students?


Does gender strengthen the relationship between entrepreneurship education and EIs?

The study outcomes provide valuable insights for policymakers, the government and institution administrators in formulating constructive educational interventions that help to build EI among students. The paper has been organized into five sections. Following the introduction, the second section describes the theoretical framework and hypothesis formulation for empirical testing. Then, the research methodology is presented in the third section. The results of the statistical analysis are presented in the fourth section. Finally, this fifth section culminates with implications, limitations and future research agendas.

2. Theoretical framework for hypothesis development

2.1 Underpinning theories

The conceptual model (Figure 1) of this study was based on assumptions of two theories, i.e. TPB and HCT. TPB is the most acclaimed theory that describes that entrepreneurial actions are largely influenced by intentions, where intentions are preceded by a personal EA, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 2011), whereas HCT assumes that competencies and knowledge can raise an individual's cognitive skills to perform tasks constructively (Schultz, 1980; Becker, 2009). Human capital associated with entrepreneurship influences various stages of the entrepreneurial journey, such as opportunity recognition, business creation and business success (Marvel et al., 2016). Researchers affirm that individuals with solid cognitive aptitude can perform entrepreneurial activities more efficiently than individuals with weak cognitive abilities (Schenkel et al., 2012).

Education and its interventions constitute an essential element of human capital formation and are certainly a significant path for acquiring new competencies and knowledge (Martin et al., 2013). Hence, when a person desires to commence a new venture, EE forms an important part of how that business will function (Douglas and Shepherd, 2002; Zhao et al., 2005) as well as building one's entrepreneurial interests. It is noted that TPB concentrates on personality attributes such as attitude, self-efficacy and subjective norms as the potential predictors of EI (Krueger et al., 2000), where the human capital approach was used to comprehend entrepreneurship where people deliberately allot their resources as a response to dynamic economic situations (Schultz, 1980), implying that entrepreneurial potential can be raised through human capital.

2.2 Hypothesis formulation

2.2.1 Entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intentions

EE refers to the process of developing theoretical foundations, skills and competencies to recognize opportunities that others are unable to notice (Mwasalwiba, 2010). A plethora of studies have reported EE as a mechanism to stimulate an individual's intention to start their own venture and promote economic development and business ventures (Nabi et al., 2018; Sherkat and Chenari, 2020). EE programs help to reinforce mindsets, attributes and business competencies in students (Bae et al., 2014; Nabi and Holden, 2008). Studies revealed that individuals who have gone through any EE program are better inclined toward venture creation than those who not have gone through any entrepreneurship course (Fitri Ayuni, 2018; Wardana et al., 2020). Concurrently, the study exhibited negative findings indicating that the acquisition of formal education decreases the probability of the creation of new establishments (Abdullahi et al., 2017).

In addition, the linkage between EE and EI was verified based on entrepreneurial HCT (Saptono et al., 2020). According to HCT, education forms a part of intellectual capital that significantly influences the EI of an individual (Jogaratnam, 2017). In addition, limited studies exist in the Indian context that advocate the linkage between these two constructs (Biswas and Verma, 2022; Rajan and Panicker, 2020). Thus, the following hypothesis was formulated from this discussion:


EE and EI are positively and significantly related.

2.2.2 Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial attitude

EA is a crucial force behind the creation of new ventures (Amofah and Saladrigues, 2022; Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020), and the educational process involved in developing this attitude is known as entrepreneurial education (Li and Wu, 2019). This education has received acknowledgment from researchers and has become an important point of discussion in the entrepreneurship field. HEIs enable students to build their knowledge and abilities and nurture the opportunities to choose entrepreneurship as an alternative occupation (Ratten and Jones, 2021). The EE phenomenon provides several interpretations that can affect EAs including innovation, risk-taking capacity, independence, creativity and venture creation (Ratten and Jones, 2020). Moreover, the attitude is a crucial aspect in EI analysis as the emotional element is implicitly involved in entrepreneurial actions. Students who are exposed to EE have a better entrepreneurial disposition than those who did not (Heuer and Kolvereid, 2014). From these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:


EE and EA are positively and significantly related.

2.2.3 Entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial intentions

EA refers to the combination of psychological attributes that determine intentions that are likely to be transformed into entrepreneurial actions (Ajzen, 2011). EA communicates an individual's intention to create a new venture (Ayalew and Zeleke, 2018; Nguyen et al., 2019). Education offered by academic institutions cultivates students' attitudes, which eventually affect their career decisions. Previous researchers investigated attitude for scrutinizing the human behavior that modifies an individual's knowledge, competencies, perception, experience, etc. and differentiates him or her from other community members. Studies have advocated the positive linkage between EA and EI among university graduates (Karimi, 2020; Shah et al., 2020; Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020). Considering these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:


EA and EI are significantly correlated.

2.2.4 Entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurial intentions and gender

Considering the socio-cultural context, EI can be significantly influenced by gender. Even though women's entrepreneurship is constantly surging across the world, studies have confirmed that females have comparatively less probability of starting their venture than men (Mwobobia, 2012). There are various reasons that discourage females to enter into an entrepreneurial career, such as fewer opportunities existing for women in places where entrepreneurship is affected by gender-based rules considering entrepreneurship as a men's job (Verheul et al., 2012). In addition, Bardasi et al. (2011) stated that several institutional and cultural limitations can also hinder the business fortunes in the case of women. Favoritism in the workplace may further discourage females to commence their business (Dana and Dana, 2005). Additionally, women entrepreneurs have to face many challenges such as seeking funds from banks, seeking men's approval, procuring knowledge, maintaining a safe distance from other females, etc. (Bird and Brush, 2002). Correspondingly, some scholars have reported that women's EI is much less than men's EI (Langowitz and Minniti, 2007). On the contrary, other academics have revealed that gender does not have any impact on EI (Indarti and Rokhima, 2008; Yao et al., 2016). This might be because of the diverse results of individual business goals, beliefs and attitudes (Koellinger et al., 2013). Hence, these divergent outcomes highlighted that gender has yet to be accepted as a determinant of EI. Therefore, the aforementioned reviews lead to the following hypothesis:


Gender significantly moderates EE–EI relationship where men have a stronger relationship than women.

3. Research methodology

3.1 Data collection

Cross-sectional data were used to predict the relationship between entrepreneurial education, EA and gender to describe students' EI among technical institutions in India. Data were collected from final-year engineering students from top five engineering institutions across Northern India according to National Institute Ranking Framework NIRF List (2021). Purposive sampling was used as it ensures that data were collected from individuals having the same knowledge or experience and participation is deliberate that provides genuine responses (Rajak et al., 2021). A pilot survey among 45 students was conducted to test the questionnaire, and necessary changes were incorporated into the survey instrument. A structured questionnaire via Google Forms was created and shared with final-year engineering students who had studied any entrepreneurship course as an elective or compulsory subject. Only final-year students were chosen as they were clearer about their professional choices.

For data collection, the authors first visited the academic department maintaining the records of students to whom the purpose of data collection was communicated. The authors further assured them of the confidentiality of data and anonymity of the respondents (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The research advisory committee formed by the authors' institution has approved this research work. To reach out to final-year students who had undergone any EE program, faculties taking entrepreneurship classes were approached to contact the participants. Furthermore, the faculty was requested to circulate the Google Forms with their students in the WhatsApp group of final-year students. In addition to this, a forced choice question was posited in the questionnaire asking the students to fill their year of B. Tech. The survey link was sent to 486 students. Several follow-up reminders to the concerned faculty members were also made to attain the maximum responses. Finally, out of 486 contacted students, only 365 students filled the survey. Since all the survey items were marked as compulsory that resulted in no missing values. 17 unengaged responses were removed from the dataset. To identify the data outliers, Cook's distance method was applied (Stevens, 2012), resulting in 8 outliers in the dataset, which were then removed. Finally, the useable data of 340 respondents were left with a valid response rate of 69.9%., i.e. an average of 68 responses were collected from each selected institution.

3.2 Instrumentation

The questionnaire was prepared using the items adopted primarily from the extant literature on entrepreneurship because of their proven reliability and validity in previous studies. Minor modifications were made to make it suitable for the present study. A five-item scale for EE was derived from Hasan et al. (2017). EI was determined using five items acquired from prior scholars (Linan and Chen, 2009; Thompson, 2009). The survey items for EA were derived from Liao et al. (2022). All the survey items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree”.

3.3 Method

The present study has taken EI as an endogenous variable, EE and EA as exogenous variables and gender as a moderating variable. Data analysis was carried out using Partial least square-Structural equation modeling(PLS-SEM) with Smart PLS 4. Nearly 95% of the entrepreneurship studies used SmartPLS for analysis in the last five years (Manley et al., 2021). This technique is applied in two steps to analyze the results (Siyal et al., 2019). The first step deals with the measurement model that assesses the reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. Subsequently, structural model analysis (Figure 2) for hypothesis testing was carried out in the second step (Schuberth et al., 2022).

4. Results

The sample demographics indicated that of 340 respondents, 79% were found to be male and 31% were female. The likely reason for this gender imbalance can be associated with a lesser number of female enrollments in engineering institutions in India. Furthermore, the age of almost all the respondents lies between 18 and 23 years. It was reported that 31% of participants belong to an entrepreneurial family background, while 69% belong to a non-entrepreneurial background.

PLS-SEM via SmartPLS4 was used for testing the direct and indirect associations among the latent variables (Anjum et al., 2022; Farrukh et al., 2019). First, the measurement model was mapped out in which the construct reliability and validity were assessed. For reliability, Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability (CR) were assessed. For validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity were assessed. Table 2 presents Cronbach's alpha and CR values which are more than 0.70, i.e. the acceptable limit, as suggested by Henseler et al. (2014). For convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) value was checked, which should be more than 0.50, as reflected in Table 2 (Hair et al., 2017).

To ensure discriminant validity, the Hetrotrait-Monotrait (HTMT), ratio, Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and cross-loadings were calculated. The cross-loadings of all the items, as presented in Table 1, were above 0.7, i.e. the acceptable threshold limit. As suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981), the correlation value of the construct should be less than the square root of AVE; in this study, AVE's square root exceeds the correlation value of each construct, as shown in Table 2. Another measure is the HTMT ratio, as shown in Table 3, which was less than 0.90, as suggested by (Henseler et al., 2015). Hence, there exist no issues of discriminant validity. The collinearity issues were also evaluated by checking the variance inflation factor (VIF) values of each construct; VIF values are less than the threshold value, i.e. 5 for each construct (Hair et al., 2017), so there is no issue of multicollinearity in the present study. Then, the model fit through different measures was assessed. A good model fit requires the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) to not be greater than 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999); in this case, the SRMR value is 0.053. The normed fit index (NFI) value is another criterion for checking the model fit, which should be near 1. The NFI value is 0.90, so both SRMR and NFI are satisfied, and hence, good model fit has been achieved.

After ensuring the model's reliability and validity, hypothesis testing was performed using structural equation modeling. The p-values, t-value and path coefficient were measured to ascertain the significance of the research model, as presented in Table 4. The values of the path coefficient suggest the rejection or acceptance of the hypotheses using the bootstrapping process in SmartPLS (Hair et al., 2014). The results demonstrated a positive relationship between EE and EI. Hence, H1 is accepted (b = 0.266; t = 4.186; p = 0.000). The results also advocated a positive link between EE and EA. Thus, H2 is supported (b = 0.535; t = 10.560; p = 0.000). Similarly, EA is positively linked with EE. As a result, H3 is accepted (b = 0.584; t = 11.529; p = 000). Furthermore, gender has no significant impact on EE–EI relationship. Hence, H4 is rejected (b = −0.009; t = 0.118; p = 0.906).

5. Discussion

The present study investigated the impact of EE, EA and gender as a moderator on EI across engineering students in India. H1 demonstrated a positive and significant relationship between EE and EI, which is in line with other studies (Ahmed et al., 2020; Ramadani et al., 2022). Education reinforces student intention towards entrepreneurship and makes them more competent to start their own venture than the one who has not undergone any entrepreneurial course (Tung et al., 2020).

H2 results revealed that EE and EA are significantly associated which validates the prior research connecting EE with attitudes (Yousaf et al., 2022). The fundamental logic is that EE equips an individual with the requisite skills and competencies that help in developing constructive attitude and temperament towards new venture creation and makes them concentrate in the professional pathway (Nicolás et al., 2018). H3 results revealed that EA and EI are positively related. This result is aligned with studies that noted significant assertion between EA and EI (Cui et al., 2021; Yousaf et al., 2022). It is mentioned that an individual with higher EA tends to have more inclination toward the entrepreneurial process than others having less attitude (Acs et al., 2018).

H4 results reported that the moderation effect of gender on EE–EI relationship among engineering graduates is negative and insignificant. In simple words, students, i.e. men or women who have participated in any EE course, have an equal inclination to convert their business idea into new venture creation. This outcome corroborates studies (Kumar and Das, 2019; Ramadani et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2016). The results reported that males and females have equal exposure to entrepreneurial initiatives like entrepreneurial lectures, seminars, business practices, etc. irrespective of gender disparity. As a result, individuals are better equipped to face external obstacles like cultural barriers and gender biases at the time of launching their venture.

6. Implications of the study

6.1 Theoretical contribution

The current study enriches the theoretical knowledge on EE by using the inclusive framework that is grounded on the HCT (Becker, 1964) and TPB (Ajzen, 1991) that have been predominantly used in the entrepreneurial education effectiveness literature. In light of this, the present study examined the impact of two exogenous constructs, i.e. EE and EA, underpinned by the human capital approach of entrepreneurship (Martin et al., 2013; Unger et al., 2011) and the attitudinal factor of the TPB framework (Ajzen, 1991), respectively, on EIs. Secondly, this study adds to the scarce literature, confirming the significance of the human capital dimension of EE in developing nations (Aboobaker, 2020; Ramadani et al., 2022). Thirdly, this study also advances our theoretical understanding of the moderating impact of gender on EE–EI relationship, which has received limited scholarly attention in developing countries, specifically in India (Roy and Das, 2020).

6.2 Practical contribution

The study outcomes offer various practical implications for educational establishments, policymakers and the government. The findings reported positive assertion between EE and EI that recommends the further expansion of entrepreneurship-specific subjects incorporating the appropriate theoretical and practical components that can fully trigger the students' entrepreneurial drive. This will further equip students with better entrepreneurial comprehension that transcends a positive EA among students. Furthermore, a significant connection between EE, EA and EI suggests the reinforcement of the compulsory infusion of EE in engineering curriculum. The findings contend that EE contributes to creating competent human capital that propels the entrepreneurial settings in the country. India is engulfed by the graduate unemployment, and hence, creating technology startups as the prime vehicle of employment generation is of utmost importance to cater to this persistent employability crisis in the nation. Moreover, the results revealed that gender does not moderate the EE–EI relationship; this recommends that educational programs should be formulated in such a manner that males and females have equal access to entrepreneurial initiatives like entrepreneurial lectures, seminars, workshops, business plans, expos, other business events, etc., thereby eliminating gender discrimination across HEIs, particularly in Indian technical institutions that are primarily dominated by male enrollments. Lastly, the importance of EE cannot be overemphasized, given the uncertainties faced in the job market caused by the Covid-19 pandemic (Ratten and Jones, 2021). EE can also boost an individual's ability to cultivate innovation, which is crucial to address the challenges caused by the pandemic (Brown and Rocha, 2020).

7. Limitations

Besides contributions, the current study noted various limitations that can be covered in the subsequent research. First, the data size was small, so future studies should gather data from larger respondents to demonstrate a comprehensive view of how EE influences intentions. The sampling frame of this study includes only engineering students; upcoming research should target students from other streams so that cross-comparison investigation can be performed. The study used a quantitative approach, so it is suggested to use the longitudinal or mixed approach to gain a better understanding of the association between these variables.

8. Conclusions

The present study seeks to achieve two objectives, i.e. firstly, it examines the influence of EE on EA and EI among engineering students in India, and secondly, it explores whether gender moderates EE–EI relationship. The findings articulated the significant influence of EE on EA and EI, whereas gender does not strengthen EE–EI relationship. It is expected that this research will be helpful to policymakers and the government in developing economies to better acknowledge the various determinants that are antecedents to students' EI. In light of the instrumental influence of EE on EA and EI, increased attention should be given to EE activities in Indian HEIs as well as in developing counterparts. Furthermore, equal entrepreneurial opportunities should be created for both male and female students.


The research framework

Figure 1

The research framework

Structural modeling analysis

Figure 2

Structural modeling analysis

Construct reliability and convergent validity

EE 30.919

Source(s): Authors' calculation

Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion)


Source(s): Authors' calculation

Discriminant validity (HTMT ratio)

Gender x EE0.3660.520.3560.197

Source(s): Authors' calculation

Path analysis

HypothesisRelationshipsBetaSDt-valuep valuesDecision
H1EE – EI0.2660.0634.1860.000Supported
H2EE – EA0.5350.05110.5600.000Supported
H3EA – EI0.5840.05111.5290.000Supported
H4Gender x EE-EI−0.0090.0780.1180.906Not supported

Source(s): Authors' calculation

Declaration of interest: There is no conflict of interest between the authors.


Abdullahi, A., Zainol, F., Daud, W.N. and Yazid, A. (2017), “Entrepreneurial intention revisited: measuring the impact of socio-cultural business environment using structural equation modelling”, World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1445-1456.

Aboobaker, N. (2020), “Human capital and entrepreneurial intentions: do entrepreneurship education and training provided by universities add value?”, On the Horizon, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 73-83, doi: 10.1108/OTH-11-2019-0077.

Acs, Z.J., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T. and Szerb, L. (2018), “Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 501-514, doi: 10.1007/s11187-018-0013-9.

Ahmed, T., Chandran, V.G.R., Klobas, J.E., Liñán, F. and Kokkalis, P. (2020), “Entrepreneurship education programmes: how learning, inspiration and resources affect intentions for new venture creation in a developing economy”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100327.

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2011), “The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections”, Psychology and Health, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 1113-1127, doi: 10.1080/08870446.2011.613995.

Amofah, K. and Saladrigues, R. (2022), “Impact of attitude towards entrepreneurship education and role models on entrepreneurial intention”, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 1, doi: 10.1186/s13731-022-00197-5.

Anjum, T., Amoozegar, A., Farrukh, M. and Heidler, P. (2022), “Entrepreneurial intentions among business students: the mediating role of attitude and the moderating role of university support”, Education and Training, Vol. 64 No. 5, doi: 10.1108/ET-01-2021-0020.

Arshad, M., Farooq, O., Sultana, N. and Farooq, M. (2016), “Determinants of individuals' entrepreneurial intentions: a gender-comparative study”, Career Development International, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 318-339, doi: 10.1108/CDI-10-2015-0135.

Ayalew, M.M. and Zeleke, S.A. (2018), “Modeling the impact of entrepreneurial attitude on self-employment intention among engineering students in Ethiopia”, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-27, doi: 10.1186/s13731-018-0088-1.

Bae, T.J., Qian, S., Miao, C. and Fiet, J.O. (2014), “The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: a meta-analytic review”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 217-254, doi: 10.1111/etap.12095.

Barba-Sánchez, V. and Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2018), “Entrepreneurial intention among engineering students: the role of entrepreneurship education”, European Research on Management and Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 53-61, doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.04.001.

Bardasi, E., Sabarwal, S. and Terrell, K. (2011), “How do female entrepreneurs perform? Evidence from three developing regions”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 417-441, doi: 10.1007/s11187-011-9374-z.

Becker, G. (1964), Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, National Bureau for Economic Research, Columbia University Press, New York.

Becker, G.S. (2009), A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Bird, B. and Brush, C. (2002), “A gendered perspective on nutrition rights”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 43-50, doi: 10.1080/10130950.2002.9674447.

Bischoff, K., Volkmann, C.K. and Audretsch, D.B. (2018), “Stakeholder collaboration in entrepreneurship education: an analysis of the entrepreneurial ecosystems of European higher educational institutions”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 20-46, doi: 10.1007/s10961-017-9581-0.

Biswas, A. and Verma, R.K. (2022), “Engine of entrepreneurial intentions: revisiting personality traits with entrepreneurial education”, Benchmarking, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 2019-2044, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-11-2020-0607.

Brown, R. and Rocha, A. (2020), “Entrepreneurial uncertainty during the Covid-19 crisis: mapping the temporal dynamics of entrepreneurial finance”, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Vol. 14, April, e00174, doi: 10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00174.

Carpenter, A. and Wilson, R. (2022), “A systematic review looking at the effect of entrepreneurship education on higher education student”, The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 1005-1041, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100541.

Cassol, A., Tonial, G., Machado, H.P.V., Dalbosco, I.B. and Trindade, S. (2022), “Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions and the moderation of entrepreneurial education: a study of the Brazilian context”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 20, p. 3, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100716.

Chhabra, M., Dana, L.P., Malik, S. and Chaudhary, N.S. (2021), “Entrepreneurship education and training in Indian higher education institutions: a suggested framework”, Education and Training, Vol. 63 Nos 7-8, pp. 1154-1174, doi: 10.1108/ET-10-2020-0310.

Cui, J., Sun, J. and Bell, R. (2021), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial mindset of college students in China: the mediating role of inspiration and the role of educational attributes”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, 100296, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.04.001.

Dana, L.P. and Dana, T.E. (2005), “Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 79-88, doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2005.006071.

Douglas, E.J. and Shepherd, D.A. (2002), “Self- employment as a career choice: attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 36 No. 3, doi: 10.1177/104225870202600305.

Duong, C.D. (2022), “Exploring the link between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: the moderating role of educational fields”, Education and Training, Vol. 64 No. 7, pp. 869-891, doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2021-0173.

Farrukh, M., Lee, J.W.C., Sajid, M. and Waheed, A. (2019), “Entrepreneurial intentions: the role of individualism and collectivism in perspective of theory of planned behaviour”, Education and Training, Vol. 61 Nos 7-8, pp. 984-1000, doi: 10.1108/ET-09-2018-0194.

Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006), “Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 701-720, doi: 10.1108/03090590610715022.

Fitri Ayuni, R. (2018), “The role of family business and education in forming actual entrepreneurs”, KnE Social Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 10, pp. 329-340, doi: 10.18502/kss.v3i10.3384.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, doi: 10.2307/3151335.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2022), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: India Report 2021/22, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, available at https://www.gemconsortium.org/reports/latest-global-report

Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121, doi: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.

Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C.L., Randolph, A.B. and Chong, A.Y.L. (2017), “An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 442-458, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130.

Hasan, S.M., Khan, E.A. and Nabi, M.N.U. (2017), “Entrepreneurial education at university level and entrepreneurship development”, Education and Training, Vol. 59 Nos 7-8, pp. 888-906, doi: 10.1108/ET-01-2016-0020.

Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T.K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D.W., Ketchen, D.J., Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M. and Calantone, R.J. (2014), “Common beliefs and reality about PLS: comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013)”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 182-209, doi: 10.1177/1094428114526928.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.

Heuer, A. and Kolvereid, L. (2014), “Education in entrepreneurship and the theory of planned behaviour”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 506-523, doi: 10.1108/EJTD-02-2013-0019.

Hoang, G., Le, T.T.T., Tran, A.K.T. and Du, T. (2021), “Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Vietnam: the mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning orientation”, Education and Training, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 115-133, doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2020-0142.

Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.

Huber, L.R., Sloof, R. and Van Praag, M. (2014), “The effect of early entrepreneurship education: evidence from a field experiment”, European Economic Review, Vol. 72, pp. 76-97, doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.09.002.

Indarti, N. and Rokhima, R. (2008), “Intensi Kewirausahaan mahasiswa: study Perbandingan antara Indonesia, Jepang, dan Norwegia”, Core.Ac.Uk, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 1-27.

Jogaratnam, G. (2017), “The effect of market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and human capital on positional advantage: evidence from the restaurant industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 60, pp. 104-113, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.10.002.

Karimi, S. (2020), “The role of entrepreneurial passion in the formation of students' entrepreneurial intentions”, Applied Economics, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 331-344, doi: 10.1080/00036846.2019.1645287.

Karlsson, T. and Moberg, K. (2013), “Improving perceived entrepreneurial abilities through education: exploratory testing of an entrepreneurial self efficacy scale in a pre-post setting”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2012.10.001.

Katz, J.A. (2007), “Education and training in entrepreneurship”, The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, pp. 209-235.

Kautonen, T., van Gelderen, M. and Tornikoski, E.T. (2013), “Predicting entrepreneurial behaviour: a test of the theory of planned behaviour”, Applied Economics, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 697-707, doi: 10.1080/00036846.2011.610750.

Kennedy, J. and Drennan, J. (2001), “A review of the impact of education and prior experience on new venture performance”, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 153-169, doi: 10.5367/000000001101298909.

Koellinger, P., Minniti, M. and Schade, C. (2013), “Gender differences in entrepreneurial propensity”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 213-234, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00689.x.

Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 411-432, doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0.

Kumar, S. and Das, S. (2019), “An extended model of theory of planned behaviour: entrepreneurial intention, regional institutional infrastructure and perceived gender discrimination in India”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 369-391, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-09-2018-0089.

Langowitz, N. and Minniti, M. (2007), “The entrepreneurial propensity of women”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 341-364.

Li, L. and Wu, D. (2019), “Entrepreneurial education and students' entrepreneurial intention: does team cooperation matter?”, Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, doi: 10.1186/s40497-019-0157-3.

Liao, Y.K., Nguyen, V.H.A. and Caputo, A. (2022), “Unveiling the role of entrepreneurial knowledge and cognition as antecedents of entrepreneurial intention: a meta-analytic study”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 1623-1652, doi: 10.1007/s11365-022-00803-8.

Linan, F. and Chen, Y.-W. (2009), “Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3.

Manley, S.C., Hair, J.F., Williams, R.I. and McDowell, W.C. (2021), “Essential new PLS-SEM analysis methods for your entrepreneurship analytical toolbox”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 1805-1825, doi: 10.1007/s11365-020-00687-6.

Maresch, D., Harms, R., Kailer, N. and Wimmer-Wurm, B. (2016), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 104, pp. 172-179, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006.

Martin, B.C., McNally, J.J. and Kay, M.J. (2013), “Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: a meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 211-224, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002.

Marvel, M.R., Davis, J.L. and Sproul, C.R. (2016), “Human capital and entrepreneurship research: a critical review and future directions”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 599-626, doi: 10.1111/etap.12136.

Morris, M.H., Santos, S.C. and Neumeyer, X. (2020), “Entrepreneurship as a solution to poverty in developed economies”, Business Horizons, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 377-390, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2020.01.010.

Mukesh, H.V., Rao, A.S. and Rajasekharan Pillai, K. (2018), “Entrepreneurial potential and higher education system in India”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 258-276, doi: 10.1177/0971355718781275.

Mukta, M. (2018), “Entrepreneurship education in engineering curriculum: some insights into students viewpoints”, Entrepreneurship, Collaboration and Innovation in the Modern Business Era, pp. 243-261.

Mwasalwiba, E.S. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators”, Education and Training, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 20-47, doi: 10.1108/00400911011017663.

Mwobobia, F.M. (2012), “The challenges facing small-scale women entrepreneurs: a case of Kenya”, International Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 112-121, doi: 10.5430/ijba.v3n2p112.

Nabi, G. and Holden, R. (2008), “Graduate entrepreneurship: intentions, education and training”, Education + Training, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 545-551, doi: 10.1108/00400910810909018.

Nabi, G., Walmsley, A., Liñán, F., Akhtar, I. and Neame, C. (2018), “Does entrepreneurship education in the first year of higher education develop entrepreneurial intentions? The role of learning and inspiration”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 452-467, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1177716.

Nair, S., Sundar, S. and Mangadu Paramasivam, G. (2020), “Role of entrepreneurial education in nurturing entrepreneurial orientation among engineering students”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 139-149, doi: 10.1108/apjie-05-2019-0031.

National Institute Ranking Framework (NIRF) List (2021), available at: https://www.nirfindia.org/2021/EngineeringRanking.html

Nguyen, A.T., Do, T.H.H., Vu, T.B.T., Dang, K.A. and Nguyen, H.L. (2019), “Factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions among youths in Vietnam”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 99, January, pp. 186-193, doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.039.

Nicolás, C., Rubio, A. and Fernández-Laviada, A. (2018), “Cognitive determinants of social entrepreneurship: variations according to the degree of economic development”, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 154-168, doi: 10.1080/19420676.2018.1452280.

Nowiński, W., Haddoud, M.Y., Lančarič, D., Egerová, D. and Czeglédi, C. (2019), “The impact of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 361-379, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1365359.

Oosterbeek, H., van Praag, M. and Ijsselstein, A. (2010), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation”, European Economic Review, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 442-454, doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2009.08.002.

Pelegrini, G.C. and Moraes, G.H.S.M.D. (2022), “Does gender matter? A university ecosystem, self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention analysis in Brazilian universities”, Gender in Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 271-286, doi: 10.1108/GM-01-2021-0007.

Pisoni, G. (2019), “Strategies for pan-European implementation of blended learning for innovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) education”, Education Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 7-9, doi: 10.3390/educsci9020124.

Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 479-510, doi: 10.1177/0266242607080656.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Rajak, B.K., Kunja, S.R. and Singh, P. (2021), “Emotional labour, stress and employee performance: a study of higher education system”, International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 306-318, doi: 10.1504/IJEPEE.2021.114952.

Rajan, S. and Panicker, S. (2020), “The concept of entrepreneurial ability-evidence from women in MSMEs of Karnataka state”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 41, doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2020.109429.

Ramadani, V., Rahman, M., Salamzadeh, A. and Rahaman, S. (2022), “Entrepreneurship education and graduates’ entrepreneurial intentions: does gender matter? A multi-group analysis using AMOS”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 180April, 121693, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121693.

Ratten, V. and Jones, P. (2020), “Entrepreneurship and management education: exploring trends and gaps”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, 100431, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100431.

Ratten, V. and Jones, P. (2021), “Covid-19 and entrepreneurship education: implications for advancing research and practice”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, 100432, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100432.

Rauch, A. and Hulsink, W. (2015), “Putting entrepreneuership education where the intention to act lies: an investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 131-149.

Roberts, E.B. (1991), Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond, Oxford University Press, New York.

Roy, R. and Das, N. (2020), “Exploring entrepreneurial intention among engineering students in India: a multiple basket approach”, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 32, 0123456789, doi: 10.1007/s10798-020-09596-9.

Roy, R., Akhtar, F. and Das, N. (2017), “Entrepreneurial intention among science & technology students in India: extending the theory of planned behavior”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1013-1041, doi: 10.1007/s11365-017-0434-y.

Sánchez, J.C. (2013), “The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 447-465, doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12025.

Santos, S.C., Neumeyer, X. and Morris, M.H. (2019), “Entrepreneurship education in a poverty context: an empowerment perspective”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 57 No. S1, pp. 6-32, doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12485.

Saptono, A., Wibowo, A., Narmaditya, B.S., Karyaningsih, R.P.D. and Yanto, H. (2020), “Does entrepreneurial education matter for Indonesian students' entrepreneurial preparation: the mediating role of entrepreneurial mindset and knowledge”, Cogent Education, Vol. 7 No. 1, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836728.

Schenkel, M.T., D'Souza, R.R. and Matthews, C.H. (2012), “Entrepreneurial capital: examining linkages in human and social capital of new ventures”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 1-25, doi: 10.1142/S1084946712500094.

Schuberth, F., Rademaker, M.E. and Henseler, J. (2022), “Assessing the overall fit of composite models estimated by partial least squares path modeling”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 6, doi: 10.1108/EJM-08-2020-0586.

Schultz, T.W. (1980), “Investment in entrepreneurial ability”, The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 82 No. 4, p. 437, doi: 10.2307/3439676.

Sergi, B.S., Popkova, E.G. Bogoviz, A.V. and Ragulina, J.V. (2019), “Entrepreneurship and economic growth: the experience of developed and developing countries”, in Entrepreneurship and Development in the 21st Century, doi: 10.1108/978-1-78973-233-720191002.

Shah, I.A., Amjed, S. and Jaboob, S. (2020), “The moderating role of entrepreneurship education in shaping entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Economic Structures, Vol. 9 No. 1, doi: 10.1186/s40008-020-00195-4.

Sherkat, A. and Chenari, A. (2020), “Assessing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in the universities of Tehran province based on an entrepreneurial intention model”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 97-115, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1732906.

Siyal, A.W., Donghong, D., Umrani, W.A., Siyal, S. and Bhand, S. (2019), “Predicting mobile banking acceptance and loyalty in Chinese bank customers”, SAGE Open, Vol. 9 No. 2, doi: 10.1177/2158244019844084.

Stevens, J.P. (2012), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, Routledge.

Taneja, M., Kiran, R. and Bose, S.C. (2023), “Understanding the relevance of experiential learning for entrepreneurial self-efficacy: a gender-wise perspective”, The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 21January.

Thompson, E.R. (2009), “Entrepreneurial intent: and development reliable metric”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 33, pp. 669-695.

Tung, D.T., Hung, N.T., Phuong, N.T.C., Loan, N.T.T. and Chong, S.C. (2020), “Enterprise development from students: the case of universities in Vietnam and the Philippines”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, 100333, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100333.

Uddin, M., Chowdhury, R.A., Hoque, N., Ahmad, A., Mamun, A. and Uddin, M.N. (2022), “Developing entrepreneurial intentions among business graduates of higher educational institutions through entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial passion: a moderated mediation model”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100647.

Unger, J.M., Rauch, A., Frese, M. and Rosenbusch, N. (2011), “Human capital and entrepreneurial success: a meta-analytical review”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 341-358.

Varamaki, E., Joensuu, S., Erno, T. and Anmari, V. (2015), “The development of entrepreneurial potential among higher education students”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-5.

Verheul, I., Thurik, R., Grilo, I. and Van der Zwan, P. (2012), “Explaining preferences and actual involvement in self-employment: gender and the entrepreneurial personality”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 325-341, doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.02.009.

Walter, S.G. and Block, J.H. (2016), “Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: an institutional perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 216-233, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.10.003.

Wardana, L.W., Narmaditya, B.S., Wibowo, A., Mahendra, A.M., Wibowo, N.A., Harwida, G. and Rohman, A.N. (2020), “The impact of entrepreneurship education and students' entrepreneurial mindset: the mediating role of attitude and self-efficacy”, Heliyon, Vol. 6 No. 9, e04922, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04922.

Yao, X., Wu, X. and Long, D. (2016), “Entrepreneurial tendency in China environment”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, No. 71272056, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-03-2015-0021.

Yarimoglu, E. and Gunay, T. (2020), “The extended theory of planned behavior in Turkish customers' intentions to visit green hotels”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 1097-1108, doi: 10.1002/bse.2419.

Yousaf, H.Q., Munawar, S., Ahmed, M. and Rehman, S. (2022), “The effect of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intention: the moderating role of culture”, The International Journal of Management Education, December, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100712.

Zhao, H., Hills, G.E. and Seibert, S.E. (2005), “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1265-1272, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265.


Corrigendum: It has come to the attention of the publisher of the Journal of Work-Applied Management that the following article by Kaur, M. and Chawla, S. (2023), “Understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial attitudes, and entrepreneurial intentions among engineering graduates: the moderating role of gender”, Journal of Work-Applied Management, Vol. 15 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-05-2023-0039, included an incorrect layout in Figure 2 which made the data difficult to interpret. The correct Figure 2 has now been published in the article. The authors sincerely apologise to the readers for any inconvenience caused.

Corresponding author

Manpreet Kaur can be contacted at: manpreetk.hm.19@nitj.ac.in

Related articles