The Role of Individual Characteristics in Shaping Digital Entrepreneurial Intention Among University Students: Evidence From Saudi Arabia

Thinking Skills and Creativity 47 (2023) 101236
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc
The role of individual characteristics in shaping digital

entrepreneurial intention among university students: Evidence
from Saudi Arabia
Moustafa Elnadi *, Mohamed Hani Gheith
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Commerce, Mansoura University, Egypt
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: This study aims to provide insight into digital entrepreneurship at the individual level by
Entrepreneurial passion developing a model that explores the individual characteristics influencing business administra
Entrepreneurial curiosity tion undergraduate students’ intention toward digital entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia. The
Digital competence
suggested model incorporates the five constructs of digital innovativeness, entrepreneurial
Entrepreneurial alertness
Entrepreneurial digital innovativeness
alertness, entrepreneurial passion, entrepreneurial curiosity, and digital competence and assesses
Digital entrepreneurship how they affect students’ intention toward digital entrepreneurship. To achieve this aim, a survey
of 219 participants was conducted and the data were analysed using the partial least squares
structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The results showed that entrepreneurial alertness and
entrepreneurial digital innovativeness positively affect digital entrepreneurial intention. Further,
the results show that entrepreneurial passion, entrepreneurial curiosity, and digital competence
are positively associated with entrepreneurial alertness and digital innovativeness. The implica
tions of these results in relation to entrepreneurship theory and practice are discussed.
1. Introduction
Currently, digitalisation has substantially changed the world, where advanced and innovative digital technologies cause massive
implications in every aspect of human life. This digital revolution can be considered as an opportunity or threat to all organisations in
all industries and sectors via radically reshaping their traditional processes, products and services, and strategies (Beliaeva et al., 2019;
Elia et al., 2020; Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2021; Karimi & Walter, 2021; Ladeira et al., 2019; Schulte-Holthaus & Kuckertz, 2020). Thus, it
is not surprising that the dissemination of digital technologies has created a promising context for entrepreneurship and significantly
motivated entrepreneurs to exploit these technologies in creating new businesses or in conducting their business operations (Beliaeva
et al., 2019; Elia et al., 2020; Nambisan, 2017; Nambisan & Baron, 2021; Rusu & Roman, 2020).
Digitalisation provides entrepreneurs with numerous opportunities to integrate digital technologies in all the entrepreneurial
activities allowing them to develop new products, services, processes, and business models, reveal new markets and opportunities,
minimise costs, and better engage with stakeholders (Beliaeva et al., 2019; Elia et al., 2020; Kollmann et al., 2021; Kraus et al., 2019;
Ladeira et al., 2019; Rusu & Roman, 2020; Sahut et al., 2021). As stated by Nambisan (2017), “digital technologies herald a new era in
entrepreneurship, one in which the traditional ways and forms of pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities are increasingly questioned
and refashioned.” Consequently, because of the convergence of entrepreneurial activities and digital technologies, a new subcategory
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.elnadi@mans.edu.eg (M. Elnadi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101236
Received 8 July 2021; Received in revised form 14 January 2023; Accepted 17 January 2023
Available online 20 January 2023
1871-1871/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Elnadi and M.H. Gheith Thinking Skills and Creativity 47 (2023) 101236
of traditional entrepreneurship has emerged, namely digital entrepreneurship (Hull et al., 2007; Karimi & Walter, 2021; Kraus et al.,
2019; Nambisan, 2017; Recker & von Briel, 2020).
According to Fernandes et al. (2022) and Baig et al. (2022), there is little agreement or clarity regarding the purpose, character
istics, and definition of digital entrepreneurship. For example, digital entrepreneurship can be defined as “a subcategory of entre
preneurship in which some or all of what would be physical in a traditional organisation has been digitised” (Hull et al., 2007). For
Davidson and Vaast (2010), digital entrepreneurship can be considered as “the practice of pursuing new venture opportunities pre
sented by new media and internet technologies”. Therefore, it is possible to consider digital entrepreneurship as the fusion of tradi
tional entrepreneurship and the utilisation of modern digital technologies available in the digital era to carry out all or some parties of
business activities (Gabrielsson et al., 2022; Kraus et al., 2019). Generally, digital entrepreneurship can be viewed as a type of
entrepreneurship that based on the utilisation of digital technologies to manage the business and to convert products, services, or a
significant portion of the business digitally (Hair et al., 2012; Kraus et al., 2019; Permatasari & Anggadwita, 2019).
In the past few years, digital entrepreneurship has been considered a rapidly growing field of research and has received the
attention of many scholars, practitioners, and policymakers (Beliaeva et al., 2019; Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2021; Kraus et al., 2019).
However, despite the increasing acknowledges of digital entrepreneurship’s significance, this concept is so far in its early stages in
entrepreneurship research, and little is known about its determinants (Beliaeva et al., 2019; Darmanto et al., 2022; Farani et al., 2017;
Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2021; Mir et al., 2022; Nambisan, 2017). Additionally, the factors that motivate individuals to become digital
entrepreneurs and influence their digital entrepreneurial intentions, as well as the requirements for the successful digital entrepreneur
are not fully known (Darmanto et al., 2022; Dutta et al., 2015; Farani et al., 2017; Kraus et al., 2019; Mir et al., 2022).
Prior researchers have demonstrated that entrepreneurial intention is a powerful predictor of entrepreneurial behaviour and a
prerequisite for engaging in a business venture (Chang et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2022; Yeh et al., 2020). Therefore, developing
entrepreneurial intention is the first step in the entrepreneurial process since it reflects an individual’s willingness and commitment to
create a new business, and any more entrepreneurial moves would be impossible without it (Elnadi & Gheith, 2021; Salhieh &
Al-Abdallat, 2022). According to Thompson (2009), entrepreneurial intention refers to “self-acknowledged conviction by a person that
they intend to set up a new business venture and consciously plan to do so at some point in the future”. The higher a person’s intention,
the more likely he or she is to become an entrepreneur (Koe et al., 2021). Since digital entrepreneurship is considered a branch of
conventional entrepreneurship, and the two have a lot in common (Younis et al., 2020), digital entrepreneurial intention can be
described as the propensity of an individual to engage in a new technology-based venture (Chang et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2022;
Wang et al., 2016). Digital entrepreneurial intention indicates an individual’s mental state and behavioural characteristics that reflect
his or her willingness and determination to utilise digital technologies to start his or her new technology-based business at some point
in the future (Dutot & Van Horne, 2015; Salhieh & Al-Abdallat, 2022).
While appraising literature, factors impacting digital entrepreneurial intention have received substantial consideration from many
researchers. Several studies have provided ample evidence that personality traits play a significant role in developing digital entre
preneurial intention. Some of these studies (e.g., Shimoli et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2016; Yeh et al., 2020) have applied the five-factor
model of personality. According to this model, entrepreneurial intention can be predicted by five general (broad) personality traits,
namely extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992). However,
some scholars (e.g., Çelik et al., 2021; Laouiti et al., 2022; Leutner et al., 2014; Postigo et al., 2021) have argued that predicting
entrepreneurial intention using only five general personality traits is not sufficient since other personality traits may have a significant
impact on entrepreneurial intention. Therefore, several previous studies have advocated dividing the main five general personality
traits into specific (narrow) traits to better predict entrepreneurial intention. Some of the specific (narrow) personality traits that have
been examined in digital entrepreneurship previous studies are need for achievement, risk-taking, locus of control, innovativeness,
creativity, proactiveness, self-efficacy, self-esteem, positive thinking.
However, there is limited evidence on how other narrow personal characteristics such as entrepreneurial alertness, innovativeness,
passion, curiosity, and digital competency can impact digital entrepreneurial intention. Within entrepreneurship literature, it has been
reported by many researchers (e.g., Akhter et al., 2022; Anwar & Saleem, 2019; Ayed, 2020; Bhatti et al., 2021; Bueckmann-Diegoli
et al., 2020; Dinis et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2018; Hu & Ye, 2017; Li et al., 2020; Li et al., 2015; Lu & Wang, 2018; Nasip et al., 2017;
Neneh, 2019; Obschonka et al., 2018; Salhieh & Al-Abdallat, 2022; Urban, 2020; Wathanakom et al., 2020) that innovativeness and
entrepreneurial alertness are significantly associated with entrepreneurial intention in various research contexts. Additionally,
entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial curiosity are among the personal traits that have been recognised as important traits for a
successful entrepreneur, nevertheless their role in shaping entrepreneurial intention is still underexplored in previous studies in
general (Biraglia & Kadile, 2017; Jeraj & Antoncic, 2013; Jeraj & Marič, 2013; Karimi, 2020; Montiel-Campos, 2018; Peljko et al.,
2016; Syed et al., 2020), and particularly in digital entrepreneurship. Furthermore, in today’s digital era, digital competence has
emerged in the field of entrepreneurship and has been acknowledged as a critical factor for a successful digital entrepreneur (Oggero
et al., 2020; Reis et al., 2020). It is also worth noting that only a limited number of studies have investigated the role of entrepreneurial
alertness, innovativeness, passion, curiosity, and digital competency in developing digital entrepreneurial intention among university
students in Saudi Arabia.
Thus, the primary research aim of this study is to contribute to closing these gaps, investigating the impact of individual char
acteristics such as digital innovativeness, alertness, passion, curiosity, and digital competence in shaping digital entrepreneurial
intention among undergraduate university students in Saudi Arabia. The proposed model explores the direct effect of digital inno
vativeness and entrepreneurial alertness on digital entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, it investigates how entrepreneurial passion,
curiosity, and digital competence can stimulate students’ digital innovativeness and entrepreneurial alertness. Finally, the proposed
model examines the mediation role that entrepreneurial alertness and innovativeness play in the relationship between entrepreneurial
2
M. Elnadi and M.H. Gheith
Table 1
Determinants of digital entrepreneurial intention.
Focus Author Theory Antecedents of intention Context
Digital Al-Mamary and Alraja Theory of planned behaviour Attitude, perceived behavioural control, subjective norms Saudi
Entrepreneurship (2022) Arabia
Akhter et al. (2022) Personality trait theory Creativity, innovativeness Bangladesh
Darmanto et al. (2022) Risk propensity, entrepreneurial education, environmental support, entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Indonesia
Mir et al. (2022) Human Capital theory Digital entrepreneurial competence, innovative cognition, social media adroitness and digital India
entrepreneurship role models
Younis et al. (2020) Theory of planned behaviour Attitude, perceived behavioural control, subjective norms, entrepreneurial knowledge, need for achievement, Qatar
risk-taking, locus of control, perceived support, perceived barriers
Farani et al. (2017) Theory of planned behaviour Attitude, perceived behavioural control, subjective norms, entrepreneurial knowledge Iran
Cyber- Tseng et al. (2022) Theory of planned behaviour Attitude, perceived behavioural control, subjective norms, locus of control Taiwan
entrepreneurship Chang et al. (2020) Social cognitive theory and theory of Cyber-entrepreneurial self-efficacy, positive thinking Taiwan
positive emotions
Chang et al. (2018) Social cognitive theory and goal- Cyber-entrepreneurial self-efficacy, goal commitment Taiwan
setting theory
Wang et al. (2016) Personality trait theory and self- Intrinsic cyber entrepreneurial motivation, extrinsic cyber entrepreneurial motivation, extraversion, Taiwan
determination theory conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, neuroticism
Ismail et al. (2012) Personality trait theory Need for achievement, internal locus of control, risk attitude Malaysia
E-entrepreneurship Abdelfattah et al. Self-perceived creativity, social media adoption Oman
(2022)
Alzamel et al. (2020) Theory of planned behaviour Perceived social support, attitude, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, subjective norms Saudi
3
Arabia
Lai and To (2020) Theory of planned behaviour Attitude, subjective norms, perceived behaviour control, entrepreneurship policy, e-entrepreneurship China
education
Shimoli et al. (2020) Personality trait theory Extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, neuroticism, self-efficacy, need for Kenya
achievement, locus of control
Mand et al. (2018) Unemployment, education India
Batool et al. (2015) Personality trait theory Need for achievement, self-esteem, personal control, creativity, self-efficacy Pakistan
Technopreneurship Belmonte et al. (2022) Personality trait theory Computer capability, internet ability, individual entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial experience, Philippine
access to capital
Salhieh and Personality trait theory Technopreneurial self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, and innovativeness Jordan
Al-Abdallat (2022)
Koe et al. (2021) Personality trait theory ICT self-efficacy, risk-taking, proactiveness, innovativeness Malaysia
Thinking Skills and Creativity 47 (2023) 101236

Soomro and Shah Social cognitive theory Technopreneurial-related activities, technopreneurial self-efficacy, technopreneurial motivation Pakistan
(2021)
Yordanova et al. Entrepreneurship education, university support with concept development, university support with business Bulgaria
(2020) development, university research excellence
Internet Huang et al. (2022) Self-determination theory Intrinsic motivation (challenge and enjoyment), extrinsic motivation (compensation and outward), Taiwan
entrepreneurship technology product imagination disposition, social support
Millman et al. (2010) Gender, education, family income level, students’ online activities and engagement China
Digital business (Start- Suparno et al. (2020) Personality trait theory and social Character of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, economic literacy, digital literacy Indonesia
up) cognitive theory
Digital Yeh et al. (2020) Personality trait theory and self- Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, Taiwan
autopreneurship determination theory agreeableness, neuroticism
passion, entrepreneurial curiosity, and digital competence on one side and digital entrepreneurial intention on the other.
In this way, this study attempts to provide digital entrepreneurship existing literature with the following contributions. First, the
study provides a review of digital entrepreneurship’s previous studies by analysing and identifying the significant determinants of
digital entrepreneurship intention. Second, the study explores the impact of narrow personal characteristics such as innovativeness,
alertness, passion, curiosity, and digital competency on digital entrepreneurial intention. These factors have been neglected in pre
vious studies and rarely collectively investigated in a single model. Third, the present study is the first to explore the mediation role
that entrepreneurial alertness and innovativeness play in the relationship between entrepreneurial passion, entrepreneurial curiosity,
and digital competence on one side and digital entrepreneurial intention on the other. Finally, despite the popularity of digital
entrepreneurship, little is known about personal characteristics that trigger digital entrepreneurial intentions among undergraduate
university students in Saudi Arabia. Hence, exploring how to develop digital entrepreneurial intentions among undergraduate uni
versity students in a developing country such as Saudi Arabia is an important contribution of this study.
Saudi Arabia, is a developing country with the most prosperous economy among Middle Eastern and North African countries and its
economy is one of the world’s top 20 economies (Elnadi & Gheith, 2021; McAdam et al., 2019, 2020). Recently, the Saudi Arabia
government is attempting to restructure the country’s economy by reducing its reliance on oil revenues, accelerating the share of SMEs
to GDP, as well as decreasing the unemployment rate and these targets were highlighted in Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 plan (Choukir
et al., 2019; Elnadi et al., 2020; Mahmud, 2020; McAdam et al., 2019, 2020). Therefore, the government acknowledged the signifi
cance of entrepreneurship in shaping the economy.
One of the key goals of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 plan is to stimulate entrepreneurship growth in general and particularly digital
entrepreneurship among Saudis. The CEO of Saudi Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Lab stated that “the government has injected US$19.2
billion stimulus package to boost the private sector, an enormous part of which was allocated to different programs and initiatives
supporting the SME sector” (Elnadi et al., 2020). Regarding digital entrepreneurship, the Saudi government has developed a strong
information and communication infrastructure and has created numerous strategies that promote digital start-ups and foster their
success, including educational programs, business incubators, training institutions (Almani, 2019; Mahmud, 2020).
To achieve the aim of the study, this paper is structured as follows. In the next section, previous studies related to digital entre
preneurial intention are presented. In Section 3, the research hypotheses are discussed. Then, the research methodology and data
analysis are demonstrated in Section 4 and Section 5, respectively. Then, a discussion of the research findings is presented in Section 6,
followed by the theoretical and practical implications in Section 7. Finally, the conclusion and research limitations are highlighted in
Section 8.
2. Literature review
Prior researchers have devoted considerable attention to exploring the factors affecting an individual’s decision to engage in a
technology-based venture. Previous studies have considered digital entrepreneurial intention a crucial element since it is the strongest
predictor of entrepreneurial behaviour and reflects an individual’s willingness to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Digital entre
preneurial intention demonstrates an individual’s mental state and behavioural characteristics that reflect his or her willingness and
determination to utilise digital technologies to start his or her new technology-based venture in the future (Dutot & Van Horne, 2015;
Salhieh & Al-Abdallat, 2022). Therefore, various studies have been conducted exploring the different determinants that can shape
digital entrepreneurial intention, as presented in Table 1.
The reviewed literature indicates that other terminologies have been used interchangeably with digital entrepreneurship as pre
sented in Table 1, such as cyber-entrepreneurship (Chang et al., 2018, 2020; Tseng et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2016), E-entrepreneurship
(Abdelfattah et al., 2022; Alzamel et al., 2020; Lai & To, 2020; Shimoli et al., 2020), technopreneurship (Belmonte et al., 2022; Koe
et al., 2021; Salhieh & Al-Abdallat, 2022; Yordanova et al., 2020), internet entrepreneurship (Huang et al., 2022; Millman et al., 2010),
digital start-up (Suparno et al., 2020), and digital autopreneurship (Yeh et al., 2020).
As it is noticed, various theories have been applied in previous studies in exploring digital entrepreneurial intention. For example,
the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) has been utilised by many researchers (e.g., Al-Mamary & Alraja, 2022; Alzamel et al., 2020;
Farani et al., 2017; Lai & To, 2020; Tseng et al., 2022; Younis et al., 2020) to identify the antecedents of digital entrepreneurial
intention. The TPB originally developed by Ajzen (1991), is one of the most commonly used theories applied by many researchers in
various research domains to predict human intention to perform behaviours. The TPB posits that intentions to engage in a specific
behaviour can be determined by “attitude toward the behaviour”, “subjective norms”, and “perceived behavioural control” (Ajzen,
1991). According to the TPB, an attitude toward a behaviour refers to an individual’s feelings and assessment (positive or negative) of
specific behaviour. An individual attitude reflects how a person recognises the behaviour as favourable or unfavourable (Alzamel et al.,
2020; Younis et al., 2020). While subjective norm represents the extent to which other important individuals in the society approve or
disapprove the behaviour (how the behaviour is perceived by important persons).
Subjective norms are represented by “the perceived social pressure from others for an individual to behave in a certain manner”
(Ham et al., 2015). Finally, perceived behavioural control refers to an individual’s beliefs about his or her ability to perform a given
behaviour. It indicates the extent to which people have confidence that they can successfully engage in a specific behaviour.
Besides the TPB, some researchers (e.g., Huang et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2016; Yeh et al., 2020) have focused on how motivational
factors (intrinsic and extrinsic), concepts from the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000b), can
directly impact entrepreneurial intention. The SDT (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000b) emphasises the various types of
motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) that can stimulate individuals’ behaviour and move them into action the direction of more
self-determination (Bombaerts & Spahn, 2021; Cnossen et al., 2019). According to Ryan & Deci (2000a), intrinsic motivation is defined
4
as “the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some separable consequence.” In contrast, extrinsic motivation
refers to the doing of activity to attain outside (tangible/intangible) rewards or to avoid pressures (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Intrinsically
motivated individuals’ behaviour is driven by satisfaction, joy, fun, or challenge rather than extrinsic consequences such as gaining a
reward or avoiding a punishment (Cnossen et al., 2019; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000a).
Other researchers (e.g., Chang et al., 2018, 2020; Darmanto et al., 2022; Soomro & Shah, 2021; Suparno et al., 2020) have
investigated the impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention based on the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Bandura, 1986). The
SCT presented by Bandura (1986), posits that three factors play a crucial role in forming and modifying people’s behaviour. These
factors are perceived efficacy, outcome expectations, and social factors (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2015; Mimiaga et al., 2009; Schunk
& DiBenedetto, 2020). According to this theory, people’s behaviour can be determined by the reciprocal interaction of these factors.
Perceived efficacy refers to people’s beliefs in their abilities to carry out a specific behaviour to achieve a required outcome (Luszc
zynska & Schwarzer, 2015; Mimiaga et al., 2009). As stated by Mimiaga et al. (2009), the main construct of the SCT is self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy was integrated into entrepreneurship research by Boyd and Vozikis (1994). Since then, the concept of self-efficacy has
been used by many researchers in the field of entrepreneurship to investigate its influence on shaping entrepreneurial intention.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy can be defined as “an individual’s belief in his or her ability to succeed as an entrepreneur and to
accomplish various entrepreneurial tasks” (Chang et al., 2020).
Various other theoretical models including, the human capital theory (e.g., Mir et al., 2022), the theory of positive emotions (e.g.,
Chang et al., 2020), and the goal-setting theory (e.g., Chang et al., 2018), have been also utilised to investigate the possible antecedents
of digital entrepreneurial intention, as indicated in Table 1.
In addition to the previously mentioned theories, a respectable number of studies, as indicated in Table 1, have adopted the
personality trait theory in investigating digital entrepreneurial intention. They have argued that individual characteristics play a
significant role in shaping entrepreneurial intention. People with strong performance-related traits are more prone to start their own
businesses in the long term. Holding specific personality characteristics makes one appreciate engaging in entrepreneurial activities
since they find those activities rewarding and satisfying (Awwad & Al-Aseer, 2021).
According to DeYoung (2015), personality traits are “probabilistic descriptions of relatively stable patterns of emotion, motivation,
cognition, and behaviour, in response to classes of stimuli that have been present in human cultures over evolutionary time.” Per
sonality traits refer to an individual’s unique characteristics, thinking patterns, beliefs, and feelings that are relatively consistent in
different situations across time (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2014; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Li et al., 2022). According to the trait
theory, someone with a high score on a specific attribute is predicted to behave differently in different situations over time than
someone with a low score on the same attribute (Bergner et al., 2021).
Moreover, the reviewed literature reveals the various factors affecting digital entrepreneurial intention, as indicated in Table 1.
These factors can be categorised into contextual factors and individual factors.
Concerning contextual factors, many previous studies (e.g., Al-Mamary & Alraja, 2022; Farani et al., 2017; Lai & To, 2020; Tseng
et al., 2022; Younis et al., 2020) have examined the effect of subjective norms on digital entrepreneurial intention, and the obtained
results were contradicting. For example, Alzamel et al. (2020), Farani et al. (2017), and Younis et al. (2020), have argued that sub
jective norms have no significant influence on entrepreneurial intention. However, Lai & To (2020), Al-Mamary & Alraja (2022), and
Tseng et al. (2022) have confirmed the significant effect of subjective norms on entrepreneurial intention.
Entrepreneurship education is another crucial contextual factor that has been investigated by many researchers. The significant
direct positive association between entrepreneurship education and intention has been confirmed in many previous studies (e.g., Mand
et al., 2018; Millman et al., 2010; Suparno et al., 2020; Yordanova et al., 2020). In addition to the direct positive impact of entre
preneurship education on intention, some researchers have examined the indirect effect of entrepreneurship education on intention.
For example, Darmanto et al. (2022) argued that entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the relationship between entrepreneurship
education and intention. Lai & To (2020) confirmed the indirect positive impact of entrepreneurship education on intention through
subjective norms and perceived behaviour control. Furthermore, Tseng et al. (2022) claimed that entrepreneurship education mod
erates the relationship between attitudes and intention, as well as the relationship between subjective norms and intention.
Some previous studies have investigated how intentions to engage in a new technology-based venture can be influenced by social
support. For example, Alzamel et al. (2020) confirmed the significant direct effect of social support on intention. Additionally, Huang
et al. (2022) claimed that social support can enhance intention through intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Other contextual factors
that have been investigated and confirmed to have a significant impact on intention include entrepreneurship role models (Mir et al.,
2022), access to capital (Belmonte et al., 2022), entrepreneurial policy (Lai & To, 2020), university support (Yordanova et al., 2020),
and unemployment (Mand et al., 2018).
With respect to the individual factors, researchers who have investigated the role of these factors in shaping digital entrepreneurial
intention can be divided into two groups. The first group of researchers (e.g., Shimoli et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2016; Yeh et al., 2020)
has suggested using general (broad) personality traits. General personality traits are often demonstrated by five main personality
dimensions, namely: “extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience”, also known as the Big
Five (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Laouiti et al., 2022). Extraversion describes the degree to which individuals are sociable, talkative,
assertive, enthusiastic, and expressing positive emotions (Laouiti et al., 2022; Yeh et al., 2020). Highly extroverted individuals are
outgoing and can easily develop social networks. Agreeableness refers to how an individual interacts with others to preserve good
relations with people and prevent interpersonal disputes. An agreeable individual tends to be friendly, kind, cooperative, trustful,
humble, and flexible (Laouiti et al., 2022; Yeh et al., 2020). Conscientiousness describes an individual’s ability to be self-disciplined
and self-controlled to reach his or her goals (Kerr et al., 2018; Laouiti et al., 2022). Individuals scoring high in conscientiousness tend to
be goal-oriented and driven by success. Neuroticism represents an individual’s “emotional stability” and how he or she experiences
5
different situations. Highly neurotic individuals tend to experience a lot of stress and negative emotions. In contrast, individuals who
score low in neuroticism tend to be relaxed, confident, and stable. Finally, openness to experience refers to a person’s propensity to
explore novel experiences and ideas and tackle new challenges (Laouiti et al., 2022; Yeh et al., 2020). A person who weighs high on
openness to experience tends to be creative, imaginative, and open-minded. While individuals who score low on openness to expe
rience tend to favour ordinary routines and frequently exhibit conventional behaviours.
Each of these general personality traits has a different influence on entrepreneurial intention. Normally, higher levels of extra
version, conscientiousness, and openness to experience have a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention. However, higher levels of
agreeableness and neuroticism are negatively related to entrepreneurial intention (Brandstatter, 2011; Laouiti et al., 2022; Obschonka
et al., 2014; Postigo et al., 2021).
Even though these general personality traits have been applied in various studies, some researchers (e.g., Çelik et al., 2021; Laouiti
et al., 2022; Leutner et al., 2014; Postigo et al., 2021) have argued that these five personality dimensions neglect other important
personality factors, and attempting to interpret entrepreneurial behaviour using only five broad constructs may be inconclusive and
reductive. Additionally, according to Laouiti et al. (2022), using only five general personality dimensions ignore dimensions’ inter
dependency. Moreover, the impact validity of general personality traits on entrepreneurial outcomes is greatly dependent on
contextual and cultural variables (Bergner et al., 2021; Schlaegel et al., 2021). Therefore, dividing these general (broad) personality
traits into a smaller number of specific (narrow) traits can predict entrepreneurial intention more accurately than general traits
(Brandstatter, 2011; Çelik et al., 2021; Leutner et al., 2014; Llewellyn & Wilson, 2003; Postigo et al., 2021).
Consequently, as demonstrated in Table 1, the second group of researchers (e.g., Abdelfattah et al., 2022; Akhter et al., 2022;
Batool et al., 2015; Belmonte et al., 2022; Chang et al., 2020; Darmanto et al., 2022; Ismail et al., 2012; Koe et al., 2021; Mir et al.,
2022; Salhieh & Al-Abdallat, 2022; Suparno et al., 2020; Younis et al., 2020) has advocated using more specific (narrow) personality
traits. They have attempted to investigate how narrow personality traits can develop digital entrepreneurial intention. They have
focused on various narrow traits, such as need for achievement (e.g., Batool et al., 2015; Ismail et al., 2012; Shimoli et al., 2020; Younis
et al., 2020), risk-taking (e.g., Darmanto et al., 2022; Ismail et al., 2012; Koe et al., 2021; Younis et al., 2020), locus of control (e.g.,
Batool et al., 2015; Ismail et al., 2012; Shimoli et al., 2020; Tseng et al., 2022; Younis et al., 2020), innovativeness (e.g., Akhter et al.,
2022; Koe et al., 2021; Salhieh & Al-Abdallat, 2022), creativity (e.g., Abdelfattah et al., 2022; Akhter et al., 2022; Batool et al., 2015),
proactiveness (e.g., Koe et al., 2021), self-efficacy (e.g., Batool et al., 2015; Chang et al., 2018, 2020; Darmanto et al., 2022; Koe et al.,
2021; Salhieh & Al-Abdallat, 2022; Shimoli et al., 2020; Soomro & Shah, 2021), self-esteem (e.g., Batool et al., 2015), technology
product imagination disposition (e.g., Huang et al., 2022), computer and internet capabilities (e.g., Belmonte et al., 2022), positive
thinking (e.g., Chang et al., 2020), and goal commitment (e.g., Chang et al., 2018).
In general, it can be argued that digital entrepreneurial intention is closely related to a high level of need for achievement, tendency
to take risks, internal locus of control, high levels of innovativeness and creativity, propensity to act, goal commitment, and a high
degree of self-efficacy and self-esteem.
The literature collated on digital entrepreneurship indicates that while a growing body of literature has examined digital entre
preneurial intention using broad or narrow traits, other traits that may be associated with digital entrepreneurial intention have been
overlooked, such as entrepreneurial alertness, passion, and curiosity, or have received little consideration, such as digital innova
tiveness and digital self-efficacy. There is limited evidence on how entrepreneurial alertness, innovativeness, passion, curiosity, and
digital competency can impact digital entrepreneurial intention. These individual factors have been recognised as essential traits for a
successful entrepreneur, nevertheless, their role in shaping digital entrepreneurial intention is still underexplored in previous studies.
Furthermore, it has been shown that most of the previous studies have been conducted in Asian countries. Only two studies were
conducted in Saudi Arabia by Al-Mamary & Alraja (2022) and Alzamel et al. (2020). They have investigated the impact of TPB
constructs on intention among university students in Saudi Arabia. Insufficient empirical evidence is available about how individual
characteristics can affect undergraduate university students’ decision to engage in a digital entrepreneurial venture in Saudi Arabia.
Fig. 1. The proposed model.
6
Therefore, the primary research aim of this study is to contribute to closing these gaps, investigating the impact of individual
characteristics such as digital innovativeness, alertness, passion, curiosity, and digital competence in shaping digital entrepreneurial
intention among undergraduate university students in Saudi Arabia. The proposed model explores the direct effect of digital inno
vativeness and entrepreneurial alertness on digital entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, it investigates how entrepreneurial passion,
curiosity, and digital competence can stimulate students’ digital innovativeness and entrepreneurial alertness. Finally, the proposed
model examines the mediation role that entrepreneurial alertness and innovativeness play in the relationship between entrepreneurial
passion, entrepreneurial curiosity, and digital competence on one side and digital entrepreneurial intention on the other, as presented
in Fig. 1.
3. Hypotheses development
3.1. Digital innovativeness
Entrepreneurship is strongly connected with innovation and creativity (Syed et al., 2020; Wathanakom et al., 2020). Both creativity
and innovation are critical to entrepreneurship and are considered among the significant traits of successful entrepreneurs (Bell, 2019;
Dinis et al., 2013; Lian & Yen, 2017).
While in certain researches, the terms “creativity” and “innovativeness” are used synonymously (Scott & Bruce, 1994), creativity is
considered a key component of innovativeness and the initial step for innovation (Hon & Lui, 2016; Syed et al., 2020). Thus, the two
terms should be isolated from each other, but combined. (Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020) stated that “innovation is more than a
spark of creative genius”. According to Scott and Bruce (1994), “creativity has to do with the production of novel and useful ideas, and
innovation has to do with the production or adoption of useful ideas and idea implementation.” Creativity is only the process of
generating unique and beneficial ideas, while innovation is the implementation of these ideas into a good or service that create new
value for customers or operational efficiencies (Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020).
For successful entrepreneurs, innovativeness is the tool through which they discover new business opportunities, utilise available
resources efficiently and effectively, uniquely deal with difficult issues, and find means to attract customers and expand their business
(Akter et al., 2020; Ayed, 2020; Bell, 2019; Nasip et al., 2017). Entrepreneurship previous studies (e.g., Anwar & Saleem, 2019; Bhatti
et al., 2021; Koh, 1996) have demonstrated that innovativeness is a fundamental and must-have characteristic that differentiates
entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs’ innovativeness can be classified into two types: “general and domain-specific” (Lian & Yen, 2017). In the context of
this study, the main concern is with digital innovativeness, which is viewed as personal innovativeness in the digital technologies
sphere. Digital innovativeness is defined as the unique and original utilisation of digital technologies in business settings to introduce
new products, services, processes, or business models as a mean or end (Ciriello et al., 2018; Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020).
Digital entrepreneurs have to be innovative to exploit technological changes and discover new entrepreneurial opportunities. Within
entrepreneurship literature, it has been reported by many researchers (e.g., Akhter et al., 2022; Ayed, 2020; Bhatti et al., 2021; Biswas
& Verma, 2021; Li et al., 2022; Nasip et al., 2017; Salhieh & Al-Abdallat, 2022; Tu et al., 2021) that innovativeness has a positive
impact on entrepreneurial intention and considered as one of the important predictors of entrepreneurs’ intention. According to the
above discussion, the following hypothesis was postulated:
H1: Digital innovativeness will positively relate to digital entrepreneurial intention.
3.2. Entrepreneurship alertness
The concept of entrepreneurial alertness has emerged as a core component in the field of entrepreneurship. It explores how business
opportunities are recognised and perfectly utilised (Chavoushi et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020; Neneh, 2019; Obschonka et al., 2017;
Sharma, 2019; Shimoli et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2014). Entrepreneurial alertness begins with the desire to discover opportunities
unheeded by others and the person’s never-ending progress to transform those opportunities into a reality (Li et al., 2020; Montiel
Campos, 2017; Tang et al., 2012). The concept of alertness was traced back to Kirzner (1985), who introduced it into entrepreneurship
literature and defined it as “a motivated propensity of man to formulate an image of the future” (Kirzner, 1985). He assumed that
opportunities are not exclusive to special people, rather those opportunities are available to anyone with the alertness to realise them
(Sharma, 2019).
Alertness can be expressed as the antenna or the sensor that enables an individual to proactively scan, create, and evaluate new
opportunities in a dynamic environment (Bhatt et al., 2020; Obschonka et al., 2018; Uy et al., 2015). Simply entrepreneurial alertness
is the person’s ability to see opportunities as they exist better than others. According to Tang et al. (2012), there are three comple
mentary but exclusive constructs of entrepreneurial alertness. These constructs are “scanning and searching for information”, “con
necting previously-disparate information”, and finally “making evaluations on the existence of profitable business opportunities”
(Tang et al., 2012).
Even though entrepreneurial alertness has gained considerable attention in previous entrepreneurship studies, it is a little-used
research variable (Bueckmann-Diegoli et al., 2020). But recently, the impact of entrepreneurial alertness on entrepreneurial inten
tion has been explored through various studies (Bueckmann-Diegoli et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020). The findings of prior studies (e.g.,
Biswas & Verma, 2021; Hu et al., 2018; Hu & Ye, 2017; Li et al., 2020; Lu & Wang, 2018; McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Neneh, 2019;
Obschonka et al., 2018; Urban, 2020; Wang & Huang, 2022) have confirmed that entrepreneurial alertness plays a significant role in
7
forming entrepreneurial intention among participants.

Therefore, individuals who are alert to entrepreneurial opportunities are likely to have greater levels of entrepreneurial intention.
Thus, the study hypothesises that:
H2: Entrepreneurial alertness will positively relate to digital entrepreneurial intention.
3.3. Entrepreneurial passion
Passion can be generally expressed as the deep urge to engage in specific activities (Karimi, 2020; Montiel-Campos, 2018; Philippe
et al., 2010). According to Vallerand et al. (2003), it is defined as “a strong inclination toward an activity that people like, find
important, and in which they invest significant time and energy”. A growing body of entrepreneurship research demonstrates that
passion is a central component of entrepreneurship, where entrepreneurship is a challenging process that requires an individual to be a
risk-taker, creative, motivated, dedicated, enthusiastic, initiative, persistent, alert to promising opportunities, and fully energised
(Dantsoho et al., 2020).
Successful entrepreneurs are characterised by a strong passion for entrepreneurial activities that motivates and drives them to
remain fully engaged in their actions (Cardon et al., 2009; Neneh, 2020; Obschonka et al., 2019). Thus, entrepreneurial passion is
defined as “consciously accessible, intense positive feelings experienced by engagement in entrepreneurial activities associated with
roles that are meaningful and salient to the self-identity of the entrepreneur” (Cardon et al., 2009). Simply, it is the strong positive
feeling and attitude of an individual that drives him or her to perform entrepreneurial activities with energy (Hubner et al., 2020; Li
et al., 2020).
Cardon et al. (2009) mentioned that entrepreneurial passion can be classified into three distinct types. The first one is the “passion
for inventing”, expressing an entrepreneur’s passion regarding determining, inventing, and discovering new chances. In the second
place, “passion for founding”, reflecting an entrepreneur’s passion concerning creating and commercialising the business venture.
Finally, the “passion for developing”, representing an entrepreneur’s passion respecting expanding the business venture after it has
been created. This study will focus exclusively on passion for inventing, as it represents an entrepreneur who is passionate about
discovering, inventing, and pursuing new opportunities.
Even though entrepreneurial passion has been recognised as a significant factor in the field of entrepreneurship, its role in forming
entrepreneurial intention is still underexplored. Previous studies (e.g., Biraglia & Kadile, 2017; Karimi, 2020; Montiel-Campos, 2018;
Syed et al., 2020) have argued that further work is required to investigate the variables that intermediate the link between entre
preneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention.
The literature review reveals that multiple studies have examined the association between entrepreneurial passion and other
variables, such as entrepreneurial alertness and innovativeness. Entrepreneurial passion has been linked to innovativeness. Some
previous studies have suggested that passionate people are likely to be more creative and innovative. According to Syed et al. (2020),
“innovativeness is more likely to occur when individuals are passionate about the task at hand”. Additionally, creativity and overall
innovativeness will be enhanced when passion for inventing is dominant (Cardon et al., 2009). The positive relationship between
entrepreneurial passion and innovativeness has been confirmed by many authors (e.g., Campos, 2016; Cardon et al., 2009, 2013;
Montiel-Campos, 2018; Puente-Díaz & Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017; Syed et al., 2020).
Additionally, some previous studies (e.g., Hayton & Cholakova, 2012; Li et al., 2020; Montiel-Campos, 2018; Montiel Campos,
2017) have investigated the relationship between entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial alertness. According to the findings of
these studies, entrepreneurial passion was found to impact entrepreneurial alertness positively, i.e., entrepreneurially passionate
individuals are more likely to exhibit greater entrepreneurial alertness. As a result, the following hypotheses were formulated:
H3: Entrepreneurial passion will have a positive effect on digital innovativeness.

H4: Entrepreneurial passion will have a positive effect on entrepreneurial alertness.
3.4. Entrepreneurial curiosity
Even though there is still a lack of agreement about the meaning of curiosity (Jeraj & Antoncic, 2013), curiosity can be defined as
“the recognition, pursuit, and intense desire to explore novel, challenging, and uncertain events” (Kashdan & Silvia, 2009). Curiosity
reflects the desire that leads to an investigation (Arikan et al., 2020). It is one of the personality traits that encourages and motivates
the concentration on own goals, the acquisition of new knowledge and experience, and the scrutiny of vague and challenging events
(Kashdan et al., 2018, 2020; Syed et al., 2020). Curious individuals possess the intrinsic motivation to identify and analyse problems,
gather new information, bind together various pieces of information, and discover novel ideas that can be used to solve problems
(Puente-Díaz & Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017; Schutte & Malouff, 2020; Syed et al., 2020).
In the field of entrepreneurship, curiosity is one of the important traits for a successful entrepreneur (Jeraj & Antoncic, 2013; Jeraj
& Marič, 2013; Peljko et al., 2016). Entrepreneurs with a high level of entrepreneurial curiosity have a strong desire to learn how to
perform entrepreneurship-related tasks in contrast to entrepreneurs with a low level of entrepreneurial curiosity (Peljko et al., 2016).
Thus, entrepreneurial curiosity is defined as “a desire that motivates individuals to learn how to perform tasks which are related to
entrepreneurship” (Jeraj & Marič, 2013).
While little is known about entrepreneurial curiosity in prior entrepreneurship studies (Jeraj & Antoncic, 2013), previous studies
(e.g., Adiningrum, 2021; Arikan et al., 2020; Liang, 2019) have suggested that entrepreneurial curiosity is positively associated with
8
entrepreneurial alertness. Additionally, some studies (e.g., Celik et al., 2016; Jeraj & Marič, 2013; Peljko et al., 2016; Puente-Díaz &
Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017; Schutte & Malouff, 2020; Syed et al., 2020) have explored the association between entrepreneurial alertness
and innovativeness. The results of these studies have demonstrated the positive impact of entrepreneurial curiosity on entrepreneurial
alertness. Thus, curious individuals will be sensitive to changes in the environment and are inclined to be innovative, and this led to the
following hypotheses:
H5: Entrepreneurial curiosity will positively influence entrepreneurial alertness.

H6: Entrepreneurial curiosity will positively influence digital innovativeness
3.5. Digital competence
Competence is one of the critical terms in the field of entrepreneurship (Armuña et al., 2020; Farani et al., 2017). Competence may
be defined from different viewpoints, resulting in various meanings and interpretations according to the context (Farani et al., 2017;
Ngoasong, 2018; Reis et al., 2020). An individual competency represents a group of knowledge, skills, proficiencies, and attitudes
connected to goals pursued and tasks performed that enable an individual to succeed in his or her work (Armuña et al., 2020; Farani
et al., 2017; Ngoasong, 2018; Younis et al., 2020). Therefore, entrepreneurial competence can be understood as a combination of
knowledge, skills, abilities, and characteristics that allow an entrepreneur to explore entrepreneurial opportunities, convert ideas into
a profitable business, and maintain a business’ development and growth (Armuña et al., 2020; Farani et al., 2017; Ngoasong, 2018;
Reis et al., 2020; Younis et al., 2020). In summary, entrepreneurial competencies are a set of abilities that enable an entrepreneur to
execute all entrepreneurial activities successfully.
In today’s digital era, digital transformation requires a wide range of competencies that differ from traditional competencies
(Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020; Oggero et al., 2020). However, the impact of digital competence on the digital transition of
entrepreneurship is not fully explored (Oggero et al., 2020). Currently, digital competence has emerged in the field of entrepreneurship
and has been acknowledged as a critical factor for a successful digital entrepreneur (Oggero et al., 2020; Reis et al., 2020). Entre
preneurs should possess the basic knowledge about using modern technologies to be able to modify their business model, do things
differently, create new products and services, as well as communicate with their customers in a new way (Mancha & Shankaranar
ayanan, 2020; Reis et al., 2020; Welsum, 2016).
In the domain of technology, digital competence is related to ICT self-efficacy, computer self-efficacy, and digital technology self-
efficacy (He et al., 2020; Lai et al., 2012; Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020; Reis et al., 2020). In this research, digital competence
indicates a person’s belief in his or her ability to employ digital technologies effectively to run a technology-based venture and achieve
the desired outcome.
Previous studies (e.g., Biswas & Verma, 2021; Indrawati et al., 2015; Nikraftar & Hosseini, 2016; Obschonka et al., 2018; Stanić,
2020; Urban, 2019) have argued that successful entrepreneurs need to possess confidence in their abilities to be aware of unexplored
entrepreneurial opportunities. According to the findings of these studies, there is a strong positive relationship between entrepre
neurial competence and entrepreneurial alertness. In addition to the positive association between competence and entrepreneurial
alertness, other prior studies (e.g., Ahlin et al., 2014; Li et al., 2018; Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020; Ng & Kee, 2018; Urban,
2019) have stressed that entrepreneurial competence could lead to creativity and innovation. Considering the above studies, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H7: Digital competence will positively relate to entrepreneurial alertness.

H8: Digital competence will positively relate digital innovativeness.
4. Research methodology
4.1. Sample and procedure
To empirically test and validate the developed hypotheses and the research model with less sample bias, we developed an online
questionnaire using QuestionPro (an online survey platform) that included existing measurement scales from previous studies to
ensure valid and reliable measurement. This study directed to a homogeneous sample consisting of undergraduate business students
during the academic year 2020–2021 who had completed their entrepreneurship course and are close to graduation at “Imam
Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University’s College of Applied Studies and Community Service, a public university in Saudi Arabia’s eastern
province”. University students were targeted for this study because sampling students are commonly used in previous entrepreneurial
intention studies as they are just about to make career decisions, and they are being seen as potential entrepreneurs (Bueckmann-
Diegoli et al., 2020; Elnadi & Gheith, 2021; Farani et al., 2017). The questionnaire was originally created in English, then it was
carefully translated into Arabic, and to ensure translation lingual consistency, a translation-back-translation technique was used
(Saunders & Lewis, 2012).
To pre-test the initial version of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted with a sample of 25 undergraduate students (16
females and 9 males) to examine the clarity and validity of all the questions, and their feedback was considered and slight changes in
few questions were introduced in the final version of the questionnaire. Once the final questionnaire version was developed, it was
distributed to the students via their university emails. The email introduced the aim of the research, as well as the importance of their
opinion and contribution to the study. Additionally, it demonstrated that the received information will only be used for research
9
purposes, not for any other purpose, and only statistical aggregated results will be presented. Moreover, the introduction section
emphasised that students’ participation in the research is completely voluntary, where they can stop answering the survey at any time
with no consequences, without giving any reason. Finally, the email mentioned that all the responses will be kept confidential and
anonymous.
A total of 250 were filled with a response rate of (71.8%). From the total received questionnaire, all improperly completed
questionnaires were filtered out, which contributed to 219 applicable and useful questionnaires used in data analysis, consisted of 164
female students (74.9%) and 55 male students (25.1%) with an average age of 21 years.
The Harman, 1976 single-factor test was used to determine the common method bias. The first factor was derived without rotation
using the principal axis factoring process, which has a 24.3% of the overall variance. Accordingly, we conclude that there is no
common method bias in our data, and it will not influence our path analysis and results.
4.2. Measurement of variables
All the independent and dependent variables applied in this study were derived from previously validated scales and all the items
were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 indicating “strongly disagree” to 5 indicating “strongly agree”. The used in
struments and some of the constructs’ components are listed below.
4.2.1. Digital entrepreneurial intention

The six measuring constructs adopted from Chang et al. (2020) and Farani et al. (2017) were used to capture the digital entre
preneurial intention. These items were originally developed by Liñán and Chen (2009) and widely applied by many researchers. A
sample item states, “I am ready to do anything to start my own digital-based business”. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was
(0.842).
4.2.2. Entrepreneurial alertness

Entrepreneurial alertness was assessed using Tang et al. (2012) well-validated scale. This scale evaluates entrepreneurial alertness
based on three dimensions, namely “scanning and search, association and connections, and evaluation and judgment” and these di
mensions are evaluated according to thirteen constructs. Many researchers make use of this scale (e.g., Bueckmann-Diegoli et al., 2020;
Neneh, 2019; Obschonka et al., 2018). “I am always actively looking for new information” as an example for scanning and searching. A
sample item for association and connections states “I see links between seemingly unrelated pieces of information”. Finally, consid
ering the evaluation and judgment dimension: “When facing multiple opportunities, I can select the good ones.” The Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient was (0.812).
4.2.3. Digital innovativeness

Digital innovativeness was tested using a 10-item scale created by Agarwal and Prasad (1998) which is accepted and used by many
researchers (e.g., Kasilingam, 2020; Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020). Examples include “If I heard about a new information
technology, I would look for ways to experiment with it” and “I am creative when I interact with information technologies”. The
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was (0.860).
4.2.4. Entrepreneurial passion

The entrepreneurial passion scale applied in this research was the five-item subscale developed by Cardon et al. (2013) which is
used in various prior studies (e.g., Biraglia & Kadile, 2017; Neneh, 2020; Syed et al., 2020; Türk et al., 2020). The entrepreneurial
passion scale included items such as, “Searching for new ideas for products/services to offer is enjoyable to me” and “Scanning the
environment for new opportunities really excites me”. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was (0.818).
4.2.5. Entrepreneurial curiosity

We measured entrepreneurial curiosity according to the ten-item scale established by Kashdan et al. (2009). Examples included the
following: “I actively seek as much information as I can in new situations”, “I view challenging situations as an opportunity to grow and
learn”, and “Everywhere I go, I am out looking for new things or experiences”. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was (0.869).
4.2.6. Digital competence

A six-item scale adapted from Cassidy and Eachus (2002) and Mancha and Shankaranarayanan (2020), was used to measure digital
competence in this study. Some examples are as follows: “Digital technology does not cause many problems for me” and “I usually find
it easy to learn how to use a new software or online application”. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was (0.815).
5. Data analysis
The proposed model and hypotheses have been examined using the partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM).
Compared with the covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM), PLS is more suitable for small sample size and complex
models and normally distributed data is not a basic requirement for the analysis (Hair et al., 2019). Moreover, PLS-SEM is more
appropriate for this study as the objective is to explain the causal relationships among the variables rather than theory confirmation
(Hair et al., 2019). Also, PLS-SEM is widely used in similar studies that focus on entrepreneurship (Hernández-Perlines et al., 2020;
10
Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020). Following the recommendation of Hair et al. (2017), the authors began the analysis by first
assessing the measurement model, and then examining the structural model to test the significance of the hypothesised relationships.
5.1. Measurement model
The first stage of the analysis involves the evaluation of the measurement model to confirm the validity and reliability of the
measurement model (constructs and items). The composite construct analysis (Astrachan et al., 2014; Hair et al., 2020) has been used
to evaluate the validity and reliability. According to Chin (2010) and Klarner et al. (2013), both the reliability of the construct
measures and that of the internal consistency were the general reliability indicators and both convergent and discriminant validity
were the general validity indicators. All indicators (50 items) have been included in the preliminary test and some of these items have
loadings lower than the recommended threshold (0.6). Therefore, the items (13 items) that have loadings below this threshold have
been deleted in order to improve the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) leading to the inclusion of (37
items) in the final model. As shown in Table 2, all loadings of each construct were more than 0.6, showing that all our indicators are
reliable (Hair et al., 2016). In addition, Cronbach’s α and composite reliability (CR) values were above 0.7, supporting the internal
consistency for all constructs. At the same time, the average variance extracted (AVE) values for all constructs were above 0.5,
confirming the convergent validity as well.
Additionally, discriminant validity was assessed using both Fornell-Larcker criterion "i.e., the square root of AVE for each construct
should be higher than its highest correlation with the other constructs” and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) criterion “i.e., Values
should be less than 0.85 threshold”, as presented in Table 3. These two criteria were used to approve discriminant validity.
5.2. Structural model
The structural model has been assessed using the following procedures. Firstly, the fitness of the model has been assessed using the
Table 2
Validity and reliability evidence.
Constructs Items Loading t-value** CR* Alpha AVE
Digital Entrepreneurial Intention (DEI) DEI1 0.715 18.352 0.884 0.842 0.561
DEI2 0.676 13.692
DEI3 0.734 17.197
DEI4 0.696 14.485
DEI5 0.848 36.824
DEI6 0.809 25.012
Entrepreneurial Alertness (EA) EA2 0.649 13.984 0.865 0.812 0.519
EA8 0.650 12.674
EA10 0.717 19.340
EA11 0.787 28.266
EA12 0.805 21.713
EA13 0.700 16.049
Digital Innovativeness (DINN) DINN1 0.757 25.105 0.893 0.860 0.544
DINN2 0.732 21.832
DINN4 0.769 23.297
DINN6 0.640 12.362
DINN7 0.773 21.232
DINN8 0.770 23.339
DINN9 0.711 19.314
Entrepreneurial Passion (EP) EP1 0.823 35.036 0.873 0.818 0.581
EP2 0.793 23.766
EP3 0.725 18.198
EP4 0.777 21.243
EP5 0.683 12.850
Digital Competence (DC) DC1 0.678 17.619 0.866 0.815 0.520
DC2 0.689 14.188
DC3 0.697 12.386
DC4 0.733 14.667
DC5 0.773 25.415
DC6 0.752 15.566
Entrepreneurial Curiosity (EC) EC3 0.684 16.626 0.899 0.869 0.560
EC4 0.787 30.048
EC5 0.746 20.022
EC6 0.795 26.754
EC7 0.789 21.824
EC8 0.695 14.066
EC9 0.732 16.878
*
Values were computed after deleting indicators with low loadings.
**
t values were obtained with bootstrapping procedure (5000 samples) and are significant at the 0.001 level.
11
Table 3
Discriminant validity.
Fornell-Larcker Criterion / Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Digital Entrepreneurial Intention 0.749 0.504 0.601 0.412 0.350 0.498

2. Entrepreneurial Alertness 0.427 0.721 0.692 0.833 0.531 0.738
3. Digital Innovativeness 0.517 0.586 0.738 0.621 0.621 0.657
4. Entrepreneurial Passion 0.346 0.684 0.533 0.762 0.423 0.660
5. Digital Competence 0.285 0.443 0.528 0.351 0.721 0.307
6. Entrepreneurial Curiosity 0.436 0.633 0.579 0.566 0.271 0.748
Note: The diagonal bold is the square root of average variance extracted (AVE). Italic numbers represent the HTMT Values.
standard root mean square residual (SRMR). According to Henseler et al. (2016), the value of SRMR should be less than 0.10. Our
findings showed that the value of SRMR (0.057) was lower than the threshold value, indicating that the developed structural model has
a good fit with the collected data. Secondly, The variance inflation factors (VIF) were used to measure multicollinearity, and all of these
values are below the recommended threshold of 3.3 (Hair et al., 2017), indicating that there are no difficulties with multicollinearity.
Thirdly, the coefficient of determinations (R2) has been used to analyse the model’s predictive accuracy. As shown in Table 4, All
values of R2 are higher than the 0.26 value recommended by Cohen (2013), which indicate that the predictive relevance of the model is
reliable. Then, the Stone-Geisser (Q2) tests have been assessed which support the above results. We calculated the Q2 values of the
variables using the blindfolding procedure and all the values were greater than zero, indicating the predictive relevance of the model.
Finally, t-values and significance levels are generated using the bootstrapping process with 5000 subsamples (Hair et al., 2011;
Henseler et al., 2009) to test the suggested hypotheses. The findings show that the eight direct path coefficients are crucial, verifying all
of the hypotheses proposed as presented in Table 4. Furthermore, the study also examined the effect size (f2), which is used to observe
whether a specific exogenous construct has a substantive impact on an endogenous variable following Cohen’s (1992) recommen
dation that f2 values of 0.35 are considered as large, 0.15 as medium, and 0.02 as weak. As shown in the Table 4, most of the inde
pendent variables have adequate effect on the dependent variables.
To further explore the relationship between the studied variables, indirect and total effects were examined as shown in Table 5. The
results showed that all the independent constructs (including digital competence, entrepreneurial curiosity, and entrepreneurial
passion) have an indirect and significant impact on digital entrepreneurial intention, through entrepreneurial alertness and digital
innovativeness as presented in Fig. 2.
6. Discussion
The aim of this paper is to enhance our understanding of how individual characteristics, such as entrepreneurial digital innova
tiveness, entrepreneurial alertness, entrepreneurial passion, entrepreneurial curiosity, and digital competence, can stimulate digital
entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students in Saudi Arabia. These variables have all been regarded as relevant in
Table 4
Structural model assessment.
PLS Criteria
VIF
R2 Q2 EA DEIN DEI
EP 1.569 1.569
DC 1.150 1.150
EC 1.486 1.486
DEI 0.291 0.149
EA 0.593 0.283 1.523
DINN 0.509 0.255 1.523
Hypothesised Paths В t-statistic Effect Size (f2) Percentile 95% CI Support
H1: DINN->DEI 0.405*** 5.434 0.152 [0.277; 0.525] Yes

H2: EA-> DEI 0.190* 2.041 0.033 [0.044; 0.347] Yes
H3: EP -> DINN 0.198** 3.101 0.051 [0.097; 0.306] Yes
H4: EP -> EA 0.421*** 8.347 0.277 [0.339; 0.503] Yes
H5: EC -> EA 0.340*** 6.134 0.191 [0.250; 0.431] Yes
H6: EC -> DINN 0.369*** 6.485 0.187 [0.274; 0.459] Yes
H7: DC -> EA 0.203*** 4.825 0.088 [0.135; 0.272] Yes
H8: DC -> DINN 0.358*** 7.011 0.227 [0.275; 0.444] Yes
Notes
*
P<0.05
**
P<0.01
***
P<0.001
12
Table 5
Indirect and total effects on endogenous constructs.
Path Indirect Effect Total Effect
DC -> DINN-> DEI 0.145*** 0.184***

DC -> EA -> DEI 0.039* 0.184***
EC -> DINN->DEI 0.150*** 0.214***
EC->EA->DEI 0.064* 0.214***
EP->DINN->DEI 0.080** 0.160***
EP->EA->DEI 0.080** 0.160***
Notes
*
P<0.05
**
P<0.01
***
P<0.001
Fig. 2. The structure model.
entrepreneurship previous studies separately, but they have never been addressed together in a single model. The association between
these individual characteristics and digital entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students is supported by empirical evi
dence in this study.
First, this study examined the direct impact of digital innovativeness and entrepreneurial alertness on students’ digital entrepre
neurial intentions. Depending on the results of the structural model, the study validated the significant direct positive impact of
entrepreneurial digital innovativeness and entrepreneurial alertness on stimulating students’ intentions towards digital entrepre
neurship. These findings postulate that students who are more likely to engage in a digital entrepreneurial venture are those who
possess high levels of digital innovativeness and entrepreneurial alertness. The results demonstrate that digital innovativeness is more
powerful in predicting digital entrepreneurial intention than entrepreneurial alertness. This points out the fact that innovativeness is
one of the most significant personality traits that affect students’ digital entrepreneurial intention. For potential digital entrepreneurs,
it is necessary to demonstrate a strong propensity toward innovative and creative ideas. Innovativeness will make it easier to work on
concepts and ideas that already exist but need to be updated using new technologies. Thomas and Mueller (2000) stated that “in every
definition of entrepreneurship, innovation is inevitably a core component”.
Consequently, this result suggests that students exhibiting high digital innovativeness levels will be motivated to venture into
digital business because of their innovative thinking and eagerness for new technological advancements. That is to say, digital
innovativeness triggers students’ motivation, which increases their desire to start their new technology-based business. This strong
positive association between students’ digital innovativeness and their intentions to engage in a digital entrepreneurial venture is
consistent with the results of various prior studies in different contexts (e.g., Akhter et al., 2022; Ayed, 2020; Bhatti et al., 2021; Biswas
& Verma, 2021; Li et al., 2022; Nasip et al., 2017; Salhieh & Al-Abdallat, 2022; Tu et al., 2021).
Moreover, the results indicate that entrepreneurial alertness is another individual characteristic that plays a significant direct role
in forming students’ digital entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurial alertness is seen as an important first step in the entrepre
neurial process and a crucial element of entrepreneurial behaviour (Chavoushi et al., 2021). Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition
of potential digital entrepreneurs should be solid enough, so they can be aware of changes in the environment, capture appropriate
opportunities, and actively act on these identified opportunities. Individuals with a high level of entrepreneurial alertness are more
inclined to observe things from distinct perspectives or in unconventional ways and have strong entrepreneurial intentions than those
with a lower alertness level (Urban, 2020). This result suggests that the possibility of starting one’s digital business is higher if one is
alert and can take advantage of the available opportunities provided by technological development. The higher the entrepreneurial
13
alertness, the more opportunities detected, the more ideas generated, and the greater the chance to start a technology-based venture, i.
e., entrepreneurial alertness energises the eagerness for entrepreneurial intention.
Therefore, a high level of entrepreneurial alertness is associated with a high level of entrepreneurial intention, and this relationship
has been confirmed in previous research findings in a range of different contexts (e.g., Biswas & Verma, 2021; Hu et al., 2018; Hu & Ye,
2017; Li et al., 2020; Lu & Wang, 2018; McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Neneh, 2019; Obschonka et al., 2018; Urban, 2020; Wang &
Huang, 2022).
Second, regarding the effect of entrepreneurial passion, curiosity, and digital competence on digital innovativeness. The findings of
this study demonstrate that entrepreneurial passion, curiosity, and digital competence are positive predictors of digital innovativeness.
The results show that entrepreneurial curiosity is the most influential factor in determining digital innovativeness, followed by digital
competence, and then entrepreneurial passion.
The positive association between entrepreneurial curiosity and digital innovativeness indicates that curiosity is a personality trait
that is essential for innovativeness. Thus, curious students will have greater innovativeness than students with lower curiosity levels.
According to Litman (2008), curiosity refers to “the desire that motivates individuals to learn new ideas, eliminate information gaps,
and solve intellectual problems”. Curious individuals possess the intrinsic motivation to identify and analyse problems, gather new
information, bind together various pieces of information, and discover novel ideas that can be used to solve problems (Puente-Díaz &
Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017; Schutte & Malouff, 2020; Syed et al., 2020). This intrinsic motivation will enhance individuals’ creative
imagination and divergent innovative thinking. According to Mumford & McIntosh’s (2017) model of creativity, the first two steps in
the creative process are problem definition and information gathering. Since curiosity involves the pursuit of new information, ex
periences, and novel ideas that can be used to solve problems, curiosity may serve as an inspiration for creativity. As mentioned
previously, creativity is considered a key component of innovativeness (Hon & Lui, 2016; Syed et al., 2020). Accordingly, curiosity
may be a driving force for innovativeness. The significant positive effect of curiosity on innovativeness has been supported by many
researchers in different prior studies (e.g., Celik et al., 2016; Jeraj & Marič, 2013; Peljko et al., 2016; Puente-Díaz & Cavazos-Arroyo,
2017; Schutte & Malouff, 2020; Syed et al., 2020).
Another critical individual characteristic that significantly influences digital innovativeness is digital competence. The results of
this study show that students’ digital innovativeness levels depend strongly on their digital competencies. This result is consistent with
empirical evidence from previous studies (e.g., Ahlin et al., 2014; Li et al., 2018; Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020; Ng & Kee, 2018;
Urban, 2019), who confirmed the significant positive association between competence and innovativeness. Since digital innova
tiveness is defined as the unique application of digital technologies in business settings to introduce new products, services, processes,
or business models as a mean or end (Ciriello et al., 2018; Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020), it is important to note that having
technology related skills and competencies is necessary to get the best from digital technologies, otherwise, innovativeness will remain
an abstract concept impossible to implement. For potential digital entrepreneurs to be successful in digital innovation, they must have
the basic technical competencies, as well as the required knowledge about how modern technologies work. Thus, they can utilise this
knowledge and digital technologies to introduce innovative products or services that can satisfy customers.
Besides the significant influence of entrepreneurial curiosity and digital competence on digital innovativeness, entrepreneurial
passion was found to have a positive impact on digital innovativeness. The results show that passionate students are likely to exhibit
greater digital innovativeness. Developing innovative ideas is a challenging task that needs a significant amount of time, hard work,
commitment, risk, and perseverance in the face of failure (Puente-Díaz & Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017). Passion is a critical personal
characteristic that energises individuals to overcome obstacles and generate the persistence required to develop and implement novel
ideas (Campos, 2016; Syed et al., 2020). In other words, it can be argued that passion stimulates creativity and innovativeness. The
positive relationship between entrepreneurial passion and innovativeness, as presented in this study, is supported by prior studies (e.g.,
Campos, 2016; Cardon et al., 2009, 2013; Montiel-Campos, 2018; Puente-Díaz & Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017; Syed et al., 2020).
Third, with respect to the effect of entrepreneurial passion, curiosity, and digital competence on entrepreneurial alertness. The
findings of this study demonstrate that all these personal characteristics are significantly correlated with entrepreneurial alertness. The
results show that entrepreneurial passion is the most influential factor in determining entrepreneurial alertness, followed by entre
preneurial curiosity, then digital competence.
While entrepreneurial passion was the least significant personal factor in determining digital innovativeness, it has the greatest
power in predicting entrepreneurial alertness. The results demonstrate that students with a strong entrepreneurial passion for
becoming an entrepreneur are more likely to show greater entrepreneurial alertness than those students with low levels of entre
preneurial passion. This finding implies that having a passion for entrepreneurship helps individuals recognise and seize opportunities,
and these individuals will also take the necessary steps to launch their own new technology-based ventures. Therefore, passion may be
an impetus for entrepreneurial alertness in that it can lead to the creation of new associations, as well as the identification and
evaluation of opportunities. This positive relationship between passion and entrepreneurial alertness is supported by previous research
findings (e.g., Li et al., 2020; Montiel-Campos, 2018; Montiel Campos, 2017). The findings of these studies confirmed that passion
promotes an individual ability to search for information, connect various unrelated pieces of information, and recognise and evaluate
opportunities, which are fundamental characteristics of entrepreneurial alertness. Therefore, passion is an essential personal char
acteristic that stimulates individuals to discover business opportunities and transform these opportunities into reality.
In addition to the critical role of passion in developing entrepreneurial alertness, curiosity was found to impact entrepreneurial
alertness significantly. The findings of this study indicate that curious students will be more aware of environmental changes and seek
untapped opportunities. Curiosity is the desire that leads to an investigation (Arikan et al., 2020). It is a personality trait that en
courages and motivates concentration on goals, acquisition of new knowledge and experience, and scrutiny of vague and challenging
events (Kashdan et al., 2018, 2020; Syed et al., 2020). Consequently, curious individuals will be sensitive to changes in the
14
environment and this relationship has been confirmed in former studies (e.g., Adiningrum, 2021; Arikan et al., 2020; Liang, 2019).
Along with the significant impact of entrepreneurial passion and curiosity on entrepreneurial alertness, the results imply that
digital competence is essential for entrepreneurial alertness. Students who are confident in their digital capabilities and possess the
basic knowledge about new technologies and the skills to use these technologies will be able to recognise overlooked entrepreneurial
opportunities in their environment and make the most out of these opportunities. According to Shane & Venkataraman (2000) even if
opportunities are available and prominent for individuals, these opportunities will be untapped as long as individuals do not have the
skills and knowledge to utilise these opportunities. This positive connection between entrepreneurial competence and entrepreneurial
alertness is in harmony with researchers’ previous findings (e.g., Biswas & Verma, 2021; Indrawati et al., 2015; Nikraftar & Hosseini,
2016; Obschonka et al., 2018; Stanić, 2020; Urban, 2019).
Finally, it is worth pointing out that digital innovativeness and entrepreneurial alertness fully mediate the effect of entrepreneurial
passion, entrepreneurial curiosity, and digital competence on digital entrepreneurial intention. According to Farani et al. (2017),
independent factors can impact entrepreneurial intention indirectly through their effects on the determinants of intention.
The results show that students who are passionate, curious, as well as possess the required digital competencies are more willing to
engage in innovative behaviour, this will stimulate their intention to start a new technology-based venture. In other words, personal
characteristics such as passion, curiosity, and competence are critical attributes for potential digital entrepreneurs. These personal
factors will help potential digital entrepreneurs to make the best use of digital technologies to introduce new novel products, services,
or processes. The mediation role of innovativeness has been explored in various previous studies. For example, Syed et al. (2020) found
that innovativeness intermediate the effect of entrepreneurial passion on entrepreneurial intention. Additionally, Cardon et al. (2017)
suggested that entrepreneurial passion stimulates individuals’ innovativeness. Subsequently, innovativeness creates entrepreneurial
intention. Biraglia and Kadile (2017) argued that innovativeness alone may not drive individuals to start their business venture, as
people should believe that they are competent of running their own business.
In the same vein, the results indicate that students with high levels of entrepreneurial passion, entrepreneurial curiosity, and digital
competence can recognise changes in the environment, capture appropriate opportunities, and actively act on these identified op
portunities. Therefore, entrepreneurial alertness can be enhanced by developing passion, curiosity, and digital competence among
students. Then entrepreneurial alertness can boost students’ digital entrepreneurial intention. These results are similar to previous
findings of Awwad and Al-Aseer (2021). In their study, Awwad and Al-Aseer (2021) mentioned that entrepreneurial alertness in
termediates the influence of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention. The results are also supported by Uy et al. (2015). They
found that a proactive personality encourages entrepreneurial alertness which in turn promotes entrepreneurial intention.
To sum up, the digital entrepreneurial intention is likely to be developed, when potential entrepreneurs possess individual char
acteristics, such as entrepreneurial alertness, innovativeness, passion, curiosity, and digital competence.
7. Implications
7.1. Theoretical implications
Based on the findings obtained from the data analysis, this study provides some academic implications that contribute to the
existing digital entrepreneurship literature on the role of individual characteristics in developing digital entrepreneurial intentions
among university students.
In this study, a review of the literature was conducted to analyse and identify the various theoretical models that have been used to
investigate digital entrepreneurship intentions, as well as the significant antecedents of digital entrepreneurship intention. Moreover,
this study proposed a model that investigated how narrow personality traits, such as digital innovativeness, entrepreneurial alertness,
entrepreneurial passion, entrepreneurial curiosity, and digital competence play a significant role in developing digital entrepreneurial
intentions among university students. The results indicate that these individual characteristics can stimulate potential entrepreneurs to
start a new technology-based venture. Therefore, this study provides a better understanding of how digital entrepreneurial intention
among university students is shaped, as well as the individual characteristics that can trigger venturing into a digital business.
While personality traits, including broad and narrow traits, have been explored as determinants of entrepreneurial intention in
various previous studies, personal factors examined in this study have been rarely collectively investigated in a single model.
This study answers the call of Salmony and Kanbach (2022), who recommended that future studies should provide more attention
to personality factors that distinguish techno-entrepreneurs from general entrepreneurs. Additionally, this study responds to the call of
Awwad and Al-Aseer (2021), who suggested that future studies need to examine the role of entrepreneurial curiosity in developing
entrepreneurial alertness, as well Peljko et al. (2016) and Raine & Pandya (2019), who suggested further investigation on the effect of
entrepreneurial curiosity on innovativeness.
According to Altinay et al. (2021), studies should not only examine the direct influence of entrepreneurial intention antecedents but
also need to discover the mediation impact of potential factors. Likewise, Bergner et al. (2021) mentioned that it is crucial to consider
the interdependence between various individual characteristics that impact entrepreneurial intention since these characteristics may
affect each other. Therefore, this study examines the direct impact of digital innovativeness and entrepreneurial alertness on students’
digital entrepreneurial intentions. Further, the study explores the indirect role that entrepreneurial passion, entrepreneurial curiosity,
and digital competence can play in developing digital entrepreneurial intentions through the full mediation effect of digital innova
tiveness and entrepreneurial alertness.
Finally, exploring digital entrepreneurial intentions among university students in developing countries such as Saudi Arabia is an
important contribution of this study. Despite the popularity of digital entrepreneurship, little is known about personal factors that
15
trigger digital entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Saudi Arabia.
7.2. Practical implications
In addition to the previously mentioned theoretical implications, this study provides several practical implications for educational
institutions interested in developing students’ digital entrepreneurial intentions.
This study demonstrates the critical effect of digitalisation on entrepreneurship and how today’s digital era requires potential
entrepreneurs to possess specific individual characteristics. These technological advancements imply the need for major changes in
entrepreneurship education and training programs (Ben Youssef et al., 2021). The empirical results indicate that individual charac
teristics such as digital innovativeness, entrepreneurial alertness, entrepreneurial passion, entrepreneurial curiosity, and digital
competence significantly influence digital entrepreneurial intention among university students. While these factors are largely
inherent individual characteristics that differentiate a potential entrepreneur from others, educational institutions can develop these
individual factors and encourage students to venture into digital businesses through a supportive learning environment. Therefore,
educational institutions need to focus not only on the technical facet of entrepreneurship but also on enhancing these individual
characteristics when developing their training and education programs to encourage students to venture into a digital business.
According to Kashdan et al. (2018), individuals have different characteristics and capabilities, so it is not fair to teach everyone
similar things in a similar way and similarly evaluate them. Kashdan et al. (2018) argued that it is necessary for educational institutions
to understand differences between students and direct them according to their abilities. Therefore, when students complete their
registration, universities can conduct relevant personality traits evaluations for the students to assess their personality qualities (Li
et al., 2022; Peljko et al., 2016). Then, universities can choose students who have the capabilities to become potential entrepreneurs
and are most likely to develop entrepreneurial intentions (Neneh, 2019). Students with high entrepreneurial alertness, innovativeness,
passion, curiosity, and digital competence levels, should be directed to an “academic path” (Salhieh & Al-Abdallat, 2022) developed
for potential digital entrepreneurs.
Given the importance of personality traits in forming entrepreneurial intentions, academics should pay considerable attention to
these traits when designing course syllabuses and training programs resulting in a more influential entrepreneurial education
(Fernández-Pérez et al., 2019). Therefore, existing entrepreneurship courses and training programs need to be revised and improved to
promote students’ entrepreneurial intention. For example, universities should provide innovation courses in their regular education to
encourage students to think creatively and build an innovative mindset (Wang & Huang, 2022). Additionally, entrepreneurship course
syllabuses and training programs should focus on cognitive processes to develop an entrepreneurially alert mindset among students
(Bhatti et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2018; Neneh, 2019; Wang & Huang, 2022). This will enhance students’ ability to scan and search the
environment, interpret information, and identify business opportunities (Bueckmann-Diegoli et al., 2020; Wang & Huang, 2022).
Likewise, academics should stimulate entrepreneurial passion among students. Li et al. (2020) argued that entrepreneurial passion and
personality development have to be mandatory course topics in the entrepreneurship curriculum. According to Karimi (2020) and
Cardon et al. (2009), inspiring role models can develop entrepreneurial passion among students. Besides, educators could design
educational content such as action learning and new venture simulations to enhance students’ entrepreneurial passion, which could
trigger their intention to become entrepreneurs. Moreover, courses and training programs focusing on digital skills are essential for
developing digital entrepreneurs since digital venturing requires basic knowledge about modern technologies and skills to use these
technologies in creating and managing a digital business (Koe et al., 2021; Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020). Additionally,
Fichman et al. (2014) stated that topics such as the “discovery, development, diffusion, and impact of digital product, process, and
business model innovations” should be the main topics of information system core classes. Business students enrolled in information
system courses shouldn’t be requested to learn about the technical specifics of any given technology merely because it is a component
of the typical organisation’s IT environment. Instead, students should be given the opportunity to understand how these technologies
can be used in digital innovation (Fichman et al., 2014).
To stimulate entrepreneurial intentions among students, entrepreneurship education should go beyond the traditional education
form that is based on passive teaching (Batool et al., 2015; Bhatti et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2018; Tu et al., 2021). One of the models that
can be used in entrepreneurship education is the experiential learning model. Williams (1986) stated that “experiential learning
stimulates original thinking and develops a wide range of thinking strategies and perceptual skills which are not called forth by books
or lectures”. According to Kolb (2014), experiential learning is “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation
of experience”. The four stages of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle are Concrete Experience (CE) in this stage, the learner actively
experiments with a concept, and then in the Reflective Observation (RO) stage, the learner consciously reflects on that experience.
Next, in the Abstract Conceptualisation (AC) stage, the learner attempts to generalise a model of what is experienced. Finally, in the
Active Experimentation (AE) stage, the learner applies the model to a new experiment (Konak et al., 2014). Experiential learning focus
on learning through doing, it provides students with the opportunity to think more critically, connect knowledge taught in the
classroom to real-world situations, and reflect on their experiences (Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020; Schreck et al., 2020).
One of the approaches that can be used to implement experiential education in entrepreneurship is project-based learning (Ben
Youssef et al., 2021; Mancha & Shankaranarayanan, 2020). Students’ digital entrepreneurial intention can be developed due to
projects that expose students to practical and actual business issues and hands-on work connected to digital venturing. Additionally,
universities can establish Technology Business Incubators (TBI) (Koe et al., 2021), to support innovation and venturing into digital
businesses. These Technology Business Incubators (TBI) can provide students with advanced technology, technical and research re
sources, expertise, entrepreneurial skill, and capital (Mian et al., 2016). Other approaches that can be applied include role-playing,
new venture simulations, vocational training programs, seminars, workshops, entrepreneur keynote speakers, and case (Ayed,
16
2020; Ben Youssef et al., 2021; Farani et al., 2017). Prior studies (e.g., Batool et al., 2015; Koe et al., 2021) suggested that motivating
students to participate in business plan competitions at the university or national level can stimulate their digital entrepreneurial
intentions.
The result of this study contributes to the Saudi Arabia government that attempts to restructure the Saudi economy by reducing its
reliance on oil revenues, accelerating the share of SMEs in GDP, as well as decreasing the unemployment rate. Additionally, the Saudi
government gives considerable attention to innovation, human capital, SMEs, and information and communication technology to
enhance its knowledge-based economy. Since human capital is one of the main pillars of the knowledge-based economy, the result of
this study can help the Saudi government identify the required individual characteristics of potential digital entrepreneurs. Therefore,
the government should allocate resources to enhance digital entrepreneurship education in universities, establish Technology Business
Incubators (TBI) and training institutions, and improve communications services and information technology infrastructure to
encourage individuals to engage in technology-based businesses.
8. Conclusion and research limitations
In conclusion, this study aims to explore how individual characteristics can trigger students’ intention to engage in a technology-
based venture. To achieve this aim, this study developed a model including the five constructs of entrepreneurial alertness, digital
innovativeness, passion, curiosity, and digital competency. Based on data collected online from 219 undergraduate business admin
istration students in Saudi Arabia, the results indicate that entrepreneurial alertness and digital innovativeness play a significant direct
role in predicting digital entrepreneurial intention among university students. Additionally, entrepreneurial alertness and digital
innovativeness fully intermediate the influence of entrepreneurial passion, curiosity, and digital competence on digital entrepreneurial
intention. Moreover, the findings validated the crucial impact of entrepreneurial passion, entrepreneurial curiosity, and digital
competence on developing students’ alertness and innovativeness levels.
There are some limits to this study, as well as potential prospective directions for future researchers. The findings of this study were
derived from data obtained from undergraduate students at a public university in Saudi Arabia. Future studies could replicate the
suggested model adopting a wider perspective by applying it in other countries to enhance the generalisability of the results. Only
undergraduate business students were included in the study. Therefore, future research could broaden the existing sample by including
students from a variety of educational backgrounds such as engineering, science, etc…. Moreover, the nature of the current study was
cross-sectional, and the study recommends future researchers to conduct a longitudinal study that could contribute more to the
entrepreneurship literature. Finally, more individual characteristics can be investigated in future studies.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Moustafa Elnadi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Resources, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing, Visualization. Mohamed Hani Gheith: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review &
editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors state that they have no conflict of interest to declare.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Abdelfattah, F., Al Halbusi, H., & Al-Brwani, R. M (2022). Influence of self-perceived creativity and social media use in predicting E-entrepreneurial intention.
International Journal of Innovation Studies, 6(3), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2022.04.003
Adiningrum, T. S. (2021). The effect of curiosity on the perception of entrepreneurial opportunity. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 27, 1–11.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems
Research, 9(2), 204–215.
Ahlin, B., Drnovšek, M., & Hisrich, R. D. (2014). Entrepreneurs’ creativity and firm innovation: The moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Small Business
Economics, 43(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9531-7
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)
90020-T
Akhter, A., Karim, M. M., & Islam, K. M. (2022). The impact of creativity and innovativeness on digital entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. The
Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 9(3), 77–82.
Akter, A., Rana, S. M. S., & Ramli, A. J. (2020). Factors influencing social entrepreneurial behavior: Evidence from a developing nation. International Journal of Ethics
and Systems, 36(4), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-05-2020-0076
17
Al-Mamary, Y. H. S., & Alraja, M. M. (2022). Understanding entrepreneurship intention and behavior in the light of TPB model from the digital entrepreneurship
perspective. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 2(2), Article 100106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100106
Ali, I., Ali, M., & Badghish, S. (2019). Symmetric and asymmetric modeling of entrepreneurial ecosystem in developing entrepreneurial intentions among female
university students in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 11(4), 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-02-2019-0039
Almani, K. S. P. (2019). The impact of E-commerce on the development of entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia. Journal of International Technology and Information
Management, 28(4), 28–62. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/leeds.ac.uk?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/impact-e-commerce-on-
development-entrepreneurship/docview/2419750333/se-2?accountid=14664. leeds.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/openurl/44LEE_INST/44LEE_INST.
Altinay, L., Kromidha, E., Nurmagambetova, A., Alrawadieh, Z., & Madanoglu, G. K. (2021). A social cognition perspective on entrepreneurial personality traits and
intentions to start a business: Does creativity matter? Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2020-1592. ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print).
Alzamel, S., Nazri, M., & Omar, S. (2020). Factors influencing e-entrepreneurial intention among female students in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Criminology
and Sociology, 9, 1996–2003.
Anwar, I., & Saleem, I. (2019). Exploring entrepreneurial characteristics among university students: an evidence from India. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjie-07-2018-0044
Arikan, A. M., Arikan, I., & Koparan, I. (2020). Creation opportunities: Entrepreneurial curiosity, generative cognition, and knightian uncertainty. Academy of
Management Review, 45(4), 808–824. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2018.0252
Armuña, C., Ramos, S., Juan, J., Feijóo, C., & Arenal, A. (2020). From stand-up to start-up: exploring entrepreneurship competences and STEM women’s intention.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00627-z
Astrachan, C. B., Patel, V. K., & Wanzenried, G. (2014). A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM for theory development in family firm research. Journal of Family
Business Strategy, 5(1), 116–128.
Awwad, M. S., & Al-Aseer, R. M. N. (2021). Big Five personality traits impact on entrepreneurial intention: the mediating role of entrepreneurial alertness. Asia Pacific
Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjie-09-2020-0136. ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print).
Ayed, T. L. (2020). Extending the debate over entrepreneurial education effectiveness: the case of a Saudi university. Education and Training, 62(7–8), 805–823.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2019-0273
Baig, U., Hussain, B. M., Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I., & Davidavicius, S. (2022). Digital entrepreneurship: future research directions and opportunities for new business
model. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(9), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095004
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Batool, H., Rasheed, H., Malik, M. I., & Hussain, S. (2015). Application of partial least square in predicting e-entrepreneurial intention among business students:
evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-015-0019-3
Beliaeva, T., Ferasso, M., Kraus, S., & Damke, E. J. (2019). Dynamics of digital entrepreneurship and the innovation ecosystem: A multilevel perspective. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 26(2), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2019-0397
Bell, R. (2019). Predicting entrepreneurial intention across the university. Education and Training, 61(7–8), 815–831. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2018-0117
Belmonte, Z. J. A., Cruz, C. S. C., De Castro, P. A. P., Estoesta, L. A., Mitra, E. J. A., & Lira, P. E. V. R. (2022). Factors influencing technopreneurial intention among
undergraduate engineering students in the Philippines. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 36(1), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2022/
v36i1/22146
Ben Youssef, A., Boubaker, S., Dedaj, B., & Carabregu-Vokshi, M. (2021). Digitalization of the economy and entrepreneurship intention. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 164(March 2020), Article 120043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120043
Bergner, S., Auburger, J., & Paleczek, D. (2021). The why and the how: A nexus on how opportunity, risk and personality affect entrepreneurial intention. Journal of
Small Business Management, 00(00), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1934849
Bhatt, R. K., Ubharadka, A., & Kiranbabu, N. C. (2020). Creative behaviour and entrepreneurial alertness among Indian students. July. https://doi.org/10.25215/
0801.089.
Bhatti, M. A., A Al Doghan, M., Mat Saat, S. A., Juhari, A. S., & Alshagawi, M (2021). Entrepreneurial intentions among women: does entrepreneurial training and
education matters? (Pre- and post-evaluation of psychological attributes and its effects on entrepreneurial intention). Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 28(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-09-2019-0305
Biraglia, A., & Kadile, V. (2017). The role of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions: Insights from American homebrewers.
Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12242
Biswas, A., & Verma, R. K. (2021). Attitude and alertness in personality traits: A pathway to building entrepreneurial intentions among university students. Journal of
Entrepreneurship, 30(2), 367–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/09713557211025656
Bombaerts, G., & Spahn, A. (2021). Simplify! using self-determination theory to prioritise the redesign of an ethics and history of technology course. European Journal
of Engineering Education, 46(2), 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1702924
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
18(4), 63–77.
Brandstatter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 222–230. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
Bueckmann-Diegoli, R., García de los Salmones Sánchez, M.del M., & San Martín Gutiérrez, H. (2020). The development of entrepreneurial alertness in undergraduate
students. Education and Training. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2019-0042
Campos, H. M. (2016). The role of creativity in mediating the relationship between entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial alertness. Revista Brasileira de Gestão
de Negócios, 18(61), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v18i61.3010
Cardon, M. S., Glauser, M., & Murnieks, C. Y. (2017). Passion for what? Expanding the domains of entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8
(January 2017), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.05.004
Cardon, M. S., Gregoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., & Patel, P. C. (2013). Measuring entrepreneurial passion: Conceptual foundations and scale validation. Journal of Business
Venturing, 28(3), 373–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.003
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511–532.
Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and
experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133–153.
Çelik, A. K., Yıldız, T., Aykanat, Z., & Kazemzadeh, S. (2021). The impact of narrow personality traits on entrepreneurial intention in developing countries: A
comparison of Turkish and Iranian undergraduate students using ordered discrete choice models. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 27(1),
1–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.100138
Celik, P., Storme, M., Davila, A., & Myszkowski, N. (2016). Work-related curiosity positively predicts worker innovation. The Journal of Management Development, 35
(9), 1184–1194. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2016-0013
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2014). Personality and intellectual competence. Psychology Press.
Chang, S. H., Shu, Y., Wang, C. L., Chen, M. Y., & Ho, W. S. (2020). Cyber-entrepreneurship as an innovative orientation: Does positive thinking moderate the
relationship between cyber-entrepreneurial self-efficacy and cyber-entrepreneurial intentions in Non-IT students? Computers in Human Behavior, 107(April 2019),
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.039
Chang, S. H., Wang, C. L., Lee, J. C., & Yu, L. C. (2018). Who needs entrepreneurial role models? Driving forces of students’ cyber-entrepreneurial career intention.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(7), 3083–3098. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/91625
Chavoushi, Z. H., Zali, M. R., Valliere, D., Faghih, N., Hejazi, R., & Dehkordi, A. M. (2021). Entrepreneurial alertness: A systematic literature review. Journal of Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, 33(2), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2020.1764736
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655–690). Springer.
18
Choukir, J., Aloulou, W. J., Ayadi, F., & Mseddi, S. (2019). Influences of role models and gender on Saudi Arabian freshman students’ entrepreneurial intention.
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 186–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-08-2018-0083
Ciriello, R. F., Richter, A., & Schwabe, G. (2018). Digital innovation. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60(6), 563–569.
Cnossen, B., Loots, E., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2019). Individual motivation among entrepreneurs in the creative and cultural industries: A self-determination
perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(3), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12315
Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic press.
Costa, P. T., Jr, & McCrae, R. R (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665.
Dantsoho, M. A., Adamu, A. A., Yazeed, M., Abdullahi, N., Ringim, K. J., & Umar, S. (2020). Digital orientation scale: Development and validation. In 2020
International Conference on Data Analytics for Business and Industry: Way Towards a Sustainable Economy (ICDABI) (pp. 1–6).
Darmanto, S., Darmawan, D., Ekopriyono, A., & Dhani, A. U. (2022). Development of digital entrepreneurial intention model in Uncertain Era. Uncertain Supply Chain
Management, 10(3), 1091–1102. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2022.7.050
Davidson, E., & Vaast, E. (2010). Digital entrepreneurship and its sociomaterial enactment. In 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10).
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004
Dinis, A., Paço, A.do, Ferreira, J., Raposo, M., & Rodrigues, R. G. (2013). Psychological characteristics and entrepreneurial intentions among secondary students.
Education and Training, 55(8–9), 763–780. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2013-0085
Dutot, V., & Van Horne, C. (2015). Digital entrepreneurship intention in a developed vs. Emerging country: An exploratory study in France and the UAE. Transnational
Corporations Review, 7(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.5148/tncr.2015.7105
Dutta, D. K., Dutta, D. K., Gwebu, K. L., Gwebu, K. L., Wang, J., & Wang, J. (2015). Personal innovativeness in technology, related knowledge and experience, and
entrepreneurial intentions in emerging technology industries: a process of causation or effectuation? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(3),
529–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0287-y
Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Passiante, G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the
entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150(September 2019), Article 119791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119791
Elnadi, M., & Gheith, M. H. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention in higher education: Evidence from Saudi
Arabia. International Journal of Management Education, 19(1), Article 100458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100458
Elnadi, Moustafa, Gheith, M. H., & Farag, T. (2020). How does the perception of entrepreneurial ecosystem affect entrepreneurial intention among university students
in Saudi Arabia? International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 24(3), 1–15.
Farani, Y. A., Karimi, S., & Motaghed, M. (2017). The role of entrepreneurial knowledge as a competence in shaping Iranian students’ career intentions to start a new
digital business. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2016-0054
Fernandes, C., Ferreira, J. J., Veiga, P. M., Kraus, S., & Dabić, M. (2022). Digital entrepreneurship platforms: Mapping the field and looking towards a holistic
approach. Technology in Society, Article 101979.
Fernández-Pérez, V., Montes-Merino, A., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Galicia, P. E. A. (2019). Emotional competencies and cognitive antecedents in shaping student’s
entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of entrepreneurship education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(1), 281–305.
Fichman, R. G., Dos Santos, B. L., & Zheng, Z (2014). Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Quarterly,
38(2), 329–A15.
Gabrielsson, M., Raatikainen, M., & Julkunen, S. (2022). Accelerated internationalization among inexperienced digital entrepreneurs: Toward a holistic
entrepreneurial decision-making model. In Management International Review, 62. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-022-00469-y
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Hair, J. J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Hair, J. J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. saGe publications.
Hair, Joe F, Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
Hair, Joseph F, Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hair, J. F., Jr, Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research,
109, 101–110.
Hair, N., Wetsch, L. R., Hull, C. E., Perotti, V., & Hung, Y.-T. C. (2012). Market orientation in digital entrepreneurship: Advantages and challenges in a Web 2.0
networked world. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 9(06), Article 1250045.
Ham, M., Jeger, M., & Frajman Ivković, A. (2015). The role of subjective norms in forming the intention to purchase green food. Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istraživanja, 28(1), 738–748.
Hayton, J. C., & Cholakova, M. (2012). The role of affect in the creation and intentional pursuit of entrepreneurial ideas. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1),
41–67.
He, T., Huang, Q., Yu, X., & Li, S. (2020). Exploring students’ digital informal learning: The roles of digital competence and DTPB factors. Behaviour and Information
Technology, 0(0), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1752800
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 116
(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing, 20 pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
Hernández-Perlines, F., Ibarra Cisneros, M. A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Mogorrón-Guerrero, H. (2020). Innovativeness as a determinant of entrepreneurial orientation:
Analysis of the hotel sector. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 33(1), 2305–2321. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1696696
Hon, A. H. Y., & Lui, S. S. (2016). Employee creativity and innovation in organizations: Review, integration, and future directions for hospitality research. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(5), 862–885. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2014-0454
Hu, R., Wang, L., Zhang, W., & Bin, P. (2018). Creativity, proactive personality, and entrepreneurial intention: The role of entrepreneurial alertness. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9(JUN), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00951
Hu, R., & Ye, Y. (2017). Do entrepreneurial alertness and self-efficacy predict Chinese sports major students’ entrepreneurial intention? Social Behavior and Personality,
45(7), 1187–1196. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6356
Huang, T.-C., Wang, Y.-J., & Lai, H.-M. (2022). What drives internet entrepreneurial intention to use technology products? An investigation of technology product
imagination disposition, social support, and motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 829256. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.829256
Hubner, S., Baum, M., & Frese, M. (2020). Contagion of entrepreneurial passion: Effects on employee outcomes. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 44(6),
1112–1140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719883995
Hull, C. E., Hung, Y. T. C., Hair, N., Perotti, V., & Demartino, R. (2007). Taking advantage of digital opportunities: A typology of digital entrepreneurship. International
Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 4(3), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJNVO.2007.015166
Indrawati, N. K., Salim, U., Djumahir, & Djawahir, A. H (2015). Moderation effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in relation between environmental dimensions and
entrepreneurial alertness and the effect on entrepreneurial commitment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 169(August 2014), 13–22. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.281
Ismail, N., Jaffar, N., Khan, S., & Leng, T. S. (2012). Tracking the cyber entrepreneurial intention of private universities students in Malaysia. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 17(4), 538–546. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2012.050169
19
Jafari-Sadeghi, V., Garcia-Perez, A., Candelo, E., & Couturier, J. (2021). Exploring the impact of digital transformation on technology entrepreneurship and
technological market expansion: The role of technology readiness, exploration and exploitation. Journal of Business Research, 124(April 2020), 100–111. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.020
Jeraj, M., & Antoncic, B. (2013). A Conceptualization of Entrepreneurial Curiosity and Construct Development: A Multi-Country Empirical Validation. Creativity
Research Journal, 25(4), 426–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.843350
Jeraj, M., & Marič, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial curiosity–the new construct. In High Potentials, Lean Organization, Internet of Things: Proceedings of the 32nd International
Conference on Organizational Science Development (pp. 289–298).
Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2021). The role of entrepreneurial agility in digital entrepreneurship and creating value in response to digital disruption in the newspaper
industry. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(5), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052741
Karimi, S. (2020). The role of entrepreneurial passion in the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Applied Economics, 52(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00036846.2019.1645287
Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., & McKnight, P. E. (2020). The five-dimensional curiosity scale revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales while separating
overt and covert social curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 157(January). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109836
Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F. (2009). The curiosity and exploration inventory-II:
Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 987–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.011
Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, 2, 367–374.
Kashdan, T. B., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. D., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., & Lazarus, R. (2018). The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth
of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.011
Kasilingam, D. L. (2020). Understanding the attitude and intention to use smartphone chatbots for shopping. Technology in Society, 62(May), Article 101280. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101280
Kerr, S. P., Kerr, W. R., & Xu, T. (2018). Personality traits of entrepreneurs: A review of recent literature. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 279–356.
Kirzner, I. M. (1985). Discovery and the capitalist process. University of Chicago Press.
Klarner, P., Sarstedt, M., Hoeck, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2013). Disentangling the effects of team competences, team adaptability, and client communication on the
performance of management consulting teams. Long Range Planning, 46(3), 258–286.
Koe, W.-L., Mahphoth, M. H., Alias, N. E., Krishnan, R., & Arham, A. F. (2021). Factors influencing intention towards technopreneurship among university students.
Journal of Educational and Social Research, 11(1), 162.
Koh, H. (1996). Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of Hong Kong MBA students. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 12–25. https://
doi.org/10.1108/02683949610113566
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., Niemand, T., Hensellek, S., & de Cruppe, K. (2021). A configurational approach to entrepreneurial orientation and cooperation
explaining product/service innovation in digital vs. non-digital startups. Journal of Business Research, 125(September 2019), 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2019.09.041
Konak, A., Clark, T. K., & Nasereddin, M. (2014). Using Kolb’s experiential learning cycle to improve student learning in virtual computer laboratories. Computers and
Education, 72, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.013
Kraus, S., Palmer, C., Kailer, N., Kallinger, F. L., & Spitzer, J. (2019). Digital entrepreneurship: A research agenda on new business models for the twenty-first century.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 25(2), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2018-0425
Ladeira, M. J. M., Ferreira, F. A. F., Ferreira, J. J. M., Fang, W., Falcão, P. F., & Rosa, Á. A. (2019). Exploring the determinants of digital entrepreneurship using fuzzy
cognitive maps. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), 1077–1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00574-9
Lai, C., Wang, Q., & Lei, J. (2012). What factors predict undergraduate students’ use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong. Computers and Education, 59
(2), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.006
Lai, L. S. L., & To, W. M. (2020). E-Entrepreneurial intention among young Chinese adults. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 28(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19761597.2020.1713832
Laouiti, R., Haddoud, M. Y., Nakara, W. A., & Onjewu, A.-K. E. (2022). A gender-based approach to the influence of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention.
Journal of Business Research, 142, 819–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.018
Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the big five personality traits.
Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.042
Li, C., Murad, M., Shahzad, F., Khan, M. A. S., Ashraf, S. F., & Dogbe, C. S. K. (2020). Entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial behavior: Role of entrepreneurial
alertness, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and proactive personality. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(August), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01611
Li, J., Qu, J., & Huang, Q. (2018). Why are some graduate entrepreneurs more innovative than others? The effect of human capital, psychological factor and
entrepreneurial rewards on entrepreneurial innovativeness. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(5–6), 479–501.
Li, L. N., Huang, J. H., & Gao, S. Y. (2022). The relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intention among college students: The mediating role of
creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(February), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.822206
Li, Y., Wang, P., & Liang, Y. J. (2015). Influence of entrepreneurial experience, alertness, and prior knowledge on opportunity recognition. Social Behavior and
Personality, 43(9), 1575–1584. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.9.1575
Lian, J. W., & Yen, D. C. (2017). Understanding the relationships between online entrepreneurs’ personal innovativeness, risk taking, and satisfaction: Comparison of
pure-play and click-and-mortar. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 27(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2017.1297650
Liang, C. (2019). How entrepreneur personality affects agrirural entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 15(1), 147–169.
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. (2009). Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 33(3), 593–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x
Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1585–1595.
Llewellyn, D. J., & Wilson, K. M. (2003). The controversial role of personality traits in entrepreneurial psychology. Education & Training (London), 45(6), 341–345.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910310495996
Lu, H., & Wang, J. (2018). Entrepreneurial intention of two patterns of planned behaviour and alertness: Empirical evidence in China. Journal of Asian Finance,
Economics and Business, 5(2), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2018.vol5.no2.63
Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2015). Social cognitive theory (pp. 225–251). Fac Health Sci Publ.
Mahmud, M. (2020). Impact analysis of digital transformations on entrepreneurial ecosystem in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Entrepreneurship
Education, 23(1), 1–15. https://search-proquest-com.proxy.library.dmu.ac.uk/docview/2425599591/fulltextPDF/75D4482ADDD6481EPQ/1?accountid=10472.
Mancha, R., & Shankaranarayanan, G. (2020). Making a digital innovator: antecedents of innovativeness with digital technologies. Information Technology and People,
34(1), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2018-0577
Mand, H. S., Atri, M., & Gill, A. (2018). Influence of unemployment and education on women’s intentions to start e-entrepreneurship: Evidence from Indian survey
data. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 35(2), 203–219.
McAdam, M., Crowley, C., & Harrison, R. T. (2019). To boldly go where no [man] has gone before” - institutional voids and the development of women’s digital
entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146(December 2017), 912–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.051
McAdam, Maura, Crowley, C., & Harrison, R. T. (2020). Digital girl: Cyberfeminism and the emancipatory potential of digital entrepreneurship in emerging
economies. Small Business Economics, 55(4), 1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00321-3
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1),
132–152.
Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Technology business incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50, 1–12.
20
Millman, C., Li, Z., Matlay, H., & Wong, W. (2010). Entrepreneurship education and students’ internet entrepreneurship intentions: Evidence from Chinese HEIs.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(4), 569–590. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001011088732
Mimiaga, M. J., Reisner, S. L., Reilly, L., Soroudi, N., & Safren, S. A (2009). Chapter 8 - Individual interventions. In K. H. Mayer, & H. F. Pizer (Eds.), HIV Prevention
(pp. 203–239). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374235-3.00008-X.
Mir, A. A., Hassan, S., & Khan, S. J. (2022). Understanding digital entrepreneurial intentions: A capital theory perspective. International Journal of Emerging Markets.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-05-2021-0687
Montiel-Campos, H. (2018). The entrepreneurial passion-entrepreneurial alertness relationship: The moderating role of a creative personality. Serbian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm13-16021
Montiel Campos, H. (2017). Impact of entrepreneurial passion on entrepreneurial orientation with the mediating role of entrepreneurial alertness for technology-
based firms in Mexico. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(2), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-10-2016-0166
Mumford, M. D., & McIntosh, T. (2017). Creative thinking processes: The past and the future. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 317–322.
Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055.
https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12254
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2021). On the costs of digital entrepreneurship: Role conflict, stress, and venture performance in digital platform-based ecosystems.
Journal of Business Research, 125(June 2019), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.037
Nasip, S., Amirul, S. R., Jr, S. L. S., & Tanakinjal, G. H. (2017). Psychological characteristics and entrepreneurial intention: A study among university students in North
Borneo, Malaysia. Education & Training (London), 59(7/8), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2015-0092
Neneh, B. N. (2019). From entrepreneurial alertness to entrepreneurial behavior: The role of trait competitiveness and proactive personality. Personality and Individual
Differences, 138(June 2018), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.020
Neneh, B. N. (2020). Entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention: The role of social support and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Studies in Higher Education, 0
(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1770716
Ng, H. S., & Kee, D. M. H. (2018). The core competence of successful owner-managed SMEs. Management Decision, 56(1), 252–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-
2016-0877
Ngoasong, M. Z. (2018). Digital entrepreneurship in a resource-scarce context: A focus on entrepreneurial digital competencies. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 25(3), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-01-2017-0014
Nikraftar, T., & Hosseini, E. (2016). Factors affecting entrepreneurial opportunities recognition in tourism small and medium sized enterprises. Tourism Review, 71(1),
6–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-09-2015-0042
Obschonka, M., Hahn, E., & Bajwa, N.ul H. (2018). Personal agency in newly arrived refugees: The role of personality, entrepreneurial cognitions and intentions, and
career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 105(February 2017), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.01.003
Obschonka, M., Moeller, J., & Goethner, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial passion and personality: The case of academic entrepreneurship. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(JAN),
1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02697
Obschonka, M., Obschonka, M., Hakkarainen, K., Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K., Lonka, K., Salmela-Aro, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2017). Entrepreneurship as a twenty-first
century skill: Entrepreneurial alertness and intention in the transition to adulthood. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-
016-9798-6
Obschonka, M., Schmitt-Rodermund, E., & Terracciano, A. (2014). Personality and the gender gap in self-employment: A multi-nation study. PloS One, 9(8), Article
e103805.
Oggero, N., Rossi, M. C., & Ughetto, E. (2020). Entrepreneurial spirits in women and men. The role of financial literacy and digital skills. Small Business Economics, 55
(2), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00299-7
Peljko, Ž., Jeraj, M., Sǎvoiu, G., & Marič, M. (2016). An empirical study of the relationship between entrepreneurial curiosity and innovativeness. Organizacija, 49(3),
172–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/orga-2016-0016
Permatasari, A., & Anggadwita, G. (2019). Digital Entrepreneurship Education in Emerging Countries, 156–169. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7473-6.ch008
Philippe, F. L., Vallerand, R. J., Houlfort, N., Lavigne, G. L., & Donahue, E. G. (2010). Passion for an activity and quality of interpersonal relationships: The mediating
role of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 917.
Postigo, Á., Cuesta, M., García-Cueto, E., Prieto-Díez, F., & Muñiz, J. (2021). General versus specific personality traits for predicting entrepreneurship. Personality and
Individual Differences, 182, Article 111094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111094
Puente-Díaz, R., & Cavazos-Arroyo, J. (2017). Creative self-efficacy: The influence of affective states and social persuasion as antecedents and imagination and
divergent thinking as consequences. Creativity Research Journal, 29(3), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1360067
Raine, A. L., & Pandya, M. (2019). Three keys to entrepreneurial success: curiosity, creativity, and commitment. Entrepreneurship Education, 2(3–4), 189–198. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s41959-019-00019-y
Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2020). The future of digital entrepreneurship research: Existing and emerging opportunities. In 40th International Conference on Information
Systems, ICIS 2019, September.
Reis, D. A., Fleury, A. L., & Carvalho, M. M. (2020). Consolidating core entrepreneurial competences: Toward a meta-competence framework. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 27(1), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2020-0079
Rusu, V. D., & Roman, A. (2020). E-entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of EU countries. Open Economics, 3(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/
openec-2020-0001
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55
(1), 68–78.
Sahut, J. M., Iandoli, L., & Teulon, F. (2021). The age of digital entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 56(3), 1159–1169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-
00260-8
Salhieh, S. M., & Al-Abdallat, Y. (2022). Technopreneurial intentions: The effect of innate innovativeness and academic self-efficacy. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland),
14(1), 238. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010238
Salmony, F. U., & Kanbach, D. K. (2022). Personality trait differences across types of entrepreneurs: a systematic literature review. In Review of managerial science, 16.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00466-9
Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2012). Research methods for business students (4th ed.). Pearson Education Ltd. http://iau.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/
eLvHCXMwbV09T8MwED2lRULtVL7U8iWLga0Q20lMVqqWCtEKAUsny24cCYHawYTfz9mJUVtYIiXO4JfEL_b53TsAzm7i4Q4n5Hqp-
NLkRZJnpqRFmhaJ4YyXKtY49H31t4WYz_nLQzaNIBRJDSaO76rOwrVqd1mPFGaCtPKWbokrEyQBVvv8tvDLv3OFHR7F828Exjm1UOc
Schlaegel, C., Engle, R. L., Richter, N. F., & Taureck, P. C. (2021). Personal factors, entrepreneurial intention, and entrepreneurial status: A multinational study in
three institutional environments. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 19(3), 357–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-021-00287-7
Schreck, C. M., Weilbach, J. T., & Reitsma, G. M. (2020). Improving graduate attributes by implementing an experiential learning teaching approach: A case study in
recreation education. The Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 26, Article 100214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100214
Schulte-Holthaus, S., & Kuckertz, A. (2020). Passion, performance and concordance in rock “n” roll entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research, 26(6), 1335–1355. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2020-0067
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60(December 2019), Article 101832.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2020). A meta-analysis of the relationship between curiosity and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 940–947.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37
(3), 580–607. https://doi.org/10.5465/256701
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
21
Sharma, L. (2019). A systematic review of the concept of entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 11(2), 217–233. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JEEE-05-2018-0049
Shimoli, S. M., Cai, W., Abbas Naqvi, M. H., & Lang, Q. (2020). Entrepreneurship success traits. Do Kenyans possess the desired entrepreneur personality traits for
enhanced E-entrepreneurship? Case study of Kenyan students in the people’s republic of China. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), Article 1847863.
Soomro, B. A., & Shah, N. (2021). Technopreneurship intention among nonbusiness students: a quantitative assessment. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management
and Sustainable Development, 17(3), 502–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-10-2020-0129
Stanić, M. (2020). Decoding the entrepreneurial capacity: The case of entrepreneurial alertness. In , 2. Proceedings of FEB Zagreb International Odyssey Conference on
Economics and Business (pp. 663–672).
Suparno, S., Saptono, A., Wibowo, A., & Shandy, B. (2020). Factors influencing students’ intention to establish a digital business (Start-Up). International Journal of
Innovation, Creativity and Change, 12(8), 73–91.
Syed, I., Butler, J. C., Smith, R. M., & Cao, X. (2020). From entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial intentions: The role of entrepreneurial passion, innovativeness,
and curiosity in driving entrepreneurial intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 157(January). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109758
Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M. M., & Busenitz, L. (2012). Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 77–94. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.07.001
Thomas, A. S., & Mueller, S. L. (2000). A case for comparative entrepreneurship: Assessing the relevance of culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2),
287–301.
Thompson, E. R. (2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 33(3), 669–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00321.x
Tseng, T. H., Wang, Y. M., Lin, H. H., Lin, S.jeng, Wang, Y. S., & Tsai, T. H (2022). Relationships between locus of control, theory of planned behavior, and cyber
entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of cyber entrepreneurship education. International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), Article 100682.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100682
Tu, B., Bhowmik, R., Hasan, M. K., Asheq, A. Al, Rahaman, M. A., & Chen, X (2021). Graduate students’ behavioral intention of toward social entrepreneurship: Role
of social vision, innovativeness, social proactiveness, and risk taking. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(11), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116386
Türk, S., Zapkau, F. B., & Schwens, C. (2020). Prior entrepreneurial exposure and the emergence of entrepreneurial passion: The moderating role of learning
orientation. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(2), 225–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2019.1659678
Urban, B. (2019). Entrepreneurial alertness and self-efficacy: A focus on social values and innovation performance. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 17,
1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v17i0.1132
Urban, B. (2020). Entrepreneurial alertness, self-efficacy and social entrepreneurship intentions. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(3), 489–507.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-08-2019-0285
Uy, M. A., Chan, K. Y., Sam, Y. L., Ho, M., ho, R., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2015). Proactivity, adaptability and boundaryless career attitudes: The mediating role of
entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.11.005
Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Léonard, M., Gagné, M., & Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de l’ame: on obsessive and
harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 756.
Wang, L.-Y., & Huang, J.-H. (2022). The relationship between internal locus of control and entrepreneurial intentions of college students: A chain mediation model.
International Journal of Educational Methodology, 8(1), 139–149.
Wang, Y. S., Lin, S.jeng, Yeh, C. H., Li, C. R., & Li, H. T (2016). What drives students’ cyber entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of disciplinary difference.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.08.003
Wathanakom, N., Khlaisang, J., & Songkram, N. (2020). The study of the causal relationship between innovativeness and entrepreneurial intention among
undergraduate students. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-00125-5
Welsum, D.van. (2016). Enabling digital entrepreneurs. World Development Report, 1–12. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2016/02/25851780/world-
development-report-2016-digital-dividends-enabling-digital-entrepreneurs.
Williams, L. V. (1986). Teaching for the two-sided mind. Simon and Schuster.
Yeh, C. H., Wang, Y. S., Hsu, J. W., & Lin, S.jeng. (2020). Predicting individuals’ digital autopreneurship: Does educational intervention matter? Journal of Business
Research, 106(2), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.020
Yordanova, D., Filipe, J. A., & Coelho, M. P. (2020). Technopreneurial intentions among Bulgarian STEM students: The role of university. Sustainability (Switzerland),
12(16), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166455
Younis, H., Katsioloudes, M., & Bakri, A. Al (2020). Digital entrepreneurship intentions of Qatar university students motivational factors identification: Digital
entrepreneurship intentions. International Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 10(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEEI.2020010105
Zhang, Y., Duysters, G. M., & Cloodt, M. M. A. H. (2014). The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial intention.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(3), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0246-z
22

The Role of Individual Characteristics in Shaping Digital Entrepreneurial Intention Among University Students: Evidence From Saudi Arabia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Individual Characteristics in Shaping Digital Entrepreneurial Intention Among University Students: Evidence From Saudi Arabia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

The Role of Individual Characteristics in Shaping Digital Entrepreneurial Intention Among University Students: Evidence From Saudi Arabia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thinking Skills and Creativity 47 (2023) 101236

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

The role of individual characteristics in shaping digital

Thinking Skills and Creativity 47 (2023) 101236

Fig. 1. The proposed model.

3.1. Digital innovativeness

H1: Digital innovativeness will positively relate to digital entrepreneurial intention.

3.2. Entrepreneurship alertness

forming entrepreneurial intention among participants.

H2: Entrepreneurial alertness will positively relate to digital entrepreneurial intention.

3.3. Entrepreneurial passion

H3: Entrepreneurial passion will have a positive effect on digital innovativeness.

3.4. Entrepreneurial curiosity

H5: Entrepreneurial curiosity will positively influence entrepreneurial alertness.

3.5. Digital competence

H7: Digital competence will positively relate to entrepreneurial alertness.

4.1. Sample and procedure

4.2. Measurement of variables

4.2.1. Digital entrepreneurial intention

4.2.2. Entrepreneurial alertness

4.2.3. Digital innovativeness

4.2.4. Entrepreneurial passion

4.2.5. Entrepreneurial curiosity

4.2.6. Digital competence

5.1. Measurement model

5.2. Structural model

1. Digital Entrepreneurial Intention 0.749 0.504 0.601 0.412 0.350 0.498

Hypothesised Paths В t-statistic Effect Size (f2) Percentile 95% CI Support

H1: DINN->DEI 0.405*** 5.434 0.152 [0.277; 0.525] Yes

DC -> DINN-> DEI 0.145*** 0.184***

Fig. 2. The structure model.

7.1. Theoretical implications

trigger digital entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Saudi Arabia.

7.2. Practical implications

8. Conclusion and research limitations

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors state that they have no conflict of interest to declare.

Data will be made available on request.

You might also like

DC -> DINN-> DEI 0.145* 0.184*