Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The current research develops and tests a modified TPB model explaining how restaurant entrepreneurship education (EE) influences graduating hospitality students’ intentions (EI) to start a restaurant business. A total of 283 graduating hospitality students in Taiwan responded to the survey, and the structural equation modeling based on partial least square (PLS) was employed for analyzing the data of the study. The findings indicate that EE positively influences Theory of planned behavior (TPB) factors, such as attitude (AT), subjective norms (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC), which in turn influence startup intentions. However, EE directly lowers entrepreneurial intentions, perhaps due to its emphasis on the risks over the benefits. This study fills gaps in the literature by developing a revised TPB model that explains the mechanisms linking restaurant EE to the EI of graduating hospitality students in Taiwan. It contributes to the literature on modified TPB theory in the context of restaurant entrepreneurial education, providing evidence regarding the indirect effects of specialized EE on entrepreneurial intentions through attitudinal and motivational factors.

Plain language summary

How restaurant entrepreneurship education influences hospitality students’ plans to start their own business

This study investigates how education focused on restaurant entrepreneurship affects hospitality students’ plans to start their own restaurants. Using a well-known model called the Theory of Planned Behavior, the research examines how education influences students’ attitudes, social support, and confidence in their ability to start a business. The study surveyed 283 graduating hospitality students in Taiwan. The results show that restaurant entrepreneurship education positively shapes students’ attitudes, social influences, and perceived ability to succeed. However, it also suggests that this education might sometimes reduce their intention to start new business ventures. This research helps us understand the impact of specialized restaurant education on the entrepreneurial intentions of hospitality students. These insights can guide educators and policymakers in creating better programs to encourage future restaurant entrepreneurs.

Keywords

entrepreneurship education entrepreneurial motivation restaurant entrepreneurship intention modified TPB model hospitality student

Introduction

As societies rely on a continual supply of new entrepreneurs to maintain entrepreneurial dynamics, the topic of what constitutes an entrepreneur and whether entrepreneurship can be promoted has piqued the interest of researchers (Joensuu-Salo et al., 2019). Parker (2005) and Neck and Greene (2011) assert that entrepreneurship not only fosters employment, productivity gains, and economic growth, but also involves creating new opportunities and navigating risky, unknown settings.

Over the last two decades, the growth in youth unemployment has become an important issue for policymakers (Liotti, 2022), and is now a global issue that must be addressed (M. D. Ali et al., 2022; M. Ali et al., 2022). Research data on youth entrepreneurship demonstrates it is an effective approach to increase employment opportunities (Osabohien et al., 2022). Entrepreneurship is regarded as a promising and effective way to address youth employability as it is strongly related to self-employment (Y. H. Al-Mamary & Alshallaqi, 2022). According to researchers, entrepreneurs are frequently referred to as “economic growth engines” in society, as they have the capacity to make a big and positive impact to lowering youth unemployment in their country (Y. H. Al-Mamary & Alshallaqi, 2022). Echoing previous views, Mei et al. (2020) advocate for the development of students’ entrepreneurial intention (EI), which has garnered significant attention due to the changing labor market and challenging employment situation.

National and European government policymakers state young people entrepreneurship is a crucial component of economic recovery that increases income and creates innovation, self-employment, and job opportunities (Brînză et al., 2022). In Taiwan, the government supports young entrepreneurs with funding, consultancy, and loans, while global policies promote entrepreneurship education (EE) in higher education to boost students’ entrepreneurial intent and cultivate an entrepreneurial culture. EE enhances more than just entrepreneurial output; it is a crucial skill for both personal and professional development (Martínez-Gregorio et al., 2021).

EE is swiftly growing in popularity worldwide due to its effectiveness in connecting practical business strategies with theoretical academic insights. Within this context, university education is expected to promote entrepreneurship among their students (Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Padilla-Meléndez et al., 2014). Prior researchers propose EE might be a significant precondition for engaging in entrepreneurial endeavors (Jena, 2020; Ratten & Usmanij, 2021). EE is essential to increase students’ capacity to develop their own businesses via networking, creativity, innovation, and collaborative learning. (Mahendra et al., 2017). Lv et al. (2021) state elevating the importance of EE is crucial in resolving the effect of the youth employment crisis. In order to prepare citizens for the effects of globalization, as well as the profound shifts in education and society created by the emergence of new technologies and social transformation, EE is essential (C. H. Lee et al., 2019). Furthermore, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) cites three major barriers to entrepreneurship: social and cultural barriers, lack of capital, and lack of education (Rideout & Gray, 2013). Okoro et al. (2022) conclude EE has the potential to solve youth unemployment challenges in society.

As part of a larger effort to raise the quality of EE and promote students’ entrepreneurship learning, numerous universities are actively participating in a variety of educational programs. EE is perceived as being significant; however, there are minimal observational investigations on the impacts of EE on perceptions of entrepreneurship and EI (Y. H. S. Al-Mamary & Alraja, 2022; Mahendra et al., 2017; Mei et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2014). There is growing interest for the influence of EE on post-graduate students’ subsequent entrepreneurship behavior (Colombelli et al., 2022; Djazilan & Darmawan, 2022; Sieger et al., 2014; Wurthmann, 2014). Cui and Bell (2022) demonstrate EE activities are positively correlated with EI among students in higher education. Ntshangase and Ezeuduji (2023) evidence EE, which incorporates students’ impression of the allure and practicality of beginning organizations connected with tourism, impacts the EI of tourism students. Echoing previous literature, EE plays a beneficial role in enabling students to anticipate and predict future business possibilities.

Another research issue relates to the study of EI and entrepreneurial motivation. Entrepreneurial motivation is defined as “expectations and beliefs about the personal impacts of starting a business” (Almobaireek & Manolova, 2012). Solesvik (2013) conducted an extensive study to discover the factors impacting entrepreneurial motivation among university students in Ukraine. Carsrud and Brännback (2011) argue objectives and motives are significant for observing any human way of behaving, and that they are connected to intention, as motivation initiatives determine an individual’s course with drive and intention. Alam et al. (2019) also provide evidence that enterprising inspiration fundamentally influences the intention-behavior link in the TPB, which is an original finding and an expansion of the TPB. Motivators are instincts that ultimately drive behavior in the pursuit of a goal. Thus, to enhance the predictive power of understanding the development of EI, this conceptual model with entrepreneurial motivation theoretically contributes to the existing framework of the TPB.

Previous research on entrepreneurship conducts studies on various aspects including understanding how a person becomes an entrepreneur and their EI, which is essential to encouraging entrepreneurial activity (Chen & Elston, 2013; Zhang et al., 2014). Academic studies investigate several factors relating to EI, such as the decision-making process (de la Cruz Sánchez-Escobedo et al., 2014; Liñán et al., 2011), entrepreneurial motives (Chen & Elston, 2013; Solesvik, 2013), individual entrepreneurial traits and personalities (Zhao et al., 2005), entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Zhao et al., 2005), gender studies in entrepreneurship (Marlow & McAdam, 2011; Sieger et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2007), and EE (Byabashaija & Katono, 2011; Mclntyre & Roche, 1999; Wu & Wu, 2008; Zhang et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2005).

Based on current literature, EI is the most widely studied construct and can be defined as the commitment to start a new business (Krueger, 1993). Thompson (2009) defines EI as “a self-recognized conviction by an individual who expects to set up another undertaking and deliberately plans to do as such sooner or later.” EI refers to mental states that guide attention, experience, and actions toward business concepts and planned entrepreneurial behaviors (Bird, 1988). Gaining insight into students’ EI is relevant both socially and economically, as students’ innovative plans and exercises mold the upcoming social orders and contribute to monetary prosperity (Sieger et al., 2016). Although there has been extensive investigation into EI for many years, few studies focus on students’ EI in the restaurant industry (I. S. Lee et al., 2013; Luong & Lee, 2023; Phuc et al., 2020).

Previous studies address the entrepreneurs of tomorrow, as today’s student is tomorrows’ entrepreneurial practitioner. Herman and Stefanescu (2017) refer to the field of study as a crucial factor in the context of career choice intentions in general and specifically, EI. The restaurant industry is known for its potential to generate substantial wealth for individuals and is characterized by low entry barriers, allowing almost anyone with a desire to establish a restaurant to enter the market (Chen & Elston, 2013). To build upon the perspectives of previous scholars, this study specifically examines the EI of fourth-year university students majoring in hospitality who have also received restaurant EE courses.

In order to promote entrepreneurial thinking and cultivate interest in entrepreneurship among young people, there is increasing interest in EE across various educational levels (Ratten & Usmanij, 2021). Although only a few studies examine entrepreneurship in the tourism and hospitality industry, exploring the entrepreneurial decisions made by students and the factors that impact these decisions is of great significance in the field of entrepreneurship research, particularly within the hospitality and tourism industry. Hospitality and tourism primarily comprise of small and medium-sized entrepreneurial firms (ElSaid & Fuentes Fuentes, 2019). There is high growth in the tourism and hospitality industry due to the dramatic rise in the trend of entrepreneurship in both education and industry (Hu & Yuan, 2020). Furthermore, Mohamed et al. (2022) evidence the notable impact of EE, knowledge, and passion on the attitudes, self-efficacy, and intentions of graduates in the tourism and hospitality industry. Ntshangase and Ezeuduji (2023) propose universities should adopt a range of entrepreneurship initiatives with the objective of enhancing the employability or self-employment prospects of graduates in the tourism industry. Recently, studies on hospitality entrepreneurship have increased; however, there is still a lack of literature focusing on the EI of hospitality major university students toward small and medium-sized restaurant ventures. As the hospitality industry makes a significant economic contribution and hospitality students are the future restaurant entrepreneurial practitioners, it is important to understand their intention toward starting up new restaurants.

According to numerous studies, entrepreneurship is increasingly chosen as a viable career path by younger individuals, including university students (Meoli et al., 2020; Ntshangase & Ezeuduji, 2023; Shah et al., 2020). This research aims to investigate the impact of EE on the entrepreneurial aspirations of individuals who have completed their studies in the hospitality sector. In the context of this study, EE pertains to university courses that specifically concentrate on programs or courses relating to restaurant entrepreneurship.

Prior studies approach the prediction of entrepreneurial behaviors through the application of the TPB (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Sieger et al., 2014; Souitaris et al., 2007). Amofah and Saladrigues (2022) posit that theory articulates that entrepreneurial behavior is primarily influenced by three key components: attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. This study extends the TPB by incorporating EE into the main framework as an antecedent variable and aims to forecast the EI of post-graduate students in the hospitality industry. The modified TPB model illustrates how entrepreneurial education in the restaurant sector affects hospitality students’ intentions to start businesses and details a causal model that clarifies the relationships among factors influencing these entrepreneurial intentions. Based on relevant existing literature, the primary objective of this study is to construct and evaluate an adapted version of the TPB. This modified model aims to elucidate the impact of restaurant EE stimuli on the intention of graduating hospitality university students to establish their own restaurant.

Although the restaurant industry is highly relevant economically, to date, only a few studies have focused on EI among students in hospitality as the potential entrepreneurs for this industry. Current research on EE does not, within the general area of EI, provide any specific insights on the restaurant industry. Such a narrow perspective of industry-specific insight limits our understanding of the influence of specialized EE, such as restaurant entrepreneurship education, on students’ field-specific EI development. Moreover, while TPB has been frequently utilized in research on EI, but its use in the restaurant industry has gotten less attention, particularly in terms of how EE indirectly promotes EI via attitudinal and motivational components.

Therefore, to fill the research gap, this study’s objectives are to utilize the TPB to identify factors that influence the intentions of hospitality students to open a restaurant; examine the impact of EE (specifically, a restaurant entrepreneurial program) on students’ EI; and explore the effect of EE (restaurant entrepreneurial program) on students’ TPB constructs. This study can provide valuable insights for hospitality and culinary arts educators as well as policymakers, to effectively promote restaurant entrepreneurship at hospitality and culinary arts universities education.

Literature Review

Entrepreneurship Education

Global entrepreneurship research underscores the substantial barriers to entrepreneurship such as social, cultural hurdles, and financial constraints, with a notable lack of education being a critical impediment (Rideout & Gray, 2013). Entrepreneurship Education (EE) is pivotal, focusing on essential knowledge acquisition, skill proficiency, and the promotion of new ventures (Raposo & do Paço, 2011). Collaborative learning in EE, emphasizing innovation and networking, significantly enhances student capabilities, marking its evolution as an influential educational force over recent decades (Kuratko, 2003; Mahendra et al., 2017; Nabi et al., 2017).

The current literature on EE evaluates its effectiveness and influential factors, exploring its impact on students’ entrepreneurial intentions (EI) and behaviors (Adeel et al., 2023; Nabi et al., 2018). Research delves into diverse teaching methods, optimal timing, and the role of social capital in EE delivery, alongside methodologies for its evaluation and the integration of context-specific variables (Blenker et al., 2021; Lorz et al., 2013; Pittaway et al., 2018).

Special emphasis is placed on the need for EE in fostering sustainable business growth, though immediate outcomes in venture employment and growth are not guaranteed (Zaring et al., 2019). Furthermore, enhancing student mindset through entrepreneurial training is seen as essential for adapting to changing market demands and organizational challenges (Alam et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2017).

In the hospitality sector, EE—referred to as restaurant EE—prepares students to launch and manage their establishments, adapting to an evolving industry with increasing self-employment opportunities (Horng et al., 2018; Lyons & Zhang, 2017). This includes hands-on learning and networking, with programs incorporating real-world business simulations and competitive events to better prepare students for the industry’s realities (Lyons & Zhang, 2017; Ramdhony & Dookee, 2018).

Challenges in transitioning to startup ownership require specialized knowledge, with industry-specific EE programs integrating practical skills essential for navigating the sector’s intricacies. Collaborative efforts with successful entrepreneurs enhance the relevance and application of the learned concepts (Horng et al., 2018).

The growing popularity of entrepreneurial education in hospitality, evidenced by increased program development and research, suggests significant potential for expansion. Restaurant entrepreneurial education encompass formal courses, workshops, consulting projects, business plan competitions, networking events with entrepreneurs, and other experiences tailored to the hospitality context (Ramdhony & Dookee, 2018). Ratten and Usmanij (2021) encourage an increase to entrepreneurially-oriented education in hospitality programs to build students’ enterprise skills through curriculum design. Furthermore, scholars found hospitality students’ EI is enhanced after participating in entrepreneurship courses (Luong & Lee, 2023).

Restaurants play a crucial role in the global economy (Al-Sulaiti et al., 2023). In Taiwan, the food and beverage service industry in a total gross revenue of around 1110.6 billion New Taiwan dollars between August 2023 and August 2024 (Statista, 2024) and the total number of food and drink service business entities has reached approximately 163,640 in 2022 (Statista, 2023). Even though the contribution of the restaurant industry to the economy, the restaurant industry nonetheless has a bad reputation based on its high rate of business failure. Accordingly, Parsa et al. (2005) depict that the restaurant failure rate is over 60% within the first 3 years. Conversely, the study by Nel et al. (2018) cites that the restaurant failure rate is generally considered at about 30% in the United States. The restaurant business poses immense challenges and risks from a variety of aspects: marketing, finance, operations, location, market conditions, and type of cuisine. One of the critical barriers is the lack of knowledge and expertise in managing a restaurant as a successful business (Parsa et al., 2021). Restaurants entrepreneurship face unique challenges and opportunities that warrant specialized research attention that highlighting the need for targeted entrepreneurship education to better equip future young restaurant entrepreneurs with the specialized knowledge and skills in this sector. Despite rising popularity, restaurant entrepreneurial program development and research is lacking in comparison to general business EE, which presents opportunities for expansion in this context.

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB Model)

The TPB has gained widespread application in the realm of social and behavioral sciences, particularly in investigating individuals’ behavioral intentions within the context of entrepreneurship (Acheampong & Tweneboah-Koduah, 2017; Maheshwari, 2022; Tseng et al., 2022). To investigate the correlation between EI and its precursors, this study applies the TPB. The TPB suggests that planned behaviors, such as starting a new restaurant, are intentional and can be anticipated and forecast based on an individual’s intention toward engaging in entrepreneurial behavior. According to the TPB, the adoption of any behavior, including entrepreneurial behavior, necessitates careful planning and can be anticipated by the individual’s intention to engage in the behavior. Ajzen (1991) proposes the TPB as a theoretical framework that posits three key components for predicting the formation of intention: attitude toward the behavior, social norm (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC). Elaine and Gray (2013) claim that in the TPB model, intention refers to the cognitive representation of an individual’s explicit desire to engage in a specific behavior, which is widely recognized as a direct precursor to actual behavior. In general, undergraduate students majoring in hospitality have not yet progressed to the stage of actively strategizing the establishment of a new restaurant; they are in the preliminary phase of development. The intention to engage in entrepreneurial activities is shaped by three key conceptual factors:

(1) Attitude toward entrepreneurial behavior—according to Ajzen (1991), the concept of attitude toward behavior pertains to the degree to which an individual perceives a behavior as being positive or negative. When adapting the attitude construct to the context of entrepreneurship, it can be characterized as the degree to which an individual maintains a favorable or unfavorable personal assessment regarding their involvement in an entrepreneurial endeavor (Otache, 2019).

(2) SN—this is the perceived social pressure from family, friends, or significant others to perform (Ajzen, 1991). In other words, this pertains to an individual’s subjective assessment of the significance they attribute to the opinions of others regarding entrepreneurial conduct. In the realm of entrepreneurial endeavors, SN refer to an individual’s perception of whether the people in their immediate environment would offer support or disapproval regarding their choice to pursue entrepreneurship (Otache, 2019).

(3) PBC—as defined by Ajzen (1991), pertains to an individual’s subjective assessment of the ease or difficulty associated with performing a particular behavior. In the context of entrepreneurship, PBC encompasses the perception of the feasibility of engaging in entrepreneurial activities, more specifically, evaluating the realistic achievability of initiating a business venture. For the purposes of this study, PBC is operationalized as the perceived ability or situational competence to establish and operate a restaurant. EI, a significant predictor of entrepreneurial behavior, refers to an individual’s inclination or desire to initiate a new business venture (Fragoso et al., 2020).

Previous studies on entrepreneurial education (EE) and entrepreneurial intention (EI) have commonly employed the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as a foundational framework (Ajzen, 1991; Nabi et al., 2017).

TPB is the most frequently used model for understanding EE and EI, showing that an individual’s future entrepreneurial behavior (Nabi et al., 2017). Scholars assert that stronger entrepreneurial intentions lead to greater behavioral engagement in specific entrepreneurial activities (Paray & Kumar, 2020). From the TPB perspective, it can be inferred that the more positive students’ attitudes toward behavior (ATB), subjective norms (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC) are toward their entrepreneurial intentions (EIs), the more likely they are to engage in entrepreneurial behavior. Several empirical studies have used both entrepreneurship education (EE) and TPB to explain and predict entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors (Boubker et al., 2021; Passaro et al., 2018). Other studies have revealed that students’ ATB, SN, PBC, and EIs increase significantly after exposure to EE. Furthermore, results show that EE has a significantly positive relationship with students’ ATB, SN, PBC, and EIs (Shah et al., 2020).

Previous studies already outlined the strong relationship between the EE toward TPB constructs and EI. However, most studies have focused on generalized entrepreneurship across various industries, neglecting the hospitality sector. It rarely explored how restaurant entrepreneurship education affects TPB variables-restaurant entrepreneurship intention among hospitality students-and how these have resulted in recent calls for more industry-specific applications of entrepreneurship theories (Nicholls-Nixon et al., 2024). While previous studies often measured EE in general, this research especially adapts to restaurant entrepreneurship education; hence, it innovatively develops an understanding of industry-specific educational impacts. Additional, while previous studies sampled students at different stages in their educational journeys, this study focuses on those who are graduating, because the latter is the primary target group of entrepreneurship education interventions and other policy initiatives by governments and institutions alike (Aboobaker, 2020). This focus brings out the cumulative effects of EE as students approach career decisions.

Effects of EE on the TPB Constructs

Prior studies recognize EE as an important determinant of entrepreneurship activities (Galloway & Brown, 2002; Zhang et al., 2014) and evidence EE has a significant relationship with EI (Bae et al., 2014; Byabashaija & Katono, 2011; Gorman et al., 1997; Henderson & Robertson, 2000). EE is associated with the development of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which has the potential to positively influence EI (Wilson et al., 2007). Also, it is said that when students participate in EE, they are provided with opportunities to learn from successful business planning and engage in proactive interactions with accomplished professionals in the field (Honig, 2004).

The TPB states intention is influenced by PBC, attitude, and SN associated with performing a behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Due to its relevance to the concerns surrounding EE and its established effectiveness in predicting personal entrepreneurial behavior across diverse contexts (Ayeh et al., 2023), the TPB holds particular significance. The focus on EE responds to the need for more comprehensive studies on the topics derived from the TPB’s theoretical perspectives (Congxia & Zhangjingxian, 2023; Maheshwari, 2022; Uddin et al., 2022).

In many previous studies, the primary focus is on utilizing the constructs of the TPB to assess the impact of EE on students’ EI; however, little attention has been given to scrutinizing the unique and specific effects of EE on the TPB constructs and EI (Ahmed et al., 2017; Ayeh et al., 2023; Maresch et al., 2016; Uddin et al., 2022). Previous research does not directly test the specific effects of EE on attitude toward behavior (ATB), SN, PBC, and EI. Only a few studies explore the relationship among these constructs, such as Otache et al. (2021) who demonstrate EE has a significantly positive relationship with students’ ATB, SN, PBC, and EI in their research model. Additionally, there is compelling evidence that EE has a significant positive correlation with PBC, SN, attitude, and EI within the realm of cyber entrepreneurship research (Tseng et al., 2022). This view interprets that students who receive EE will develop a stronger attitude and SN toward entrepreneurship. It also emphasizes the importance of individual perception of others’ opinions on entrepreneurial behavior. Therefore, it is inferred that education in restaurant entrepreneurship enhances the relationships between PBC, SN, attitude, and EI. Based on the above premise, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are:

H1: Restaurant EE is positively associated with attitude toward starting a restaurant.

H2: Restaurant EE has a significant and positive influence on SN regarding starting a restaurant.

H3: Restaurant EE has a positive influence on student’s PBC regarding starting a restaurant.

Effects of TPB Constructs on EI

When applied to entrepreneurship, the TPB suggests individuals are more likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities when they have a positive personal assessment of the behavior, perceive support from their social network, and believe that the necessary opportunities and resources are available (Urban & Ratsimanetrimanana, 2015). Existing literature recognizes attitude is a significant predictor of EI and entrepreneurial behaviors (Agarwal et al., 2020; Otache et al., 2021). According to Esfandiar et al. (2019), younger people have a stronger inclination toward an entrepreneurial attitude, and therefore, have higher EI. Likewise, in a study conducted by Roy et al. (2017), it was discovered that the attitude of Indian students showed the strongest correlation with their intention to establish their own businesses.

Regarding the effect of SN on EI, Mat et al. (2015) propose individuals’ EI can be influenced by the favorable opinions of others within their immediate social environment. Early studies document a significant positive correlation between individuals’ EI and the opinions of their social support network (SN; Tseng et al., 2022). Other research emphasizes the crucial role played by family, society, and university in shaping entrepreneurial behavior (ElSaid & Fuentes Fuentes, 2019). Boubker et al. (2021) posit the inclination of students to pursue entrepreneurial endeavors may be hindered unless they are sufficiently motivated or influenced by their immediate surroundings. Building upon these perspectives, it is contended that individuals are more inclined to participate in entrepreneurship if the attitudes of others around them are supportive.

Otache et al. (2021) suggest individuals with higher levels of PBC regarding entrepreneurial behavior are more likely to embark on entrepreneurial endeavors in the foreseeable future. The likelihood of an individual engaging in entrepreneurial activities is positively correlated with their perception of controlling behavior (Ayeh et al., 2023). Additionally, there is research acknowledging the influence of PBC on EI among individuals who are currently employed (Biraglia & Kadile, 2017; Esfandiar et al., 2019). Referring to the above literature, individuals who possess a strong sense of self-efficacy in entrepreneurship exhibit greater motivation to engage in entrepreneurial endeavors. Based on the amalgamation of prior empirical investigations regarding the influence of ATB, SN, and PBC on EI as discussed earlier, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H4: Attitude toward entrepreneurship has a positive influence on students’ inclination to initiate a restaurant venture.

H5: SN have a positive influence on students’ intention to start a restaurant.

H6: PBC has a positive influence on student’s intention to start a restaurant.

H7: Restaurant EE has a significant influence on student’s intention to start a restaurant.

Methods

Sample and Procedures

Taiwan was selected as the study location due to several factors. First, the system of hospitality education is highly developed and supports the development of restaurant entrepreneurship in Taiwan. According to the Department of Statistic of Ministration of Education (Taiwan) (2023), a total of 93 universities in Taiwan, 42 of which provide hospitality-related programs and 4,112 students graduated from such programs during the 2021 to 2022 academic year. Further, Taiwan’ government has also been emphasis on the development of entrepreneurial spirit among its young people through various programs and policies. Such as young entrepreneurs aged between 18 and 35 years may organize a start-up team. Qualified teams may get support ranging from US$11,000 to US$43,000. They are also counseled and assisted by the incubation units to help the start-up teams operate steadily (Ministry of Education, Taiwan, 2021).

Prior to the survey, we sent invitation emails to these 42 institutions seeking their support for the study. Twelve universities responded and agreed to allow us to distribute questionnaires to their graduating students in person. The population examined in our study consists of final-year hospitality undergraduate students at the university who are enrolled in compulsory courses on restaurant entrepreneurship. Data collection was done by using a purposive sampling method, utilizing a paper-based questionnaire; data is collected face-to-face by respective interviewers. The first section contains explanations of the purpose of the academic research, and voluntary participation with anonymous involvement; hence, all the data gathered in this regard would be kept confidential. The second section explicitly explains what EI is, and for them, it will be related to opening up a restaurant. The dates of data collection are 20th April 2023 to 30th May 2023.

A total of 350 students consented to participate in this survey and completed the questionnaires. Out of the 350 responses, 67 questionnaires were excluded due to incomplete data. The missed data was further processed, and it was found that many of the questionnaires missed few information points due to which they were rejected. The missing data in the dataset followed the pattern of missing completely at random (MCAR) that implies that the likelihood of missing data is not related to relevant study variables or outcomes (Heymans & Twisk, 2022). Consequently, we employed multiple imputation to address the missing data, a method known for its robustness in handling MCAR data and maintaining the validity of statistical results (Jakobsen et al., 2017). After completing this process, a final sample of 283 responses was retained for analysis.

Questionnaire Development

The use of surveys to measure EE, TPB, and EI variables is also well-supported by prior literature, reinforcing the validity of questionnaire development. The questionnaire was originally drafted in English but later translated into Chinese by a group of hospitality and entrepreneurial scholars who are proficient in both languages. To ensure content and translation authenticity, a pilot study was performed, gathering feedback on the questionnaire. Some of the sentences have been modified to be more comprehensible, and certain questions have been reorganized to improve the coherence of the survey’s structure. Slight adjustments were made to the phrasing of each item to ensure its relevance to the survey’s context. The assessment of entrepreneurship education (EE) elements utilized a set of seven items adapted from Küttim et al. (2014). Similarly, the four items gaging attitude toward entrepreneurship (AT) were adopted from Küttim et al. (2014). The construct of social norm (SN) have seven items that drawn from the studies of Küttim et al. (2014) and Robledo et al. (2015). The evaluation of perceived behavioral control (PBC) toward entrepreneurship elements employed 12 items, adopted from Küttim et al. (2014) and Robledo et al. (2015). Additionally, the examination of entrepreneurial intention (EI) elements involved six items from the studies of Sieger et al. (2014), Küttim et al. (2014), and Robledo et al. (2015). Minor modifications were made to item wording to ensure contextual relevance for the survey. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Constructs and measurement items were used existing scales providing in Appendix: Table 1.

Data Analysis Method

In this study, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was applied to test the hypotheses. The PLS-SEM approach allows multiple constructs to be examined simultaneously and has been suggested for checking mediation relationships (Hair, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2019; Hair, Risher et al., 2019). The method’s fundamental function in the context of a small sample size as the basis of its methodology of not estimating overall model parameters simultaneously (Kaufmann & Gaeckler, 2015; Rigdon et al., 2017). The method depicts one of the most salient research methods across a variety of disciplines in hospitality (F. Ali et al., 2018) and entrepreneurship research (Boubker et al., 2021).

Results

Sample Profile

The 283 valid responses obtained in this study provide an adequate sample size for the validation of the model used, despite the critique about the number of items. Following to Mundfrom et al. (2005), the recommended sample size for factor analysis can range from 50 to more than 1000 samples, depending on the complexity of the model and more specifically. Moreover, the researchers proved that an item-to-sample ratio of 20:1 is usually sufficient to receive reliable results (Costello & Osborne, 2019). Consequently, a sample size of 283 responses may be adequate for this analysis and yield statistically reliable results.

The survey results reveal more female participants (n = 163, 57.6%) than male participants (n = 120, 42.4%), participants with parental entrepreneurship (n = 121, 42.8%) are fewer than those without (n = 162, 57.2%), and there are fewer participants with internships (n = 261, 92.2%) than without (n = 22, 7.8%). Among the responses regarding when participants started their businesses, 140 participants began after 5 years (49.5%), 58 started 3 to 5 years (20.5%), 56 started 1 to 3 years (19.8%), and 29 started within the first year (10.2%).

Reliability and Validity Measurements

The reliability of the measurement is evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR; Hair et al., 2017). The higher reliability of the measurement constructs is recognized by the values of Cronbach’s alpha and CR, which are both greater than .7 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Accuracy Analysis of Constructs and Indicators.

Constructs/items	Standardized factor loading	t-Value	CR	AVE	Cronbach’s α
Entrepreneurship education
EE1	0.85	37.35**	0.95	0.74	.94
EE2	0.87	45.94**
EE3	0.90	64.35**
EE4	0.89	52.18**
EE5	0.90	56.68**
EE6	0.82	19.33**
EE7	0.76	22.29**
Attitude
A1	0.77	20.17**	0.92	0.75	.89
A2	0.91	67.07**
A3	0.89	52.00**
A4	0.90	58.96**
Subjective norms
SN1	0.85	33.19**	0.96	0.79	.96
SN2	0.90	67.60**
SN3	0.92	75.04**
SN4	0.91	69.61**
SN5	0.91	64.26**
SN6	0.91	68.80**
SN7	0.84	32.08**
Perceived behavioral control
PBC1	0.88	57.06**	0.98	0.77	.97
PBC2	0.89	55.13**
PBC3	0.89	53.32**
PBC4	0.83	31.04**
PBC5	0.85	37.14**
PBC6	0.87	47.53**
PBC7	0.88	36.10**
PBC8	0.89	57.60**
PBC9	0.87	33.72**
PBC10	0.88	47.03**
PBC11	0.90	62.02**
PBC12	0.89	55.17**
Behavioral intention
BI1	0.78	23.30**	0.97	0.84	.96
BI2	0.94	81.96**
BI3	0.93	71.66**
BI4	0.94	86.99**
BI5	0.95	117.69*
BI6	0.94	98.01**

p < .05, **p < .01 (two-tailed test).

The convergence validity of measurement constructs is evaluated by factor loading and average variance (AVE). The standardized factor loading of the indicators must be over 0.7 to verify good convergence validity (Hair et al., 2017). Table 1 shows all standard factor loading values are greater than 0.7, and AVE values are greater than 0.7 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). This indicates the study’s measurement constructs have convergence validity.

The discriminant validity is evaluated by examining the AVE-correlation matrix in Table 2. The square root of AVE for one construct is greater than its correlation coefficient with any other construct(s), which meets Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criteria. The correlation matrix shows the correlation coefficients of each structure are less than .86, thus there is evidence of discriminant validity.

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix and AVE Values.

Constructs	AT	BI	EE	PBC	SN
AT	0.867
BI	0.684	0.914
EE	0.417**	0.403**	0.858
PBC	0.275**	0.712**	0.470**	0.877
SN	0.726**	0.719**	0.448**	0.738*	0.891

Note. AT = attitude; BI = behavioral intention; EE = entrepreneurship education; PBC = perceived behavioral control; SN = subjective norms.

p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed).

Hypothesis Testing Procedure and Results

Collinearity was assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF). While some VIF values indicated a degree of multicollinearity, they remained within an acceptable range, with values between 1.935 and 9.838, suggesting no critical multicollinearity concerns for the model (Hair et al., 2011). To test the hypotheses, a bootstrapping resampling technique with 5,000 iterations was employed. A t-value threshold of 1.96 was used for significance in a two-tailed test, with the significance level set at 0.05 (Hair et al., 2021).

Further, despite the lower R² value for AT (below 0.2), this result is consistent with expectations in studies that investigate complex social behaviors, such as EI. Lower R² values in this context do not necessarily indicate poor model fit or reliability. As Purwanto (2021) highlights, complex human behaviors are often influenced by multiple factors, some of which may not be fully captured in a single model. The PLS-SEM model employed here emphasizes predictive power rather than explanatory power, and thus a lower R² value for certain variables can still contribute to meaningful insights. In this case, AT remains an essential factor, influencing EI alongside other variables such as SN and PBC.

In Table 3, the statistical outcomes show EE fundamentally affects AT (H1-1: β = .69, t = 2.43, p < .01), SN (β = .69, t = 2.64, p < .01), and PBC (β = .59, t = 2.41, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3 are supported.

Table 3.

Results of Hypothesis Testing.

Hypotheses	Path coefficient	Std. error	t-Value	Outcome
H1 EE → AT	0.69*	0.285	2.43	Supported
H2 EE → SN	0.69**	0.263	2.64	Supported
H3 EE → PBC	0.59*	0.244	2.41	Supported
H4 AT → BI	0.24**	0.068	3.49	Supported
H5 SN → BI	0.34**	0.093	3.63	Supported
H6 PBC → BI	0.29**	0.084	3.40	Supported
H7 EE → BI	−0.37*	0.147	2.50	Supported

p < .05. **p < .01.

An individual’s AT (β = .24, t = 3.49, p < .05), SN (β = .34, t = 3.63, p < .05), and PBC (β = .29, t = 3.40, p < .05) significantly influence BI. Additionally, EE has a significant effect on BI (β = −.37, t = 2.50, p < .01), thus supporting Hypothesis 4, 5, and 6 in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Measurement and structural model.

The serial mediation models are analyzed utilizing the SMART PLS 3.99 software, which is explicitly produced for testing complex models. Using SMART PLS, the bootstrap sample size B = 5,000 is selected, which represents the number of random samplings. Indirect effects are determined via a bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure. When the 95% confidence interval (CI) excludes 0, it indicates the mediation effect is statistically significant.

Conclusions

Discussion

Based on the TPB, this study develops and tests a model to examine the effects of EE on the EI of graduating hospitality students, specifically, their intentions to establish a new restaurant. According to the results, the research model verifies the reliability and validity, indicating a good fit for predicting students’ EI, which is significant as the development of entrepreneurship varies considerably in Taiwan’s hospitality EE. This research extends prior studies by investigating the interaction among EE, the TPB constructs, and EI in the hospitality industry. Studies on entrepreneurship in Taiwan are significantly less common than those in the West, thus gaining an understanding of the situation in Asian hospitality education is a valuable addition to the existing literature. In the context of this study, the following discussions are derived from the results.

First, in line with the supported hypotheses (Figure 1), H1, H2, and H3, it is revealed that EE has significant and positive effects on attitude, SN, and PBC. These results affirm the crucial role of restaurant EE in shaping students’ attitude toward entrepreneurship, SN, and PBC. These findings are consistent with prior research indicating EE positively influences the TPB factors in general entrepreneurial education, such as Otache et al. (2021). Their studies underscore the role of EE in driving TPB constructs positive response to becoming entrepreneurs.

Second, contrary to expectations, the path coefficient between EE and EI is negative and significant (H7, β = −.37, p < .05). This suggests increased exposure to EE actually decreases students’ intentions to start new business ventures. This finding counters many studies that have shown a positive correlation between EE and EI (Bae et al., 2014; Lorz et al., 2013). A potential explanation is that the EE curriculum places significant emphasis on the challenges and rigor of entrepreneurship, providing students with a more realistic perspective on the risks and difficulties involved. This may diminish motivations of individuals who are not prepared to undertake these demands. Past research evidences the perceived desirability of entrepreneurship decreases after the potential barriers have been discussed, while the perceived feasibility increases with knowledge of the required capabilities (Maresch et al., 2016). An emphasis on obstacles rather than inspirational aspects may unintentionally suppress EI.

Third, from the supported H4, the results demonstrate that AT can be used to change or influence the EI of Taiwan’s hospitality students toward opening a new restaurant. The outcome aligns with prior empirical studies (Esfandiar et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2017), which consistently demonstrate that when individuals find the outcomes of an activity desirable, they are more likely to participate in it. In numerous developing countries, poverty rates remain high and unemployment rates continue to rise. This situation frequently instills in students a compelling urge for entrepreneurship and encourages them to explore income-generating opportunities while they are still in school or immediately after graduation.

Fourth, as supported by H5, the results indicate SN has a significant influence on EI, which is consistent with prior literature (Boubker et al., 2021; ElSaid & Fuentes Fuentes, 2019). When individuals receive support from those they consider important, they generally find motivation to take action, with reference groups serving as a source of inspiration and dependability.

Fifth, this study reveals students’ PBC affects their EI. Individuals embrace an activity when they believe they have the necessary skills to successfully complete it and achieve the desired outcome. This discovery supports findings from other studies, such as Esfandiar et al. (2019) and Ayeh et al. (2023).

Theoretical Implications

This study makes several notable theoretical contributions specific to the fields of hospitality education and entrepreneurship research.

First, the research expands the existing literature by the applicability and consistency of TPB in explaining of explaining hospitality students’ entrepreneurial intention, providing empirical evidence for the efficacy of cognitive frameworks in this demographic. Previous studies have applied TPB to predict entrepreneurial intentions in various student populations (Y. H. S. Al-Mamary et al., 2020; Ayeh et al., 2023; Talukder et al., 2024), but have rarely focused on hospitality students. Thus, our work not only reinforces the validity of TPB in predicting entrepreneurial outcomes but also highlights the need to consider industry-specific educational contexts, such as reinforce intention theories shapes startup motivations of hospitality graduates. Second, this research shows a negative and significant path coefficient between EE and EI, which implies that increased exposure to EE could reduce students’ intentions to start new ventures. This result contrasts with the commonly accepted view that EE positively affects students’ intentions to start their own businesses suggesting that EE typically fosters entrepreneurial mindsets and skill sets (Adeel et al., 2023; Mensah et al., 2021; Porfírio et al., 2022). By comparing these contrasting findings, the study contributes to the ongoing debate on EE’s role by suggesting that increased EE exposure may dampen entrepreneurial intentions rather than inspire them in some contexts.

Third, this study has contributed to the literature of EE by emphasizing the specific mechanism on TPB model to improve the entrepreneurial potential of hospitality students. This is consistent with the prior research results that found that EE plays a key role in shaping entrepreneurial intentions by cultivating attitudes, incentive in social recognition and improving perceived feasibility (Aga & Singh, 2022; Duong, 2022). This promotes the theoretical viewpoint of EE achievements and emphasizes the role of EE in cultivating specific restaurant entrepreneurial knowledge on TPB constructs on starting a restaurant business.

In summary, this work makes important advances in elucidating entrepreneurial motivations and intentions among hospitality students and validates the application of the TPB. The research provides empirical substantiation for conceptualizing educational impacts on new venture creation goals from a cognitive perspective tailored to the hospitality environment. The findings reinforce intention models as relevant frameworks with utility for understanding mechanisms linking hospitality education to entrepreneurial potential.

Practical Implications

The research findings provide several valuable practical implications for hospitality education and industry regarding enhancing entrepreneurial potential among graduates.

First, as the results evidence EE has a significant positive impact on entrepreneurial AT, SN, and PBC, university hospitality education institutions should optimize the restaurant entrepreneurship course design to shape entrepreneurial AT, SN, and PBC to motivate students’ EI. Curricula and co-curricular activities tailored to develop motivational antecedents of intention represent high-impact initiatives. As the results, education institutions should design the restaurant entrepreneurship course with experience restaurant entrepreneurs, to know what kind of knowledge and skill that students will need when they start restaurant entrepreneurship from their experience. Then invite the entrepreneurs to share more case teaching and practical activities related to the actual situation of the restaurant industry to enhance students’ positive attitude toward restaurant entrepreneurship. In addition, the institution has to create more peer and mentor networks to give social support to the aspiring entrepreneurs. The development of incubator programs at the university level may create social norms of behavior associated with entrepreneurship. Besides that, they should enhance the restaurant management training and entrepreneurial skills, increase self-efficacy in entrepreneurship of their students.

Second, since PBC is a major determinant influence EI, policies should also focus on equipping students with the necessary skills and means that influence perceived feasibility regarding launching entrepreneurial ventures. Moreover, experiential pedagogies giving students direct experience in entrepreneurial thinking and behavior are recommended over passive teaching models. Action-based learning through business simulations, consulting on projects, restaurant incubators, and competitions can help cultivate entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention.

Third, while the results show that entrepreneurship education has a significant negative impact on entrepreneurial intention, we will suggests restaurant entrepreneurship course should introduce the opportunities and challenges of entrepreneurship in a balanced way in teaching, avoid putting too much emphasis on the difficulties of entrepreneurship and dampen students’ enthusiasm, and increase practical knowledge and skills training on how to overcome the obstacles of entrepreneurship. To counterbalance the potential demotivation from EE, restaurant entrepreneurship programs should incorporate successful case studies of restaurant ventures, especially those started with minimal resources. These can inspire students by showing the potential success despite challenges, such as running a small-scale pop-up restaurant or food truck during the program, can help students gain practical skills and reduce their fear of the unknown. This experiential approach can shift EE from theoretical learning to tangible outcomes.

Fourth, the results of this study prove that single entrepreneurship course participation is not enough to directly enhance students’ entrepreneurial motivation; thus, it is suggested that entrepreneurship competencies training and thinking mode development should be incorporated as a whole into the 4-year hospitality course rather than providing only one entrepreneurship course. While integration throughout hospitality curricula will have more impact than stand-alone courses, entrepreneurial skill-building and mindset development can be better achieved. Infusing activities fostering opportunity recognition, risk-taking, resource leveraging, and value creation throughout all programs and contexts can help shape entrepreneurial cognitions.

Fifth, inviting mentors and judges who are entrepreneurs in the industry, holding networking events with more experienced founders, and arranging students to intern at startups can increase opportunities for vicarious learning and social persuasion to build perceived feasibility of new venture creation among students.

Finally, institutions must commit appropriate resources and training to deliver high quality EE. Hiring specialized faculty, developing action-based courses, and cultivating an entrepreneurial ecosystem requires strategic investments to yield motivational outcomes.

In summary, hospitality programs are vital to amplifying graduate entrepreneurship and address industry needs through education initiatives designed to positively shape attitudes, beliefs, and perceived self-efficacy regarding new ventures. Experiential approaches simulating the entrepreneurial context and mindset are recommended to promote entrepreneurial thinking.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study provides valuable insights, it is important to recognize certain limitations and identify opportunities for future research. First, the research utilizes a cross-sectional survey design, which prevents determining causal influences over time. Longitudinal methods tracking students’ cognitions before and after undergoing EE could better ascertain causal impacts. Second, future research can expand on these findings by incorporating additional factors that may influence Attitude toward entrepreneurship, thereby potentially increasing the R² value for this construct. For example, external influences such as economic conditions, cultural factors, or specific educational interventions could be considered in future studies to enhance the explanatory power of the model. Third, future studies could also apply mixed-method approaches to further explore the nuanced ways in which these factors interact, offering a more comprehensive understanding of how AT shapes EI in hospitality students. Future studies may benefit from mixed-method approaches. Forth, as the sample consisted solely of undergraduate hospitality students, it limits generalizability. Testing the conceptual model with graduate students, other disciplines, and cultural contexts would be valuable. Fifth, examining only formal EE provides a narrow perspective. Investigating informal co-curricular initiatives, such as business pitch competitions, could reveal complementary influences. It would also be worthwhile exploring interactive effects between formal and informal activities. Finally, incorporating additional theoretical constructs could explain more variance in EI. For instance, integrating inspiration, entrepreneurial passion, or environmental factors could enrich the conceptual framework. Exploring moderators of the TPB relationships may also yield valuable insights.

In conclusion, this research serves as an early insight into how restaurant entrepreneurial education impacts entrepreneurial cognitions. Considerable scope exists for advancing theoretical frameworks, research designs, and measurement tools focusing on strengthening graduate entrepreneurship in the evolving hospitality context.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Chiawen Lee

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: Yango University project,Number 23YGJGXM01.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Aboobaker

N. D. R.

(2020). Human capital and entrepreneurial intentions: do entrepreneurship education and training provided by universities add value? Horizon: A Magazine of the Arts, 28(2), 73–83.

Acheampong

Tweneboah-Koduah

E. Y.

(2017). Does past failure inhibit future entrepreneurial intent? Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(5), 849–863.

Adeel

Daniel

A. D.

Botelho

(2023). The effect of entrepreneurship education on the determinants of entrepreneurial behaviour among higher education students: A multi-group analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(1), 100324.

Aga

M. K.

Singh

(2022). The role of entrepreneurship education on student entrepreneurial intentions: Mediating effect of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Business and Management, 28(1), 31–65.

Agarwal

Ramadani

Gerguri-Rashiti

Agrawal

Dixit

J. K.

(2020). Inclusivity of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitude among young community: Evidence from India. Journal of Enterprising Communities People and Places in the Global Economy, 14(2), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-03-2020-0024

Ahmed

Chandran

V. G. R.

Klobas

(2017). Specialized entrepreneurship education: Does it really matter? Fresh evidence from pakistan. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 23(1), 4–19.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Alam

M. Z.

Kousar

Rehman

C. A.

(2019). Role of entrepreneurial motivation on entrepreneurial intentions and behaviour: Theory of planned behaviour extension on engineering students in Pakistan. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0175-1

Ali

Rasoolimanesh

S. M.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Ryu

(2018). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 514–538.

10.

Ali

Ahmad

Hussain

(2022). An analysis of the causes and consequences of youth unemployment: A case study of District Swabi. Human Nature Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 69–82.

11.

Ali

M. D.

Hassan

M. D. I.

Yusuf

I. M.

Nur

A. M.

Adan

O. H.

Aweys

Eno

M. A.

(2022). Youth unemployment in Somalia: A case study of Baidoa, Southwest State of Somalia. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 6(5), 500–508.

12.

Al-Mamary

Y. H.

Alshallaqi

(2022a). Impact of autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness on students’ intention to start a new venture. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), 100239.

13.

Al-Mamary

Y. H. S.

Abdulrab

Alwaheeb

M. A.

Alshammari

N. G. M.

(2020). Factors impacting entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Saudi Arabia: Testing an integrated model of TPB and EO. Education + Training, 62(7/8), 779–803.

14.

Al-Mamary

Y. H. S.

Alraja

M. M.

(2022b). 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), 100106.

15.

Almobaireek

Manolova

(2012). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Entrepreneurial intentions among Saudi university students. African Journal of Business Management, 6(11), 4029–4040. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.1521

16.

Al-Sulaiti

Abbas

Al-Sulaiti

Shah

S. A. R.

(2023). Resetting the hospitality redux through country-of-origin effects: Role of tourism, culture, transportation and restaurants selection in Arab countries. Country Origin Effects, 193(3), 195–218.

17.

Amofah

Saladrigues

(2022). Impact of attitude towards entrepreneurship education and role models on entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 36.

18.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

19.

Ayeh

J. K.

Bondzi-Simpson

Baah

N. G.

(2023). Predicting students’ response to entrepreneurship in hospitality and tourism education: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 35(3), 265–276.

20.

Bae

T. J.

Qian

Miao

Fiet

J. O.

(2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.

21.

Biraglia

Kadile

(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

22.

Bird

(1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case of intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453.

23.

Blenker

Trolle Elmholdt

Hedeboe Frederiksen

Korsgaard

Wagner

(2021). Methods in entrepreneurship education research: A review and integrative framework. Education + Training, 63(5), 697–627.

24.

Boubker

Arroud

Ouajdouni

(2021). Entrepreneurship education versus management students’ entrepreneurial intentions. A PLS-SEM approach. International Journal of Management in Education, 19(1), 100450.

25.

Brînză

MafteiI

M. M.

Butnaru

G. I.

(2022). Entrepreneurship versus EU labour market. Current situation and prospects. European Administrative Area–Integration and Resilience Dynamics, 97(1), 97–112.

26.

Byabashaija

Katono

(2011). The impact of college entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention to start a business in Uganda. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 127–144.

27.

Carsrud

Brännback

(2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: What do we still need to know? Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 9–26.

28.

Chen

S. C.

Elston

J. A.

(2013). Entrepreneurial motives and characteristics: An analysis of small restaurant owners. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 294–305.

29.

Chen

S. C.

Raab

Tao

(2017). Antecedents of entrepreneurial intent among college students in Taiwan. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 29(4), 187–199.

30.

Colombelli

Loccisano

Panelli

Pennisi

O. A. M.

Serraino

(2022). Entrepreneurship education: The effects of challenge-based learning on the entrepreneurial mindset of university students. Administrative Sciences, 12(1), 10.

31.

Congxia

Zhangjingxian

(2023). Research on the effect evaluation of college students’ entrepreneurship education based on TPB theory. The Theory and Practice of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 6(4), 9.

32.

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

(2019). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 10(1), 7.

33.

Cui

Bell

(2022). Behavioural entrepreneurial mindset: How entrepreneurial education activity impacts entrepreneurial intention and behaviour. International Journal of Management in Education, 20(2), 100639.

34.

de la Cruz Sánchez-Escobedo

Díaz-Casero

J. C.

Díaz-Aunión

Á. M.

Hernández-Mogollón

(2014). Gender analysis of entrepreneurial intentions as a function of economic development across three groups of countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 747–765.

35.

Department of Statistic of Ministration of Education (Taiwan). (2023). Number of bachelor graduates. https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ed4500/News_Content.aspx?n=5A930C32CC6C3818&sms=91B3AAE8C6388B96&s=8AF80DB14ADF7370

36.

Djazilan

M. S.

Darmawan

(2022). Entrepreneurship education and family support: The determinants that appear entrepreneurship interest for students. International Journal of Service Science Management Engineering and Technology, 1(2), 26–30.

37.

Duong

C. D.

(2022). Exploring the link between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: The moderating role of educational fields. Education + Training, 64(7), 869–891.

38.

Elaine

C. R.

Gray

D. O.

(2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329–351.

39.

ElSaid

O. A.

Fuentes Fuentes

M. D. M.

(2019). Creative thinking and entrepreneurial attitudes among tourism and hospitality students: The moderating role of the environment. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 31(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2018.1480963

40.

Esfandiar

Sharifi-Tehrani

Pratt

Altinay

(2019). Understanding entrepreneurial intentions: A developed integrated structural model approach. Journal of Business Research, 94, 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.045

41.

Etzkowitz

Webster

Gebhardt

Terra

B. R. C.

(2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.

42.

Fayolle

Gailly

(2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93.

43.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39.

44.

Fragoso

Rocha-Junior

Xavier

(2020). Determinant factors of entrepreneurial intention among university students in Brazil and Portugal. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 32(1), 33–57.

45.

Galloway

Brown

(2002). Entrepreneurship education at university: A driver in the creation of high growth firms? AEM Education and Training, 44(8/9), 398–405.

46.

Gorman

Hanlon

King

(1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: A ten-year literature review. International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 56–77.

47.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. H.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM. Sage Publications.

48.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(Eds.). (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.

49.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

50.

Hair

J. F.

Risher

J. J.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.

51.

Hair

J. F.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2019). Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. European Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 566–584. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2018-0665

52.

Henderson

Robertson

(2000). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career. Education + Training, 5(6), 236–245.

53.

Herman

Stefanescu

(2017). Can higher education stimulate entrepreneurial intentions among engineering and business students? Educational Studies, 43(3), 312–327.

54.

Heymans

M. W.

Twisk

J. W. R.

(2022). Handling missing data in clinical research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 151, 185–188.

55.

Honig

(2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 258–273.

56.

Horng

J. S.

M. L.

Hong

J. C.

Lin

P. C.

(2018). Creative culinary studies: Do environment and personal factors matter? Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport & Tourism Education, 23(2), 1–9.

57.

M. L. M.

Yuan

Y. H.

(2020). Constructing the assessment scale of youth’s restaurant entrepreneurship competency: The case of Taiwan. Sage Open, 10(1), 2158244019900566. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900566

58.

Jakobsen

J. C.

Gluud

Wetterslev

Winkel

(2017). When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17(1), 162–210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1

59.

Jena

R. K.

(2020). Measuring the impact of business management Student's attitude towards entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 106275.

60.

Joensuu-Salo

Viljamaa

Varamäki

(2019). The Impact of multidimensional ach on entrepreneurial intentions. In: Liargovas

Kakouris

(eds.) Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship: ECIE 2019.

61.

Kaufmann

Gaeckler

(2015). A structured review of partial least squares in supply chain management research. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(4), 259–272.

62.

Krueger

(1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5–21.

63.

Kuratko

D. F.

(2003). Entrepreneurship education: emerging trends and challenges for the 21st century. 2003 Coleman Foundation White Paper Series for the US Association of Small Business & Entrepreneurship.

64.

Küttim

Kallaste

Venesaar

Kiis

(2014). Entrepreneurship education at university level and students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 658–668.

65.

Lee

C. H.

Chen

C. H.

Trappey

A. J. C.

(2019). A structural service innovation approach for designing smart product service systems: Case study of smart beauty service. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 40, 154–167.

66.

Lee

I. S.

Kim

O. S.

Rha

Y. A.

(2013). A study on the effect of young entrepreneurs’ growth factors on entrepreneurial capability and entrepreneurial intentions: Focused on the college students majoring in culinary and Foodservice. Culinary Science & Hospitality Research, 19(4), 25–39.

67.

Liñán

Urbano

Guerrero

(2011). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(3-4), 187–215.

68.

Liotti

(2022). Labour market regulation and youth unemployment in the EU-28. Italian Economic Journal, 8(1), 77–103.

69.

Lorz

Mueller

Volery

(2013). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the methods in impact studies. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 21(2), 123–151.

70.

Luong

Lee

(2023). The influence of entrepreneurial desires and self-efficacy on the entrepreneurial intentions of New Zealand tourism and hospitality students. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 35(1), 44–61.

71.

Chen

Sha

Wang

Chen

Huang

(2021). How entrepreneurship education at universities influences entrepreneurial intention: Mediating effect based on entrepreneurial competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 655868.

72.

Lyons

Zhang

(2017). Experiential learning, market orientation and radical innovation in China’s transitional economy. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 11(1), 10–19.

73.

Mahendra

A. M.

Djatmika

E. T.

Hermawan

(2017). The effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention mediated by motivation and attitude among management students, State University of Malang, Indonesia. International Education Studies, 10(9), 61–69.

74.

Maheshwari

(2022). Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Vietnam: Integrated model of social learning, human motivation, and TPB. International Journal of Management in Education, 20(3), 100714.

75.

Maresch

Harms

Kailer

Wimmer-Wurm

(2016). The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 172–179.

76.

Marlow

McAdam

(2011). Analyzing the influence of gender upon high-technology venturing with the context of business incubation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 655–657.

77.

Martínez-Gregorio

Badenes-Ribera

Oliver

(2021). Effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship intention and related outcomes in educational contexts: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Management in Education, 19(3), 100545.

78.

Mat

S. C.

Maat

S. M.

Mohd

(2015). Identifying factors that affecting the entrepreneurial intention among engineering technology students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211, 1016–1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.135

79.

Mclntyre

J. R.

Roche

(1999). University education for entrepreneurs in the United States: A critical and retrospective analysis of trends in the 1990s (Working Paper Series, 99/00-21). Center for international Business Education and Research, Georgia Institute of Technology.

80.

Mei

Lee

C. H.

Xiang

(2020). Entrepreneurship education and students’ entrepreneurial intention in higher education. Education Sciences, 10(9), 257.

81.

Mensah

I. K.

Zeng

Luo

Xiao

(2021). Exploring the predictors of Chinese college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211029941.

82.

Meoli

Fini

Sobrero

Wiklund

(2020). How entrepreneurial intentions influence entrepreneurial career choices: The moderating influence of social context. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(3), 105982.

83.

Ministry of Education, Taiwan. (2021). U-start plan for innovation and entrepreneurship. Youth Development Administration. https://www.yda.gov.tw/en/plan.aspx?p=3037&rn=-2818

84.

Mohamed

A. E.

Patwary

A. K.

Hassan

M. R.

Sadekin

M. N.

(2022). Assessing entrepreneurial intention among tourism and hospitality graduates: The mediating role of attitude and self-efficacy. International Journal of Trade and Global Markets, 16(1–3), 73–95.

85.

Mundfrom

D. J.

Shaw

D. G.

T. L.

(2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159–168.

86.

Nabi

Liñán

Fayolle

Krueger

Walmsley

(2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16(2), 277–299.

87.

Nabi

Walmsley

Liñán

Akhtar

Neame

(2018). Does entrepreneurship education in the first year of higher education develop entrepreneurial intentions? The role of learning and inspiration. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 452–467.

88.

Nel

Williams

Steyn

Hind

(2018). Customer experiences and expectations of sit-down restaurants: An auto-ethnographic perspective on restaurant failure. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 7(3), 1–16.

89.

Nicholls-Nixon

C. L.

Singh

R. M.

Hassannezhad Chavoushi

Valliere

(2024). How university business incubation supports entrepreneurs in technology-based and creative industries: A comparative study. Journal of Small Business Management, 62(2), 591–627.

90.

Ntshangase

S. D.

Ezeuduji

I. O.

(2023). The impact of entrepreneurship education on tourism students’ entrepreneurial intention in South Africa. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 23(3), 287–305.

91.

Okoro

J. P.

Nassè

D. T. B.

Ngmendoma

A. B.

Carbonell

Nanema

D. M.

(2022). Entrepreneurship education and youth unemployment challenges in Africa: Ghana in perspective. International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship Research, 4(5), 213–231.

92.

Osabohien

Worgwu

Al-Faryan

M. A. S.

(2022). Social entrepreneurship, technology diffusion and future employment in Nigeria. Social Enterprise Journal, 19(1), 40–50.

93.

Otache

(2019). Enhancing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education: The role of entrepreneurial lecturers. Education + Training, 61(7/8), 918–939.

94.

Otache

Umar

Audu

Onalo

(2021). The effects of entrepreneurship education on students’ entrepreneurial intentions: A longitudinal approach. Education + Training, 63(7/8), 967–991.

95.

Padilla-Meléndez

Fernández-Gámez

M. A.

Molina-Gómez

(2014). Feeling the risks: Effects of the development of emotional competences with outdoor training on the entrepreneurial intent of university students. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 861–884.

96.

Paray

Z. A.

Kumar

(2020). Does entrepreneurship education influence entrepreneurial intention among students in hei’s? The role of age, gender and degree background. Journal of International Education in Business, 13(1), 55–72.

97.

Parker

S. C.

(2005). The economics of entrepreneurship: What we know and what we don’t. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1–54.

98.

Parsa

H. G.

Kreeger

J. C.

van der Rest

J. P.

Xie

L. K.

Lamb

(2021). Why restaurants fail? Part V: Role of economic factors, risk, density, location, cuisine, health code violations and GIS factors. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 22(2), 142–167.

99.

Parsa

H. G.

Self

J. T.

Njite

King

(2005). Why restaurants fail. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010880405275598

100.

Passaro

Quinto

Thomas

(2018). The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intention and human capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 135–156.

101.

Phuc

P. T.

Vinh

N. Q.

Q. H.

(2020). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention among tourism undergraduate students in Vietnam. Management Science Letters, 10(15), 3675–3682.

102.

Pittaway

Rodriguez-Falcon

Aiyegbayo

King

(2018). The role of entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning. International Small Business Journal, 36(1), 37–57.

103.

Porfírio

J. A.

Carrilho

Jardim

Wittberg

(2022). Fostering entrepreneurship intentions: The role of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 32(1), 1–10.

104.

Purwanto

(2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis for social and management research: A literature review. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3982764

105.

Ramdhony

Dookee

(2018). Active learning pedagogies as a reform initiative in university Foundation hospitality management modules: A case study. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 30(4), 185–200.

106.

Raposo

do Paço

(2011). Entrepreneurship education: Relationship between education and entrepreneurial activity. Psicothema, 23(3), 453–457.

107.

Ratten

Usmanij

(2021). Entrepreneurship education: Time for a change in research direction? International Journal of Management in Education, 19(1), 100367.

108.

Rigdon

E. E.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2017). On comparing results from CB-SEM and PLS-SEM: Five perspectives and five recommendations. Marketing ZFP, 39(3), 4–16.

109.

Rideout

C. R.

Gray

D. O.

110.

Robledo

J. L. R.

Arán

M. V.

Sanchez

V. M.

Molina

M. A. R.

(2015). The moderating role of gender on entrepreneurial intentions: A TPB perspective. Intangible Capital, 11(1), 92–116.

111.

Roy

Akhtar

Das

(2017). Entrepreneurial intention among science & technology students in India: Extending the theory of planned behavior. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(4), 1013–1041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0434-y

112.

Shah

I. A.

Amjed

Jaboob

(2020). The moderating role of entrepreneurship education in shaping entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Economic Structures, 9(1), 1–15.

113.

Sieger

Fueglistaller

Zellweger

(2014). Student entrepreneurship across the globe: A look at intentions and activities. Swiss Research Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship at the University of St. Gallen (KMU-HSG).

114.

Sieger

Fueglistaller

Zellweger

(2016). Student entrepreneurship 2016: Insights from 50 countries. KMU-HSG/IMU. https://www.guesssurvey.org/resources/PDF_InterReports/GUESSS_2016_INT_Report_final5.pdf

115.

Solesvik

M. Z.

(2013). Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: Investigating the role of education major. Education + Training, 55(3), 253–271.

116.

Souitaris

Zerbinati

Al-Laham

(2007). Do entrepreneurship programs raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 566–591.

117.

Statista. (2023). Number of food and drink service business entities in Taiwan. Author. https://www.statista.com/markets/420/topic/494/food-drink-services/#overview

118.

Statista. (2024). Food and beverage service industry revenue in Taiwan 2023-2024. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1319036/taiwan-catering-industry-monthly-gross-revenue/

119.

Talukder

S. C.

Lakner

Temesi . (2024). Interplay of influencing factors shaping entrepreneurial intention: Evidence from Bangladesh. Administrative Sciences, 14(7), 136.

120.

Thompson

E. R.

(2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 669–694.

121.

Tseng

T. H.

Wang

Y. M.

Lin

H. H.

Lin

S. J.

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 in Education, 20(3), 100682.

122.

Uddin

Chowdhury

R. A.

Hoque

Ahmad

Mamun

Uddin

M. N.

(2022). Developing entrepreneurial intentions among business graduates of higher educational institutions through entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial passion: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Management in Education, 20(2), 100647.

123.

Urban

Ratsimanetrimanana

F. A.

(2015). Culture and entrepreneurial intentions of Madagascan ethnic groups. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 7(2), 86–167.

124.

Wilson

Kickul

Marlino

(2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387–406.

125.

Wurthmann

(2014). Business students’ attitudes toward innovation and intentions to start their own businesses. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 691–711.

126.

(2008). The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in China. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(4), 752–774.

127.

Zaring

Gifford

McKelvey

(2019). Strategic choices in the design of entrepreneurship education: An explorative study of Swedish higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 46(2), 343–416.

128.

Zhang

Duysters

Cloodt

(2014). The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(3), 623–641.

129.

Zhao

Seibert

S. E.

Hills

G. E.

(2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265–1272.

Mechanisms Linking Restaurant Entrepreneurship Education to Graduating Hospitality Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions: Validating the Theory of Planned Behavior

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Entrepreneurship Education

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB Model)

Effects of EE on the TPB Constructs

Effects of TPB Constructs on EI

Methods

Sample and Procedures

Questionnaire Development

Data Analysis Method

Results

Sample Profile

Reliability and Validity Measurements

Hypothesis Testing Procedure and Results

Conclusions

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References