Factors Influencing Entrepreneurial Intention Among University Students in Malaysia: A Conceptual Study

In Malaysia's rapidly evolving higher education landscape, marked by persistent graduate underemployment and a structural mismatch between graduate supply and quality job creation, this conceptual paper proposes an empirical investigation into the factors influencing entrepreneurial intention among university students in Malaysia. Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) as the primary theoretical framework, this conceptual paper examines eight predictors, namely attitude toward entrepreneurship, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, entrepreneurial education exposure, university support, risk-taking propensity, prior entrepreneurial exposure, and cultural values (collectivism and uncertainty avoidance), along with three demographic moderators (gender, family business background, ethnicity), and their proposed effects on entrepreneurial intention. Methodologically, this conceptual paper provides a framework for a longitudinal two-wave survey design with an embedded qualitative component, targeting final-year undergraduate students across public and private universities in five Malaysian regions such as the Greater Klang Valley, Penang, Johor, Sabah, and Sarawak. A stratified random sampling technique with proportionate allocation by region and university type is proposed, with a target sample size of 250 usable responses determined a priori using GPower software. Procedural remedies for common method variance include temporal separation of predictor and criterion variables across two waves. Theoretically, this conceptual paper extends the TPB to the under-researched Malaysian context by incorporating cultural, dispositional, and demographic moderators. Practically, the findings are intended to provide policymakers and university entrepreneurship centres with evidence-based insights to design targeted interventions that foster genuine entrepreneurial intention among students prior to graduation, thereby mitigating the persistent problem of graduate underemployment. A major strength of this paper is its rigorous methodological framework, including a priori sample size determination using GPower, explicit strategies to mitigate common method variance, and strong transparency in acknowledging limitations.

Entrepreneurial Intention, Attitude toward Entrepreneurship, Subjective Norms, Perceived Behavioural Control, Entrepreneurial Education, University Support

1. Leavitt HJ, Whisler DB. Management in the 1980s. Harv Bus Rev. 1958;36(6):41-8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Fisher GG, Bulger CA, Smith CS. Beyond work and family: a measure of work/nonwork interference and enhancement. J Occup Health Psychol. 2009;14(4):441-56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cappelli P. Skill gaps, skill shortages, and skill mismatches: evidence and arguments for the United States. ILR Rev. 2015;68(2):251-90. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Imran M, Salsiu I, Aslam HD, Iqbal J, Hameed I. Resource and information access for SME sustainability in the era of IR 4.0: the mediating and moderating roles of innovation capability and management commitment. Processes. 2019;7(4):211. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Zamel L, Abdullah K, Chan C, Piaw C. Factors influencing nurses' intention to leave and intention to stay: an integrative review. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2020;32(4):218-28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. The Edge Malaysia. Malaysia's unemployment was steady at 3% in 3Q2025 but over one-third of graduates remain underemployed, DOSM. The Edge Malaysia. 2025 November 10. Available from: https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/778992 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. The Malaysian Reserve. Skills mismatch hits Malaysia as nearly 2m underemployed. The Malaysian Reserve. 2026 February 25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hunter, M. (2026, March 30). The hidden unemployment no one talks about. The Vibes. Retrieved from https://www.thevibes.com/articles/opinion/121274/the-hidden-unemployment-no-one-talks-about. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. The Star. Too few jobs for grads a concern, says Mah. The Star. 2025 August 25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Khazanah Research Institute. Underemployment and overqualification among fresh graduates. Kuala Lumpur: Khazanah Research Institute; 2024. Available from: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. https://www.krinstitute.org/publications/underemployment-and-overqualification-among-fresh-graduates [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. Graduate employability report 2025. Putrajaya: MOHE; 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. National Audit Department. Audit report on government programmes and activities. Putrajaya: National Audit Department; 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organisation Behaviour and Human Decisions Process. 1991;50(2):179-211. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychol Health. 2011;26(9):1113-27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Schlaegel C, Koenig M. Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: a meta-analytic test and integration of competing models. Entrep Theory Pract. 2014;38(2):291-332. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ahmad NH, Ramayah T, Wilson C, Kummerow L. Is entrepreneurial competency and business success relationship contingent upon the business environment? A study of Malaysian SMEs. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2010;16(3):182-203. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001;40(4):471-99. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Liñán F, Chen YW. Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrep Theory Pract. 2009;33(3):593-617. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Zhao H, Seibert SE, Hills GE. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(6):1265-72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Cheng MY, Chan WS, Mahmood A. The effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in Malaysia. Educ Train. 2009;51(7):555-66. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Fayolle A, Gailly B. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: hysteresis and persistence. J Small Bus Manag. 2015;53(1):75-93. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Bae TJ, Qian S, Miao C, Fiet JO. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: a meta-analytic review. Entrep Theory Pract. 2014;38(2):217-54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Martin BC, McNally JJ, Kay MJ. Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: a meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. J Bus Ventur. 2013;28(2):211-24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. Entrepreneurship Education Action Plan for Higher Education Institutions (IPT) 2021-2025. Putrajaya: MOHE; 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Guenther J, Wagner K. Getting out of the ivory tower: new perspectives on the entrepreneurial university. Eur J Int Manag. 2008;2(4):400-18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Bergmann H, Hundt C, Sternberg R. What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Bus Econ. 2016;47(1):53-76. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Walter SG, Block JH. Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: an institutional perspective. J Bus Ventur. 2016;31(2):216-33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Zainuddin MN, Rejab MRM. Entrepreneurship education programmes in Malaysian public universities. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;40:36-41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Shukri Ab Yajid MS, Junainah Abd Hamid, Khatibi A, Md Gapar Md Johar, Azam F, Tham J, Indang Ariati Ariffin. Research Methodology: Building Research Skills. 1st ed. Kuala Lumpur: McGraw-Hill (Education) Malaysia; 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Shukri Ab Yajid MS. Employable, entrepreneurial people receive JPA nod of approval. Management and Science University News. 2020 August. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Management and Science University. Skillful MSUrians for future employers: Industry-embedded learning, entrepreneurial ecosystem, soft skills development. MSU Buzz. 2018 May. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Mveku B, Guvhu R, Mutero TTT, Manhiwa ETR, Mbuyisa EN. The effect of entrepreneurship education on the students' self-employment, empowerment, and nurturing minds for the future. Midlands State University Institutional Repository. 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Maviya A, Marambi S. An investigation on the challenges faced by small businesses in rural areas post-Covid that contribute to their failure: a case study of Chivi Growth Point. Midlands State University Institutional Repository. 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Moyo J, Mbuyisa EN, Chari F. Economic resilience and sustainable agripreneurship in tobacco value chains: A case of small-scale farmers in Gokwe district, Zimbabwe. Midlands State University Institutional Repository. 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Steenkamp A, Meyer N, Bevan-Dye AL. Self-esteem, need for achievement, risk-taking propensity and consequent entrepreneurial intentions. South Afr J Entrep Small Bus Manag. 2023;16(1):a753. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Carr JC, Sequeira JM. Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and entrepreneurial intent: a theory of planned behavior approach. J Bus Res. 2007;60(10):1090-8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1986. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Autio E, Pathak S, Wennberg K. Consequences of cultural practices for entrepreneurial behaviors. Ratio Institute Working Paper No. 207. Stockholm: Ratio Institute; 2013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Rahayuningsih T, Mailana R, Armalita R, Sari L. The measurement of cultural values on social entrepreneurship intention in agriculture students using PLS-SEM. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Entrepreneurship, Leadership and Business Innovation (ICELBI 2022). Atlantis Press; 2024:612-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879-903. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Tehseen S, Ramayah T, Sajilan S. Testing and controlling for common method variance: A review of available methods. J Manag Sci. 2017;4(2):142-68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Kock N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM. Int J e-Collab. 2015;11(4):1-10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Bryman A, Bell E. Business research methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 4th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. Higher education statistics 2025. Putrajaya: MOHE; 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Sekaran U, Bougie R. Research methods for business: a skill-building approach. 7th ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Fowler FJ. Survey research methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Baruch Y, Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relat. 2008;61(8):1139-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Ramayah T, Cheah J, Chuah F, Ting H, Memon MA. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 3.0: an updated and practical guide to statistical analysis. 2nd ed. Kuala Lumpur: Pearson Malaysia Sdn Bhd; 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker JM. SmartPLS 4 [computer software]. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS GmbH; 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173-82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. Editorial - partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plann. 2013;46(1-2):1-12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev. 2019;31(1):2-24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Lesener T, Gusy B, Wolter C. The job demands-resources model: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work Stress. 2019;33(1):76-103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Krueger NF, Reilly MD, Carsrud AL. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J Bus Ventur. 2000;15(5-6):411-32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Entrepreneurship and Start-Up Ecosystem Vis-À-Vis Government Start-Up Scheme in Manipur: A Critical Review and a Way Forward
• Building Resilience: How Malaysian Women Entrepreneurs Use Strengths and Resources to Navigate Challenges
• Branding in Digital Entrepreneurship: Evaluating Branding Criteria in IT Entrepreneurship
• Bridging the Intention–Action Gap through Entrepreneurial Optimism: A Conceptual Exploration
• Entrepreneurial Orientation of Undergraduate Students in University Malaysia Perlis: A Conceptual Paper