Personal Factors, Contextual Factors, Entrepreneurial Intention, And Nascent Entrepreneurial Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review

Personal Factors, Contextual Factors, Entrepreneurial Intention, And Nascent Entrepreneurial Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review

H. M. S. V. Silva¹, Professor (Mrs.) M.D. Pushpakumari², Professor B.Nishantha³

¹Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka

²Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka

³Department of Management & Organization Studies (MOS), Faculty of Management & Finance, University of Colombo, Colombo -03, Sri Lanka.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.7525

 Received: 22 March 2023; Accepted: 29 March 2023; Published: 23 May 2023

ABSTRACT

Most of developing and developed countries realize that a lack of entrepreneurial intention and failure to engage in nascent entrepreneurial behavior can explain a lack of business success. The current study addresses (1) the current knowledge on entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior, (2) the areas where empirical research is lacking in entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior, (3) the theories used to establish the relationship between entrepreneurial intention, antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, personal factors, contextual factors, and nascent entrepreneurial behavior, and (4) in which context, research has primarily been conducted on entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior. As the methodology of the study, inititally articles were reviewed in the literature, followed by a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). To meet the research aims, 185 publications published between 2009 and 2022 were retrieved from six well-accepted databases, and bibliometric analysis was done. The results found that scholarly attention should be given to personal factors, contextual factors, antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, and nascent entrepreneurial behavior rather than entrepreneurial education. The study needed a systematic and empirical investigation combining personal factors, contextual factors, antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, and nascent entrepreneurial behavior with a solid theoretical underpinning.

Keywords Personal factors, Contextual factors, Entrepreneurial intention, Nascent entrepreneurial behavior, Systematic literature review, PRISMA

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurship is an essential human activity that drives a country’s economic development and competitiveness. It promotes technical advancement and innovation, enhances productivity via increased competition, and helps to reduce unemployment by creating new jobs (Shrivastava & Acharya, 2021). Individually, entrepreneurship allows people to take charge of their careers and achieve personal goals or gives additional cash to supplement professional jobs (Kallas & Parts, 2021). On the other hand, new start-up enterprises help balance the nation’s financial health, social equality, environmental resilience, and economic benefits (Li & Wu, 2019). Even though in today’s culture, start-up enterprises are considered an engine of innovation, these enterprises, on the other hand, are both agile and fragile (Thevanes, 2021). Therefore, establishing a new enterprise involves considerable risks and uncertainty. As entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior are crucial components of economic development, most developing countries have recognized that the lack of success in running a business can be explained by entrepreneurial intention and a failure to engage in nascent entrepreneurial activities (González- López et al., 2021).

Many start-up founders are with solid entrepreneurial intentions, but they do not focus on whether they successfully engage with nascent entrepreneurial behavior while pursuing new venture development (Alam et al., 2019; Farooq, 2018; Kallas and Parts, 2021; Laukkanen, 2022; Mackiewicz, 2022; Meoli et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022) and this mistake may raise the failure rate among new entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial intention is a person’s conscious frame of mind that directs their attention toward accomplishing the goal of venture development (Krueger et al., 2000). Further, Krueger and Carsrud (1993) acknowledged that nascent entrepreneurial behavior is a person’s ability to translate ideas into activities that lead to the development of new firms.

Many scholars have argued that looking into the variables influencing the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior is essential (Lanivich et al., 2021; Mergemeier et al., 2018). Additionally, prior research suggests that personality factors affect entrepreneurial intention (Farooq, 2018; Shirokova et al., 2016). As a result, several studies have previously investigated the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and nascent behavior and personal factors (Farooq, 2018; Farrukh et al., 2017; Maheshwari, 2021).

In addition, Laukkanen (2022) stressed that personal qualities and environmental variables have a comparable impact on entrepreneurial intention (Laukkanen, 2022). Research findings from several academics show that perceived contextual obstacles and support variables significantly influence entrepreneurial behavior. Turker and Selçuk (2009) developed the Entrepreneurial Support Model (ESM), which suggests that entrepreneurial intention is a function of structural, educational, and relational support.

Several scholars have emphasized the importance of understanding the interconnection between personal and contextual factors that lead to entrepreneurial intentions and, more recently, engaging with nascent entrepreneurial behavior when starting a new venture (Mergemeier et al., 2018; Lanivich et al., 2021; Laukkanen, 2022). According to various academics (González-López et al., 2021; Lanivich et al., 2021), these concepts are required for the effective establishment of a new firm. Even though people with entrepreneurial intentions are recognized as potential entrepreneurs, which has become one of the most popular research topics globally, very few systematic and empirical investigations of nascent entrepreneurs are available (Mergemeier et al., 2018; Vogel, 2017). However, Much research has been done on entrepreneurial intention (Edirisinghe & Nimeshi, 2016; Maheshwari, 2021; Mamun et al., 2017; Nungsari et al., 2022; Palmer et al., 2021), but very few studies have been conducted considering both entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior (Alam et al., 2019; Laukkanen, 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). Thus, a systematic and empirical investigation of nascent entrepreneurs who have developed entrepreneurial behavior during the early stages of new venture creation and identify the personal factors and contextual factors which directly affect the relationship between entrepreneurial intention is still lacking (Mergemeier et al., 2018; Vogel, 2017; Laukkanen, 2022).

Furthermore, Alam et al. (2019) and Kallas and Parts (2021) stated that a thorough review of empirical literature in the field of entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior focusing on research gaps is still needed, while Farooq (2018) and Zhang et al. (2014) stated that there is a need to identify the main research directions of entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior that have not yet been deeply explored.

Considering these limitations, this study uses a complete systematic literature review to achieve the following objectives.

1. To identify the current knowledge on entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial
2. To identify the areas where empirical research is lacking in entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior
3. To identify the theories used to establish the relationship between entrepreneurial intention, antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, personal factors, contextual factors, and nascent entrepreneurial behavior during the last 13 years (2009 to 2022).
4. To identify in which context research has primarily been conducted on entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior.

 To achieve the above research objectives, the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) has employed 185 quality research papers published from 2009 to 2022. These articles were picked from well- accepted databases: Taylor & Francis, Emerald, Springer, Wiley Online Library, Elsevier, and Sage, according to the PRISMA article selection guidelines. This study was done as desk research using Zotero open-source reference management software. The following is the paper’s structure. Initially, the literature was reviewed. Following that, the methods and methodology used were explained. The results and findings were then elaborated on. The limitations of the findings were then explored. Finally, the conclusion and future study directions are presented.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Several studies have been undertaken on potential entrepreneurs considering entrepreneurial intention, a widely researched area in entrepreneurship (Meoli et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022; Al Saiqal et al., 2019; Raborar, 2022). Still, the study on nascent entrepreneurs, or those who want to establish a business but are going through a sequence of behaviors, has received less attention (González-López et al., 2021). Moreover, individuals just starting their entrepreneurial start-up endeavors are nascent entrepreneurs (Lanivich et al., 2021). However, more study needs to be done on this vital group of people involved in significant entrepreneurship activities. According to Ajzen (2011), intentions can mediate between a situation’s reality and a person’s behavior. The basis for understanding entrepreneurial behavior is entrepreneurial intentions, which convey a person’s commitment to a new enterprise.

Considering all the different viewpoints from eminent scholars, entrepreneurial intention is acknowledged as the root of nascent entrepreneurial behavior. It might be regarded as an entrepreneurial process. An entrepreneurship study indicated that entrepreneurial intention best predicts entrepreneurial behavior. As a result, having the goal to start a new enterprise but merely being a potential entrepreneur needs to make more sense. Instead, engaging with the nascent behavior is required for venture development by showing different emerging entrepreneurial behaviors as budding entrepreneurs.

Even though nascent entrepreneurial behavior is critical in creating a new enterprise, several studies have highlighted the importance of considering personal and contextual factors that affect entrepreneurial intention mixing with entrepreneurial behavior. Still, some studies have merged individual characteristics (Awwad & Al-Aseer, 2021; Farrukh et al., 2017; Prabhu et al., 2012) and contextual factors (Al Saiqal et al., 2019; Barba-Sánchez et al., 2022) with entrepreneurial intention, but very few studies are available mixing personal factors, contextual factors with entrepreneurial intention and nascent behavior in the entrepreneurial literature. Thus, this study aims to pave the way for future researchers by highlighting various research gaps while focusing on these concepts concurrently in the venture creation process.

METHODS AND METHODOLOGY

Study selection process and methods

The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was utilized in the study. It employed a more objective approach to article selection, inclusion criteria, and analysis techniques. An SLR of entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior was conducted to achieve the current study’s goal. This methodology has clear advantages over traditional narrative reviews, and it is presented in many articles published in high-quality scientific journals (Hu et al., 2018).

The main element of this stage consists of creating and developing the review protocol (Tranfield et al., 2003). This inquiry has identified the relevant academic, peer-reviewed articles for a comprehensive literature evaluation. The author used a search approach to discover relevant publications, defining a specific period of 2009 to 2022 employed in six well-accepted databases: Taylor & Francis, Emerald, Springer, Wiley Online Library, Elsevier, and Sage.

The articles were selected utilizing the most robust databases with significant global research coverage, ensuring the best quality of scientific papers. Regarding article selection, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) article selection procedures, also known as the PRISMA flow diagram, were followed, as suggested for SLRs (Liberati et al., 2009), with three steps. The steps include “identification,” “screening,” and “included.” Figure 1 depicts how these steps were followed in this study.

Identifying the search terms, search criteria, databases, and data extraction process is part of the identification stage. According to Farrukh et al. (2017), entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior are associated with various concepts in the entrepreneurship domain. ‘Thus, Nascent entrepreneurial behavior,’ ‘entrepreneurial intention,’ ‘antecedents of entrepreneurial intention,’ ‘personal characteristics,’ and ‘contextual factors’ were the primary search phrases. They were entered into the database using the “OR” operator to separate each word.

The identified articles must be screened according to the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. Papers that must comply with the inclusion criteria were removed (Meline, 2006; Priyashantha et al., 2021). This screening was performed both automatically and manually. Researchers included publications that met the inclusion criteria “academic journal’’ and published in “English” between 2009 and 2022. Other forms of publications (such as study notes, books, book chapters, conference proceedings, unpublished data, working papers from research groups, technical reports, non- English documents, and works published outside the year range under consideration removed. The complete versions of the screened articles were then obtained for the screening stage, the eligibility assessment. Table 1 depicts the inclusion and exclusion criteria utilized in the study for screening the articles. They are recommended for SLRs (Tranfield et al. 2003) and ensure sufficient homogeneity in methodological quality to derive relevant findings that satisfy internal validity (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006).

Table 1: Inclusion and exclusion criteria for literature review 

The authors performed the eligibility assessments by hand. Methodological quality must be measured by establishing a minimum acceptable level (Meline, 2006). Items that satisfy the good minimum standard are included; those that do not reach the good minimum standard are excluded (Meline, 2006).

Figure 1 shows how these stages were carried out in this investigation. PRISMA assures data richness and limits the danger of missing vital information (Liberati et al., 2009). PRISMA’s initial outcome was that 234 articles published between January 2009 and July 2022 were considered. The duplications were carefully inspected and removed. Thus, 185 publications were evaluated against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. According to the suggestions of the PRISMA approach, the Flow Diagram in Figure 1 of the research was created. A final sample of 185 papers published in 82 journals was obtained using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The information revealed from the sample articles, such as publication year, author/s, title, journal name, the country the study was conducted in, the city the study was conducted in, the research method used, publisher, journal abbreviations, Data analysis method, Theory/s used, number of citations and, sample used, were extracted in an excel spreadsheet (Tranfield et al., 2003; Hu et al., 2018).

Evaluation of the study’s risk of bias

Due to researcher bias in article selection and analysis, review quality suffers (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). Using a review protocol, adhering to a systematic, objective article selection procedure and analysis methods (Xiao & Watson, 2019), and conducting a parallel independent quality assessment of articles by two or more researchers (Brereton et al., 2007) all help to reduce bias in article selection and analysis. By adhering to all of these standards, the risk of bias in the papers was averted.

Figure 1: Flow diagram PRISMA

Source: Review data, 2022

Methods of Analysis

A quantitative bibliometric analysis is performed on these 185 articles using VOSviewer software to identify key trends from the literature and map the study regions. It is a mathematical method for analyzing scientific activities in research (Aparicio et al., 2019; Paule-Vianez et al., 2020). It provides two sorts of analysis in particular: (1) evaluation, performance, and scientific productivity analysis, and (2) scientific maps (Cobo et al., 2012). The scientific map analysis reveals the research’s structure, evolution, and main participants (Noyons et al., 1999). Various information from an article, known as a unit of analysis, is utilized to generate such maps, usually called bibliometric networks (Callon et al., 1983). The keywords that represent the primary content of an article are among the most employed units of analysis for such bibliometric networks. Several links can be established using the co-occurrence connection of keywords in an article (Aparicio et al., 2019).

The VOSviewer visualizes such associations in a map, called “keyword co-occurrence network visualization.” The network visualization must be normalized to get crucial information about the area of inquiry (Priyashantha et al., 2022). As a result, the VOSviewer uses association strength normalization by default and generates a network in two dimensions. In that space, nodes adjacent to each other represent strongly associated keywords, whereas nodes far apart represent weakly related keywords (van Eck & Waltman, 2014). The nodes were then assigned to a network of clusters, with highly correlated nodes placed in the same group (Chen et al., 2015). VOSviewer uses colors to denote the group assigned to a node. While one of our objectives was to discover current knowledge of entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior, a cluster may reflect a common theme. This keyword co-occurrence analysis method was used.

The density visualization obtained from the keyword co-occurrence analysis is another analysis. It was used to fulfill the study’s second goal: to identify areas where empirical research in entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior is weak. According to the VOSviewer handbook, the density of keywords at each place in the item density visualization map is expressed by a color range ranging from blue to green to red by default. The closer a position’s color is nearly red, the more studies are in its surrounding area and the heavier it is. The closer a point’s color is too blue, the fewer studies in its surrounding area and the lower the weight. Green indicates that the things in a moment are average.

To meet the third and the fourth objectives, pivot charts were produced using an excel spreadsheet that considered the 185 articles included for review. The graphs are then critically presented depending on the constructed pivot charts.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Study selection

According to the PRISMA flow diagram, we identified 234 articles at the identification stage. Publications produced outside of 2009 and 2022 were not considered. After that, 22 articles were eliminated before screening due to duplication, followed by another 16 being removed for other reasons, such as conference proceedings, working papers, and technical reports. The total number of articles that remained was 196. Next, five articles were excluded during the screening stage because they were non-relevant. The remainder was 191. Next, 06 of the 191 were eventually removed because they had unclear methodology. Finally, the 185 articles were considered for review. They an MS Excel file with the following information: the title of the article, the journal name, the year of publication, the cited numbers, keywords, the author’s names and affiliations, the country, the research methodology, the analytical technique, and the sample used.

Study characteristics 

• The profile of the articles reviewed. Most of the articles included in this study were obtained from the Emerald, Taylor, and Francis data banks. Next, the Elsevier/Science Direct database is at the forefront, publishing 19 out of 185 papers. The smallest number of papers retrieved from Wiley online wy

Figure 2: Journals per publisher

Source: Author developed, 2022

Figure 3 depicts the articles per publication year from 2009 to 2022. Publications relevant to 2022 were also included, although the literature review was conducted in the middle of 2022 (May 2022 to July 2022). Furthermore, from 2016 onwards, the subject of entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior attracted the interest of scholars, as the total publication rate from 2016 to 2022 was 71 percent out of the total 185(Figure 4). Furthermore, the number of publications increased significantly over the last four years (2019-2022) compared to the previous years, and the increasing tendency from 2019 to 2022 is 22, 20, 24, and 22 articles, respectively.

Figure 3: Articles per publisher

Source: Author developed, 2022

Figure 4: Articles per publication year

Source: Author developed, 2022

Results of studies

This section reports the findings complying with the research objectives. The depiction of keyword co-occurrence networks answered the first objective: determining current knowledge of entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior. The visualization of the term co- occurrence density answered the second objective of finding the areas where empirical entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior research are lacking. To meet the third and fourth objectives, pivot charts and graphs generated from an MS Excel spreadsheet were used to display the data.

The current empirical knowledge in entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial Using the VOSviewer software’s minimal keyword occurrences functionality, researchers observed that 18 terms often appeared in the studies. It was accomplished by gradually increasing the number of times a period occurred, beginning with one and growing to a level that covered more keywords. We chose 18 threshold keywords with five minimum keyword occurrences because only a few (e.g., six) were generated with more (e.g., five or six). We did so because we considered it was clear enough to understand the areas of study. Table 2 displays the keywords that have at least five occurrences.

The keyword ‘entrepreneurial education’ had the most occurrences, as seen in Table 2. Despite our focus on the empirical studies landscape on entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior, we discovered that existing empirical research has focused on ‘entrepreneurial education,’ implying that only a few studies on entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior have been empirically tested. The keyword co-occurrence network visualization in Figure 5 depicts the connections between terms as nodes. The association represents each keyword’s relationship. The thickness of the line characterizes the strength of a link. As illustrated in Figure 5, the various clusters demonstrate that entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior differed according to other areas of inquiry.

Figure 5: The keyword co-occurrence network visualization

 Table 2: The keywords with a minimum of two occurrences 

Areas where empirical research could be improved.

The second objective of the study is covered in this section. As seen in Table 2, entrepreneurship education is the most used keyword in papers, showing that it has been thoroughly investigated. The VOSviewer’s density visualization map (Figure 6) depicts it with the yellow backdrop in the node. However, keyword nodes with a yellow background indicate a sufficient investigation for established On the other hand, keyword nodes with a green backdrop imply that more research on such terms needs to be done. As a result, all the periods (except entrepreneurial education) in figure 6 have a green backdrop, indicating insufficient research.

Figure 6: Keyword density visualization map

Investigation of the theoretical gap – Identify the theories used to establish the relationship between entrepreneurial intention, antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, personal factors, contextual factors, and nascent entrepreneurial behavior during the last 13 years (2009 to 2022).To achieve the third objective of the study, researchers have reviewed the literature on the theories published between 2009 to 2022 to convince the relationship between these variables. When reviewing the literature, the main three theories employed in most of the studies were Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1986), Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (1991), and the social cognitive career theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). Thus, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) has been used to establish the relationship between antecedents of entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior. Next, the social cognitive theory (SCT) shows the connection between personal factors with antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. Further, the social cognitive career theory (SCCT) has been used to build the relationship between contextual factors with antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. The critical note in the literature was that no study is available integrating all three theories considering the relationship between personality traits, contextual factors, the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial intention, and nascent entrepreneurial behavior.

Figure 7 stated below disclosed that most (82) out of 185 studies had used the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) to examine the nexus between antecedents of entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior. In addition, only three out of 185 studies have integrated the theory of planned behavior with the social cognitive theory. Moreover, only six studies have used out of 185 studies, both the theory of planned behavior with the social cognitive career theory on entrepreneurial intention and the nascent entrepreneurial behavior stream. According to Figure 7, integrating TPB, SCT, and SCCT is conceivable to explore personal factors, contextual factors, antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, and nascent entrepreneurial behavior because no study integrating all three theories under one investigation is available from 2009 to 2022. Incorporating contextual elements, human factors, antecedents in entrepreneurial intention, and nascent entrepreneurial behavior with these three theories is thus a prospective study route for academics interested in investigating entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior.

Figure 7: Theories used in the past literature

Source: Author developed, 2022

Investigation of the contextual gap – In which context research has primarily been conducted on entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior.

To achieve the fourth objective of the study, figure 8 shows the review articles by the continents; the globe has received the most reports from the European continent, which is 85 papers (46%), and the second highest contributed from the Asian continent, which is 65 articles (35%). Furthermore, the continents of Australia and South America contributed the least to the study stream, with only three publications from each continent published between 2009 and 2022. Table 3 shows the top six nations in publication Spain, Malaysia, the USA, China, Germany, and India. Spain contributes the most articles, with 19, followed by Malaysia with 12, the USA with 11, China with 10, and India and Germany with 9. Additionally, most nations had fewer than seven articles per country.

Figure 8: Continent-wise publications from 2009 to 2022

Source: Author developed, 2022

Thus, there is a contextual gap in other continents except for Europe and Asia for future academics interested in investigating entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior.

Table 3: Country-wise publications from 2009 to 2022

Furthermore, as shown in Figure 8, only a few research have been undertaken in continents such as South America and Australia. As a result, future academics interested in investigating entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial activity may also find research opportunities in the South America and Australia continents.

Reporting bias assessment

The PRISMA guidelines requested the evaluation of biases caused by missing results in reporting. Thus, the researchers have used systematic and objective software tools and PRISMA principles to avoid biases in reporting the results.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The first limitation of the study is that researchers only employed six databases for this investigation: Taylor & Francis, Emerald, Springer, Wiley Online Library, Elsevier, and Sage. As the following limitation, researchers looked at only academic journals. They disregarded other types of publishing, such as study notes, novels, book chapters, conference proceedings, unpublished data, working papers from research groups, and technical reports. Following that, only articles written in English were considered for this study, and articles written in other languages (non-English papers) were eliminated. The last limitation was that this study did not examine publications published as academic research outside of the year range 2009 to 2022.

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Entrepreneurship education is the most used keyword in publications. According to the density visualization map in VOSviewer analysis, researchers have discovered plenty of studies on ‘entrepreneurial education.’ However, few studies on entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior have been empirically tested.

After reviewing the literature, it was determined that the three fundamental theories used in the majority of the studies were Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1986), Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (1991), and the social cognitive career theory (Lent, Brown and Hackett, 1994). Figure 7 shows that no study integrates all three theories to establish the relationship between personality traits, contextual factors, entrepreneurial intention antecedents, and nascent entrepreneurial behavior. The density visualization map shows that sufficient research integrating all these variables is unavailable.

According to previous literature, qualitative and mixed method are possible research methodologies for assessing entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior. These two techniques are used in only a few studies (8%). As a result, future academics interested in investigating entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior may conduct their future studies using either mixed method or qualitative research, as there need to be more studies conducted employing these two methods.

The contextual gap in the Asian context, particularly in the Middle East, South Asia, and Far East Asian regions, is due to very few available studies. Furthermore, only a few studies have been undertaken in continents such as South America and Australia. As a result, future academics interested in researching entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior may find research prospects in the above-mentioned geographical locations.

Not only do academics and researchers benefit from the current SLR, but so do practitioners and policymakers. Academics and researchers can construct high originality and value studies to examine better entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior based on the analytically given research gaps. Furthermore, based on the current study findings, the authors can undertake further literature studies on personal and contextual factors influencing entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior, as emphasized in the density visualization map generated by VOSviewer software. Academics can use the findings of this study to urge university students who study entrepreneurship as a distinct subject to conduct additional research in the indicated areas.

Finally, policymakers at the governmental level can develop funding programs for research studies on entrepreneurial intention and nascent entrepreneurial behavior, as nascent entrepreneurs are widely needed for every nation, as entrepreneurship is regarded as an essential human activity that drives a country’s economic development and competitiveness. Because entrepreneurship encourages technological advancement and innovation, increases productivity through increased competition, and aids in reducing unemployment by creating new jobs.

REFERENCES

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179–211.
2. Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behavior: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, Taylor &Francis (UNITED STATES), QUANTITATIVE.
3. Al Saiqal, N. Y., Ryan, J. C., & Parcero, O. J. (2019). Entrepreneurial intention and UAE youth: Unique influencers of entrepreneurial intentions in an emerging country context. Journal of East-West Business, 25(2), 144-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/10669868.2018.1536012.
4. Alam, M. Z., Kousar, S., & Rehman, Ch. A. (2019). Role of entrepreneurial motivation on entrepreneurial intentions and behavior Theory of planned behavior extension on engineering students in Pakistan. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, SPRINGER(PAKISTAN), QUANTITATIVE.
5. Al-Jubari, I., & Mosbah, A. (2021). Senior entrepreneurship in Malaysia: Motivations and barriers. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(6), 277-285.
6. Alsos, G. A., & Kolvereid, L. (1998). The business gestation process of novice, serial, and parallel business founders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22(4), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879802200405.
7. Aparicio, G., Iturralde, T., & Maseda, A. (2019). Conceptual structure and perspectives on entrepreneurship education research: A bibliometric review. European research on management and business economics, 25(3), 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.04.003.
8. Arranz, N., Arroyabe, M. F., & Fdez. de Arroyabe, J. C. (2019). Entrepreneurial intention and obstacles of undergraduate students: The case of the universities of Andalusia. Studies in Higher Education, TAYLOR AND FRANCIS(ANDALUSIA), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1486812.
9. Awwad, M. S., & Al-Aseer, R. M. N. (2021). Big five personality traits impact entrepreneurial intention: the mediating role of entrepreneurial alertness. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-09-2020-0136.
10. Barba-Sánchez, V., Mitre-Aranda, M., & Brío-González, J. del. (2022). The entrepreneurial intention of university students: An environmental perspective. European Research on Management and Business Economics, ELSEVIER(SPAIN), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2021.100184.
11. Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442-453.
12. Bogatyreva, K., Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T. S., Osiyevskyy, O., & Shirokova, G. (2019). When do entrepreneurial intentions lead to actions? The role of national culture. Journal of Business Research, ELSEVIER (MULTI COUNTRY STUDIES (26)), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.034.
13. Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of systems and software, 80(4), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009.
14. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to complex networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social science information, 22(2), 191- 235– https://doi.org/10.1177/053901883022002003
15. Chen, S. L., Yu, H., Luo, H. M., Wu, Q., Li, C. F., & Steinmetz, A. (2016). Conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plants: problems, progress, and prospects. Chinese medicine, 11, 1-10. DOI 10.1186/s13020-016-0108-7
16. Cobo, M. J., López‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1609-1630.
17. Edirisinghe, S. D., & Nimeshi, G. K. S. (2016). Entrepreneurial inclination among university students: particularly concerning the university of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 18(7), 07–12. DOI: 10.9790/487X-1807020712.
18. Etrata, A. J. E., & Raborar, J. L. (2022). The Filipino generation Z’s entrepreneurial intention: What drives their business mindedness. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478), SPRINGER(PHILIPPINES), QUANTITATIVE.
19. Farooq, M. S. (2018). Modeling the significance of social support and entrepreneurial skills for determining entrepreneurial behavior of individuals: A structural equation modeling approach. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Sustainable Development, EMERALD(PAKISTAN), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-12-2017-0096.
20. Farrukh, M., Khan, A. A., Shahid Khan, M., Ravan Ramzani, S., & Soladoye, B. S. A. (2017). Entrepreneurial intentions: The role of family factors, personality traits, and self-efficacy. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Sustainable Development, EMERALD (MALAYSIA), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-03- 2017- 0018.
21. González-López, M. J., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2021). From potential to early nascent entrepreneurship: The role of entrepreneurial competencies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, SPRINGER(SPAIN), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00658-x.
22. Haddad, G., Haddad, G., & Nagpal, G. (2021). Can students’ perception of the diverse learning environment affect their intentions toward entrepreneurship? Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, ELSEVIER(FRANCE), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2021.04.002
23. Hu, R., Wang, L., Zhang, W., & Bin, P. (2018). Creativity, proactive personality, and entrepreneurial intention: the role of entrepreneurial alertness. Frontiers in Psychology, pp. 9, 951. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00951.
24. 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, p. 107, 106275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106275
25. Kallas, E., & Parts, E. (2021). From entrepreneurial intention to enterprise creation: The case of Estonia. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, EMERALD(ESTONIA), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-07-2020-0235
26. Kautonen, T., van Gelderen, M., & Fink, M. (2015). Robustness of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, SAGE (AUSTRIA AND FINLAND), QUANTITATIVE.
27. Kitchenham, B., Budgen, D., Brereton, P., Turner, M., Charters, S., & Linkman, S. (2007). Large- scale software engineering questions–expert opinion or empirical evidence? IET Software, 1(5), 161-171.
28. Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Entrepreneurship & regional development, 5(4), 315-330.
29. Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, ELSEVIER(CALIFORNIA), QUANTITATIVE.
30. Lanivich, S. E., Lyons, L. M., & Wheeler, A. R. (2021). Nascent entrepreneur characteristic predictors of early-stage entrepreneurship outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, EMERALD(USA),  QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-08-2019-0283.
31. Laukkanen, M. (2022). What lies behind entrepreneurial intentions? Exploring nascent entrepreneurs’ early belief systems. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, EMERALD(FINLAND), QUALITATIVE. DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-08-2021-0625
32. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of vocational behavior, 45(1), 79–122.
33. Li, L., & Wu, D. (2019). Entrepreneurial education and students’ entrepreneurial intention: Does team cooperation matter? Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, SPRINGER(CHINA), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0157-3 
34. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., … & Moher, (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), W-65. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180- 00136.
35. Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 33(3), 593-617.
36. Maheshwari, G. (2021). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions the most for university students in Vietnam: Educational support, personality traits, or TPB components? Education + Training, EMERALD(VIETNAM), QUANTITATIVE. DOI 10.1108/ET- 02-2021-0074
37. Mamun, A. A., Nawi, N. B. C., Mohiuddin, M., Shamsudin, S. F. F. B., & Fazal, S. A. (2017). Entrepreneurial intention and startup preparation: A study among business students in Malaysia. Journal of Education for Business, TAYLOR, AND FRANCIS(MALAYSIA), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2017.1365682
38. Meline, T. (2006). Selecting studies for systemic   review:   Inclusion   and   exclusion criteria. Contemporary issues in communication science and disorders, 33(Spring), pp. 21–27.
39. Meoli, A., Fini, R., Sobrero, M., & Wiklund, J. (2020). How entrepreneurial intentions influence career choices: The moderating influence of social context—Journal of Business Venturing, ELSEVIER(ITALY), QUANTITATIVE.
40. Mergemeier, L., Moser, J., & Flatten, T. C. (2018). The influence of multiple constraints along the venture creation process and on start-up intention in nascent entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, TAYLOR AND FRANCIS(GERMANY), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1471163
41. Ndofirepi, T. M. (2020). Relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial goal intentions: psychological traits as mediators. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020- 0115-x
42. Ng, H. S., Hung Kee, D. M., & Khan, M. J. (2021). Effects of personality, education, and opportunities on entrepreneurial intentions. Education + Training, EMERALD(MALAYSIA), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2019- 0040
43. Noyons, E. C., Moed, H. F., & Luwel, M. (1999). Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: A bibliometric study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(2), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097- 4571(1999)50:2<115::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-J
44. Nungsari, M., Ngu, K., Wong Ni Shi, D., Chin, J. W., Chee, S. Y., Wong, X. S., & Flanders, S. (2022). Translating entrepreneurial intention to behavior amongst micro and small entrepreneurs. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, EMERALD(MALAYSIA), QUALITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-11-2021- 0429.
45. Otache, I., Umar, K., Audu, Y., & Onalo, U. (2021). The effects of entrepreneurship education on students’   entrepreneurial   intentions:    A    longitudinal    approach. Education+ Training, 63(7/8), 967–991. DOI 10.1108/ET-01-2019-0005
46. Palmer, C., Fasbender, U., Kraus, S., Birkner, S., & Kailer, N. (2021). A chip off the old block? The role of dominance and parental entrepreneurship for entrepreneurial intention. Review of Managerial Science, SPRINGER (AUSTRIA AND LIECHTENSTEIN), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00342-7
47. Paule-Vianez, J., Gómez-Martínez, R., & Prado-Román, C. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of behavioral finance with mappicomplex tools. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 26(2), 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.01.001.
48. Prabhu, V. P., McGuire, S. J., Drost, E. A., & Kwong, K. K. (2012). Proactive personality and entrepreneurial intent: Is entrepreneurial self‐efficacy a mediator or moderator? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, EMERALD (CHINA, FINLAND, RUSSIA, AND USA), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551211253937.
49. Priyashantha, K. G., A. Chamaru De Alwis, and Indumathi Welmilla. “Gender stereotypes change outcomes: A systematic literature review.” Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences (2021). X DOI 10.1108/JHASS-07-2021-0131
50. Sampene, A. K., Li, C., Khan, A., Agyeman, F. O., & Opoku, R. K. (2022). Yes! I want to be an entrepreneur: a study on university students’ entrepreneurship intentions through the theory of planned behavior. Current Psychology, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144- 022-03161-4.
51. Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., & Bogatyreva, K. (2016). Exploring the intention–behavior link in student entrepreneurship: Moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics. European Management Journal, ELSEVIER (RUSSIA AND USA), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.007.
52. Shrivastava, U., & Acharya, S. R. (2021). Entrepreneurship education intention and entrepreneurial intention amongst disadvantaged students: An empirical study. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy EMERALD(INDIA), QUANTITATIVE.
53. Thevanes, N. (2021). The Mediating Effects of Entrepreneurship Intention on the Relationship Between Perceived Behavior Control and Startup Preparation: An Empirical Study in a Selected University in Sri Lanka. EBSCOHOST (SRI LANKA), QUANTITATIVE.
54. Thompson, E. R. (2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 33(3), 669–694.
55. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐ informed management knowledge using a systematic review. British journal of management, 14(3), 207–222.
56. Turker, D., & Selcuk, S. S. (2009). Which factors affect the entrepreneurial intention of university students? Journal of European industrial training, 33(2), 142-159. DOI 10.1108/03090590910939049
57. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice, 285-320.
58. Vogel, P. (2017). From venture, the idea to venture opportunity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 943–971.
59. Vracheva, V. P., Abu-Rahma, A., & Jacques, P. (2019). Effects of context on the entrepreneurial intent of female students from the United Arab Emirates. Education + Training, EMERALD (UNITED ARAB EMIRATES), QUANTITATIVE. DOI 10.1108/ET-01-2018-0014.
60. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of planning education and research, 39(1), 93–112.
61. Yasir, M., Majid, A., & Yasir, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial knowledge and start-up behavior in a turbulent environment. Journal of Management Development, EMERALD(PAKISTAN), QUANTITATIVE. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10- 2016-0193.
62. Zhang, J., Li, B., Zhang, Y., Gong, C., & Liu, Z. (2022). From Entrepreneurship Education, Government Support, and Global Competence to Entrepreneurial Behavior: The Serial Double Mediating Effect of the Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intention. Frontiers in Psychology, ELSEVIER (SOUTH KOREA), QUANTITATIVE. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.838232.