INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

The Mediating Role of the TBP And Entrepreneurial Motivation:

How Does Institutional Pillars and Entrepreneurial Education Foster

Tunisian Student’s Entrepreneurial Intention?

Siwar YOUSSEF, Chaima BAHRI

Faculty of Faculty of Law and Political Science of Sousse, Sousse, Tunisia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100307

Received: 26 November 2025; Accepted: 04 December 2025; Published: 09 December 2025

ABSTRACT

To stimulate economic growth, different governments have considered institutional frameworks and policies in

place to support entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, a number of studies have demonstrated that institutional and

individual factors influence entrepreneurial intentions in different ways, which contributes to inefficiencies.

Therefore, the purpose of this research is to analysis the relationship between a set of personal and contextual

factors and entrepreneurial intention. Using the PLS-SEM software a mediation analysis was conducted on data

gathered from a sample of 367 undergraduate Tunisian students. The results indicated that the TPB not only has

direct influence on entrepreneurial intention but that it also has a positive mediation effect on the influence of

institutional pillars on entrepreneurial intention. The results of this study highlight the relevance of the interactive

effects of personal characteristics, education, motivation, and government policies on entrepreneurial intention.

Therefore, this study adds to the body of entrepreneurship literature in two ways: first, by confirming the strong

findings that public support is among the best indicators of entrepreneurial intention (EI): we confirmed that in

the Tunisian society, entrepreneurship is a socially supported behaviour and is regarded as an appropriate career

option. Second, we provided a framework for future research to address the paradoxical findings, according to

Shirokova et al. (2020), similar organizations and resources for entrepreneurship may yield different outcomes

under different circumstances, which contradicts our findings.

Keywords: Entrepreneurial intention · Institutional theory · Theory of planned behaviour · Entrepreneurial

education, Entrepreneurial motivation.

Jel Classification Indices: L26, A13, P37, M48

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurship is a universal phenomenon that contributes to the economic growth all over the world, it’s

defined by the emergence of newly creative businesses (Caputo and Pellegrini, 2020). Along with coming up

with creative and new business ideas, entrepreneurs have acquired a variety of behaviours, abilities, skills and

attitudes that help them play an important role in their society (Nabi and Liñán, 2011; Liao et al. 2022). Trainings

and interactions with organizations that support entrepreneurs tend to favour the intention to start a business

(Ahn - Winters 2023; Miranda et al. 2017). As a result, governments work to implement advanced

entrepreneurship promotion strategies in an effort to address innovative challenges for national development and

solve national socioeconomic problems. More specifically, universities focus their curricula on entrepreneurship

knowledge and the development of entrepreneurial intentions (Gangi 2017; Preradovic and Micic 2020).

Numerous studies have examined the role that entrepreneurship plays in the economic development of a nation

as well as the characteristics that encourage entrepreneurship, especially among university students (Petković,

2017). The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) states that entrepreneurial intention is highly influenced by

motivational factors including beliefs on outcomes, as well as the importance of these factors in predicting

intention varies depending on population, contextual factors, and individual behaviors (Ajzen 1991, Teixeira et

al., 2018). Accordingly, numerous studies have investigated entrepreneurial intention and its antecedents in

recent decades (Linan and Fayolle 2015). Researchers have investigated how entrepreneurial urges are fostered

Page 3977

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

at regulatory, normative, and cultural-cognitive institutions (Valdez and Richardson 2013; Urbano and Alvarez

2014; Oftedal et al., 2018; Guerrero and Marozau 2022).

It has been affirmed that a successful country's institutional framework has the ability to act as a catalyst for

encouraging people to become entrepreneurs. Therefore, entrepreneurship literature focused recently on regional

and national drivers and determinants of the entrepreneurial behavior (Komlosi et al., 2014). Contributing to the

advancement of the entrepreneurial intent literature which argued that there is a limited understanding of the

relationship between institutional environmental, individual motivational and contextual educational factors that

can drive entrepreneurial intention among students in a single research model, these limits create a research gap

that must be filled (Linan and Chen 2009, Mickiewicz et al., 2021, Bagis et al., 2023, Al Qadasi et al., 2023),

and in the same vein , several studies suggest that studying one group of determinants in isolation from the others

may yield misleading and inaccurate results Al Qadasi (2023). Therefore, in this study, we combined contextual,

environmental, and personal variables into a single model and investigate their effect on entrepreneurial intention

among Tunisian university students. According to the latest international reports, Tunisia ranks 4th out of 49

countries in terms of entrepreneurial intention. However, for the "Ease of Starting a Business" factor, it only

ranks 30th, reflecting persistent administrative constraints. Moreover, many young Tunisians turn to

entrepreneurship out of necessity — in response to high unemployment — rather than opportunity. This situation

reinforces the importance of understanding how institutional pillars, entrepreneurial education, and individual

motivations influence students' entrepreneurial intentions.

Theoretical Approach

Since 2011, the Tunisian economy has been susceptible due to political instability, which has been exacerbated

by the COVID-19 pandemic. The employability of higher education graduates has become a relevant challenge

for Tunisian universities; it’s considered as a key of reference in all universities’ new reforms. Therefore, several

efforts have been employed in promoting entrepreneurship education through the generalization of business

creation trainings and entrepreneurial culture, as well as the establishment of entrepreneurship-focused MBAs.

As a result, a continuous attempts are made to adapt new educational approaches, whether in entrepreneurship

or other education fields.

Recently, the Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education officially launched in November 2019, the National Status

of Student Entrepreneur (SNEE). This status is granted to student entrepreneurs who have an idea for a project

or plan to create a business during their academic career or after graduation. This program is implemented in

universities from the 2019-2020 academic year.

Referring to the GEM report in 2022, for the entrepreneurial intention index, Tunisia is ranked fourth out of

forty-nine participating countries on a worldwide scale, for the "Ease of Starting a Business" factor, Tunisia is

placed 30th out of 49 participating nations in terms of the effectiveness of government initiatives implemented

to decrease bureaucracy and facilitate business development. However, according to the same report, Tunisians

are forced into entrepreneurship due to external economic and social pressure such as employment scarcity, thus,

we can consider define it as necessity entrepreneurship or involuntary entrepreneurship.

Actually, the employability of graduates is now a major challenge for Tunisian universities. In this context,

several initiatives have been launched to strengthen the entrepreneurial culture, such as the expansion of business

creation training and the establishment of entrepreneurship-oriented MBAs. Thus, the integration of

entrepreneurial education as a key factor allows for a better understanding of its role in shaping the

entrepreneurial intention of young people.

This has given rise to the notion that personality traits may influence entrepreneurial success, but not in isolation,

and most likely through more proximal elements like as human/social capital and motivational factors (Lüthje

and Franke, 2003), most of these research studies have empirically referred to the TPB for investigating students’

entrepreneurial intention (Linan and Chen, 2009. Brunner and Schaeffer, 2024).

Page 3978

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Theory of planned behaviour

According to Ajzen's (1991) three main elements are consisting of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and

influence the behavioural intention: personal attitudes (PA), subjective norms (SN), and perceived behavioural

control (PBC). Firstly, Personal Attitudes toward behaviour refers to the degree to which the individual evaluates

an action to conduct positively or negatively. The second component “Subjective Norms” refers to the

individual’s beliefs of the social pressure of close persons (such as family, close friends, role models, mentors,

or others) to execute specific action or activity. The third predictor which is Perceived Behavioural Control,

refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing a behaviour or an action. Following in the footsteps of

Ajzen - Fishbein (2004), the three listed variables are sufficient to convey the goals, but their relative relevance

fluctuates depending on the circumstances. Recent research on entrepreneurial intention supports the need to

extend the theory of planned behavior in order to incorporate antecedent factors (e.g, institutions, education,

motivation) (Krueger et al., 2000; Linan and Fayolle, 2014, Laouiti et al., 2022, Bagis et al., 2023) that explain

the individual entrepreneurial intention level. Thus, in the framework of acting in the future, this study applies

the theory of Planned Behaviour in order to understand the process of intention development, and ultimately

identify the influence of the three main factors on intention formation.

Personal Attitude towards the entrepreneurial behaviour

Attitudes are the key to understanding human behaviour, in the specific context of this study, attitudes refer to a

positive or negative assessment of the idea of business creation. Entrepreneurial intention depends on attitudes

toward the behaviours that one wants to achieve, thus, those that exhibit strong entrepreneurial mindsets are

encouraged to create their business. It is conceptualized as the degree to which a person has a favourable

appraisal of the behaviour, and attitude towards entrepreneurship behaviour refers to the difference between the

concepts of a personal desire to become self-employed and the desire to work as an employee (Tarek Ben Ali,

2016; Boussoura et al., 2025).

Perceived Behavioural Control

It’s related to the perception of the easiness or difficulty to develop a behaviour, it involves assessing the

availability of the tools and opportunities needed to carry out a desired behaviour, as well as the environment's

barriers and other supportive factors in the societal context. People will have strong intents for starting their own

businesses if their environment encourages them, such as by providing access to financing, lowering barriers to

entry and exit. As argued by Tarek Ben Ali (2016), it reflects to the perception of the easiness or difficulty in the

fulfilment of the behaviour of interest.

Subjective Norms

Subjective Norms refers to the social drivers created by the society; it describes how society affects a person's

decision to start a business. It refers also to the perceived social pressure to perform the behavior. The opinion

of significant persons (i.e., opinions of individuals’ parents, friends, partners or other important role, etc.) about

whether a person will choose to follow a career as an entrepreneur seems to affect the formation of

entrepreneurial intention (Solesvik, 2013; Liñán and Chen, 2009). Despite the enormous importance that families

play in Italian society, Arrighetti et al. (2016) found that the effect of family or friends in supporting students

when establishing a new business is not significant. In fact, the family offers a motivating, demanding, and

responsive environment during infancy, early childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood. Meanwhile

entrepreneurial motivation and entrepreneurial education are two constructs in the intents theory that has not

received enough attention in the literature (Fayolle- Linan, 2014).

Entrepreneurial Motivation

According to Schacter et al. (2011), motivation is defined as the driving reason or purpose of acting, it’s

considered as the cause of acts’ accomplishment. Engle et al. (2007) provided evidence in favor of the idea that

entrepreneurial intention has significant antecedents in terms of needs for autonomy, wealth, and achievement

motivation. Thus, entrepreneurial motivation was included to the TPB by Solesvik (2013), who also affirmed

Page 3979

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

that motivation is crucial to the success of entrepreneurial intention. Additionally, highly motivated individuals

are more likely to launch creative products (Plotnikova et al., 2016), thus, students bring to the educational

institutions an accumulation of motivations, intentions, and past experiences knowledge that influence the

quality of the learning process; thus, entrepreneurial education should assist students with relevant knowledge

and skills they need while also helping them developing self-confidence.

Entrepreneurial education

Since it is crucial to fostering the mindset, expertise, and abilities connected with the practice of

entrepreneurship, research has focused on the importance of entrepreneurship education in developing

entrepreneurial spirits (Fayolle 2013, Gangi, 2017). Due to the fact that almost all public universities in Tunisia

offer the course of entrepreneurial culture as a cross-disciplinary module, entrepreneurship has become an

essential component of higher education programs (El Ghoul- Amrouni, 2017). Thus, Badri- Hachicha (2019)

affirmed that a student's intention to form his own enterprise might be significantly influenced by the academic

and practical knowledge he has learned in school and from other elements of civic society. Indeed, a young

student with prior academic and professional expertise would undoubtedly have a greater probability of coming

up with business ideas for commercial endeavours and business starting. In the context of entrepreneurial

education, programme-derived entrepreneurial inspiration is defined as “a change of hearts (emotion) and minds

(motivation) evoked by events or inputs from the programme and directed towards considering becoming an

entrepreneur” (Souitaris et al., 2007, p.573).

In Tunisia, developing the entrepreneurial spirit among young people is a priority for politicians to fight

unemployment, which mainly affects graduates, this is how programs have been developed in higher education

to install an entrepreneurial culture and encourage future graduates to opt for a business plan. In addition,

personal development courses have been introduced to build self-confidence and work more on the profile of a

student entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship clubs were also created by the students’ competitions were organized to

reward the best business plan and the best entrepreneurial ideas. Besides, Tunisian higher education institutions

offer support activities for start-ups, for example through a dense and well-developed network of business

incubators located in universities and external entrepreneurship support structures (OECD, 2012). The quality

of teaching in entrepreneurship and the university spin-off of companies is now considered as criteria for ranking

the best universities (Béchard - Grégories, 2005).

Theory of institution

Institutional contexts vary from one nation to another (Paradeise- Thoenig, 2013), according to North (1990),

institutions can be categorized as formal or informal (Harbi and Anderson, 2010; De Clercq et al., 2013; Estrin

et al., 2013; Aparicio et al., 2018). Scott (1995) divided institutions into three categories: the normative, the

cognitive, and the regulatory dimensions (e.g., Busenitz et al., 2000; Stenholm et al., 2014; Korosteleva and

Belitski, 2017). The institutional theory developed by numerous scholars is being used as a foundation for several

disciplines, in sociology (Meyer and Rowan, 1977), political science (Spiller and Tommasi, 2003), and

economics (North, 1990), it seeks to explain how external institutional regulations, or "rules of the game,"

influence human behavior (North, 1990; Engle et al., 2007).

In order to better understand institutional context and explain why the entrepreneurial behavior and the

entrepreneurship level differs and varies across nations Nakara et al. (2020), Busenitz et al. (2000) proposed an

institutional framework as a more comprehensive approach to comprehending entrepreneurial behaviour, they

measured the following three dimensions: regulative institution (laws, regulations, and public policies that

support new businesses), cognitive institution (knowledge shared among those who want to start a business),

and normative institution (level of admiration and value placed on entrepreneurs) Laouiti et al.(2022). In order

to comprehend the intention–behaviour gap several prior studies have focused mainly on the role of individual-

level characteristics such as self-efficacy (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994), demographics (Shirokova et al., 2016), self-

identity or emotions (Van Gelderen et al., 2015).

Page 3980

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Regulatory Institution

According to Busenitz et al. (2000) and Bagis et al. (2023), the regulatory pillar of institutions investigates how

individuals perceive the laws, regulations, and government policies that encourage some actions and prohibit

others that are in a specific region. According to Scott (2014), regulatory procedures include the ability to create

norms and rules which can modify the consequences as rewards or punishment in an effort to change future

behaviours. It is consequently anticipated that regulatory institution that supports entrepreneurial activities will

result in stronger student entrepreneurial intentions.

Normative Institution

The normative component includes socially accepted and upheld societal standards, values, beliefs, and

assumptions about human nature and behavior (Kostova and Marano 2019). Hofstede's classification of nations

according to the level of individualism in their cultures is contrasted with the normative dimension (Busenitz et

al., 2000). Several studies demonstrates that the entrepreneur's environment somewhat influence the act of

starting a business, having the desire to do something or being able to do it depends on more than just your own

unique, isolated personal characteristics. The literature review notes that the perceived viability of business

creation is frequently linked to the circumstance, environmental and situational factors, it can either encourage

or inhibit the entrepreneurial process at various stages (Tounes, 2003).

Cognitive Institution

The cognitive component reflects the shared social and cognitive understanding of the citizens of a certain nation.

Because they greatly influence the cognitive programs, such as schemas, frames, and inferential sets, that people

employ when choosing and interpreting information, cognitive structures have an impact on individual behavior.

According to Bird (1992), the act of starting a business is a direct result of people's goals, which are undoubtedly

influenced by environmental factors. The goal is, undoubtedly, first and foremost a personal desire, but it also

depends on contextual factors (Vesalainen and Pihkala, 1999). In order to address this inquiry, some researchers

(Hisrich and O'Cinneide, 1986; Filion, 1991; Casson, 1991) have demonstrated the impact of the sociocultural

environment, the family context, the professional environment, and the personal network on the emergence and

success of the entrepreneurial project. In line with this viewpoint, Shapero - Sokol (1982) exposed group

belonging characteristics, prior experiences, learnings, and even imitation pictures as catalysts of the decision-

making process leading to the creation of an enterprise. In fact, this approach has aided studies on the impact of

the value system on entrepreneurial behavior conducted by researchers from other fields (anthropologists,

psychologists, and sociologists). For Gartner (1989), the choice to launch a new business is a personal decision-

making process that involves a cost-benefit analysis of the opportunities, this decision is generally seen as the

act that triggers the entrepreneurial process, or the point at which a creator becomes a new entrepreneur.

Theoretical framework and Hypotheses

Figure 1- Theoretical Framework

Page 3981

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

H1: PA is positively related to the EI.

H1a: PA mediates the relation between RI and EI.

H1b: PA mediates the relation between NI and EI.

H1c: PA mediates the relation between CI and EI.

H2: PBC is positively related to the EI.

H2a: PBC mediates the relation between RI and EI.

H2b: PBC mediates the relation between NI and EI.

H3: SN is positively related to the EI.

H3a: SN mediates the relation between NI and EI.

H3b: SN mediates the relation between CI and EI.

H4: EM is positively related to the EI.

H4a: EM mediates the relation between EE and EI.

H5: RI is positively related to EI.

H6: NI is positively related to EI.

H7: CI is positively related to EI.

Research And Measurement Design

The Shapero and Sokol's (1982) and Ajzen's (1991) theories of planned behaviour (TPB) have been widely used

to the study of entrepreneurial intention. Generally, the TPB model is the dominant model it has been used in a

greater number of works across different disciplines (Fayolle and Linán, 2014; Borsi-Dory 2019), through the

entrepreneurship publications, intention models are related to different models and theories, such as motivation

theory, and the theory of institution (Bagis et al., 2023), Thus, scholars in this field have highlighted the

importance of using cognitive approach, in addition to behavioural theories, to increase knowledge of the

antecedents of entrepreneurial intention.

Conducting face-to-face data collection was considered as the best method for this study investigation. Thus, a

survey was developed to obtain the responses from 367 students enrolled at Tunisian universities. To measure

the students’ entrepreneurial intention, we suggested the use of items related to attitude towards becoming an

entrepreneur, perceived behavioural control, subjective norms, and Entrepreneurial Intention that were designed

and tested by Liñán and Chen (2009), we adopted the measurement of the Entrepreneurial education from the

tested questionnaire of (Franke-Lüthje 2004), for the Entrepreneurial motivations we adopted items from

(Solesvik, 2013). To measure the Institutional support, we suggested the use of the questionnaire developed by

Busenitz et al. (2000), Dehghanpour Farashah (2015).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Validity: (Validity and Reliability)

To assess measurement model, we must verify the convergent and discriminant validity of each construct in my

model. The testing of three indices is required for convergent validity: factor loadings, average variance extracted

Page 3982

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

(AVE), and composite reliability (CR). As demonstrated in Table, good convergent validity was achieved

because all item loadings on each relevant construct above the 0.60 criterion indicated by Hair et al. (2010).

Table 1- Results of Convergent Validity

Variables

CI

Cronbach's alpha

0,821

Composite reliability (CR)

Average variance extracted (AVE)

0,822

0,864

0,944

0,884

0,874

0,932

0,834

0,896

0,814

0,737

0,778

0,773

0,614

0,716

0,773

0,750

0,719

EE

0,858

EI

0,940

EM

NI

0,844

0,866

PA

0,926

PBC

RI

0,834

0,889

SN

0,804

To assess the discriminant validity, two criteria can be used: cross loadings of the indicators and the Fornell-

larcker criterion. AVE should be greater than the variance shared between the construct and the other constructs

in the model (i.e., the squared correlation between two constructs). For adequate discriminant validity, the

diagonal elements should be significantly greater than the off-diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and

columns. This condition is satisfied for each reflective construct.

Table 2-Results of Fornell-Larcker Criterion analysis

CI

EE

EI

EM

NI

PA

PBC

RI

SN

CI

EE

EI

0,858

0,422

0,485

0,882

0,244

0,307

0,342

0,230

0,368

0,911

0,279

0,879

0,211

0,394

0,827

0,558

0,247

0,425

EM 0,350

0,784

0,291

0,119

0,313

0,326

0,286

NI

0,381

0,451

0,846

0,379

0,394

0,359

0,628

PA

0,879

0,540

0,264

0,406

PBC 0,793

0,866

0,379

0,376

RI

0,423

0,318

0,866

0,275

SN

0,848

Page 3983

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Structural Relationship analysis

direct relationship analysis

To assess the structural model with Smart PLS, different criteria are required to analyze such as the coefficient

of determination (R²), the effect size (f²) and the path coefficients (Hair et al., 2019; Henseler et al., 2012). As

suggested by Hair et al. (2019) an R² value of 0–1 suggests a good level of predictive accuracy, with a higher R²

value indicating a higher level of predictive accuracy. In this case the coefficient of determination of students’

entrepreneurial intention presents a high degree of predictive accuracy (R² = 0.711); which indicates that this

endogenous latent construct is explained by up to 71.1%. Additionally, the values of the effect size (f²) for

normative and regulatory institutions, which are 0.503 and 1.197 indicate the large effect of these two exogenous

variables. The f² values for cognitive institutions and entrepreneurial education which are 0.123 and 0.104

respectively are acceptable.

Mediation relationship analysis

The indirect (mediation) results revealed that H5, H6, H7 and H8 were accepted and statistically significant.

Table 3- PLS mediation test with bootstrapping

Indirect effect (β)

0,259

Standard error (SE)

Lower bound (95%)

Upper bound (95%)

CI->EI

EE->EI

NI->EI

RI->EI

0,041

0,011

0,052

0,058

0,181

0,002

0,143

0,158

0,339

0,044

0,344

0,383

0,021

0,244

0,273

Table 4- Path coefficient of the research hypotheses

Hypothesis

H1

Relationship

PA->EI

Std. Beta

0.729

0.119

0.065

0.068

0,056

0,244

0,259

0,021

0,024

0,171

0,253

Std. error

0.039

0.033

0.041

0.032

0,040

0,052

0,041

0,011

0,037

0,048

0,041

T value P value Decision

18.580 0.000 Supported**

H2

PBC->EI

SN->EI

2.917

1.984

2.143

1,393

4,730

6,388

2,002

0,651

3,549

6,223

0.004

0.047

0.000

0,164

0,000

0,045

0,515

0,000

Supported**

Supported *

Supported**

Rejected

H3

H4

EM->EI

H5

RI->EI

H6

NI->EI

Supported **

Supported**

Supported *

Rejected

H7

CI->EI

H8

EE->EI

H1a

H1b

H1c

RI->PA->EI

NI->PA->EI

CI->PA->EI

Supported**

Page 3984

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

H2a

H2b

H3a

H3b

H4a

RI->PBC->EI

NI->PBC->EI

NI->SN->EI

CI->SN->EI

EE->EM->EI

0,032

0,035

0,039

0,006

0,021

0,013

0,015

0,020

0.004

0,011

2,528

2,352

1,926

1.477

2,002

0,011

0,019

0,054

0.140

0,045

Supported**

Rejected

Supported *

Significant at P**=<0.01, P*<0.05

The first hypothesis predicts that personal attitudes have a direct positive and significant effect on entrepreneurial

intention was accepted (H1. β = 0.729; t-value = 18.580; p = .000). Hypotheses 2,3 and 4 were also accepted

which predict respectively that perceived behavior control (H7, β = 0.119; t-value = 2.917; p = .004), subjective

norms (H6, β = 0.065; t-value = 1.984; p = 0.047), and entrepreneurial motivation (β = 0.068; t-value = 2.143; p

= .000) have a significant positive effect on entrepreneurial intention. Consistent with the literature and past

research in the field of entrepreneurship and other research domains, these empirical findings support the TPB

in demonstrating that personal attitude, perceived behavioural control and subjective norms, are major predictors

of entrepreneurial intention. Thus, we replied to the prior call for study into the antecedents of EI at the contextual

level (Fayolle and Liñán, 2014). Furthermore, the results argued the important influence of family, friends,

abilities to control, beliefs on self-abilities, and the self-motivation on the intention towards business creation

and student’s entrepreneurial intention. (Solesvik, 2013).

The fifth hypothesis states that there are a direct positive and significant effect of RI on students’ entrepreneurial

intentions. The finding allowed this hypothesis to be rejected (H5. β = 0,056; t-value = 1,393; p = .0164). Our

findings may relay with Charfeddine and Zaouali (2022) findings which indicate that regulatory institutions have

a greater impact on the behaviors of owners of incumbent enterprises than on the intents of early-stage

entrepreneurs.

The hypothesis number 6 proposes that there is a positive relationship between normative institutions and

students’ entrepreneurial intentions. The results allowed this hypothesis to be accepted (H6. β = 0.244; t-value

= 4.730; p = 0.000). Respectively hypothesis number 7 states that cognitive institutions have a significant effect

on students’ entrepreneurial intention, H7 is statistically significant (H7. β = 0.259; t-value = 6.338; p =0 .000).

These empirical results allowed me to accept these hypotheses. These results come as a confirmation to the

findings of previous studies which argued the significant and positive relationship between normative, cognitive

institutions and entrepreneurial intentions (Valdez and Richardson 2013; Oftedal et al. 2018; Laouiti et al., 2022,

Bagis et al., 2023,).

The last direct relationship is represented by the hypothesis number 8, which predicts that entrepreneurial

education has a direct positive and significant effect on students’ entrepreneurial intentions, was accepted. The

relationship between these two variables is positive and significant (H8. β = 0.021; t-value = 2.002; p = 0.045).

my result is similar to the findings of (Nguyen and Nguyen, 2023) which indicate that entrepreneurial education

in the Vietnamese context have a favorable impact on entrepreneurial intention.

Although, one of the three institutional pillars was found insignificant on its direct relationship with

entrepreneurial intention, we examined the mediating impact of individual motives (PA, SN, PBC, and EE) on

entrepreneurial intention. This study supported H1b, H1c, H2a, H2b, H3a, H3b, and H4a, thus, we suggested

that individual motives mediate the impact of the institutional pillars (regulative, normative, cognitive) and the

entrepreneurial education elements on entrepreneurial intentions.

The relationship between CI and EI, NI and EI were significantly mediated by PA. Similarly, the relationship

between NI and EI and between RI and EI were significantly mediated by PBC. Moreover, the relationship

between EE and EI was significantly mediated by EM. Indeed, the test of mediation (see Table) with the

bootstrap resampling procedure confirms that CI, EE, NI and RI are indirectly related to EI and is fully mediated

Page 3985

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

by PA, PBC and EM (Hypothesis 7, 8, 6, 14, 15, 16) (β = 0.259; β = 0.021; β = 0.244; β = 0.056 are significant

because zero is not included in the confidence interval ([0.181–0.339]; [0.002-0.44]; [0.143-0.344]). For

hypothesis H1a, the mediating effect of PA between RI and EI was not significant (H1a, β=0.024, t-value=0.651,

p-value= 0.515). Similarly, the mediating effect of SN between NI and EI (H3a, β=0.039, t-value=1.926, p-

value= 0.054) and CI and EI (H3b, β=0.006, t-value=1.477, p-value= 0.140) were not significant.

These findings align with discussions by (Bagis et al., 2023), Schlaegel et al. (2013), Schlaegel and Koenig

(2014), Urban and Kujinga (2017), and Oftedal et al. (2018). These findings also add to the literature and show

that, to understand the institutional impact, it is crucial to integrate individual-level variables to know the extent

to which institutions influence entrepreneurship and the mediating role of individual variables in this

relationship.

The mediating impact of individual motives on institutional pillars and entrepreneurial intention could be

explained by the uncertainty facts of conducting business in the Tunisian context similarly to the Turkey and

Kosovo (Bagis et al., 2023).

Moreover, I can add my findings for the mediation effect of entrepreneurial motivation between entrepreneurial

education and entrepreneurial intention to the findings of (Solesvik, 2013) which confirmed this relationship and

argued that entrepreneurial educational programs stimulate student’s entrepreneurial motivation towards

business creation, thus educational channels, proving their relevant role on motivating students’ creativity and

innovation towards the business world.

CONCLUSION

One suggestion to resolving the financial issues, especially in emerging countries, is to launch a business. Across

all societies, institutions are both the creators and executors of the rules of the economic life norms (DiMaggio

and Powell, 1991).

Therefore, this study adds to the body of entrepreneurship literature in two ways: first, by confirming the strong

findings that public support is among the best indicators of entrepreneurial intention (EI); we confirmed that in

the Tunisian society, entrepreneurship is a socially supported behaviour and is regarded as an appropriate career

option.

Second, we provided a framework for future research to address the paradoxical findings, according to Shirokova

et al. (2020), similar organizations and resources for entrepreneurship may yield different outcomes under

different circumstances, which contradicts our findings. In certain situations, university support for

entrepreneurship may have a negative impact on students' intentions to start their own businesses (Morris et al.,

2017). Shirokova et al. (2022) argued that encouraging entrepreneurship excessively may have the opposite

effect of a "too-much-of-a-good-thing."

Thus, in order to meet the demands of students and provide them with a variety of market entrance resources,

including social and financial assistance, we advise Tunisian policy makers to re-adapt entrepreneurship-related

educational programs and market laws and regulations (Vinogradova et al., 2022).

As all studies, this study has its limitation, firstly it has only employed quantitative data using a survey

questionnaire, however future studies might collect both quantitative and qualitative data for a more

comprehensive analysis. Second, particularly in conservative nations such as Tunisia, it might be needed to

include gender comparison research on the influence of institutional support on entrepreneurial intention.

REFERENCES

1. Ahn, K. - Winters, J. V. (2023), Does education enhance entrepreneurship? Small Business

Economics, 61(2), 717-743.

2. Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

Elsevier, 50(2), 179-211.

Page 3986

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

3. Ajzen, I., - Fishbein, M. (2004), Questions Raised by a Reasoned Action Approach: Comment on Ogden

(2003). Health Psychology, 23(4), 431–434.

4. Alı, T. B. (2016), Explaining the intent to start a business among Saudi Arabian university

students. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(2), 345-353.

5. Alvarez, S. A.,

-

Barney, J. B. (2014), Entrepreneurial opportunities and poverty

alleviation. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 38(1), 159-184.

6. Al-Qadasi, N. - Zhang, G.- Al-Awlaqi, M. A. - Alshebami, A. S., - Aamer, A. (2023), Factors influencing

entrepreneurial intention of university students in Yemen: The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-

efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, (14), 1111934.

7. Aparicio, S., Urbano, D., & Gomez, D. (2018). Entrepreneurship and regional economic growth in

Antioquia: An empirical analysis. Economics and business letters, 7(2), 84-91.

8. Arrighetti, A.- Caricati, L.- Landini, F.- Monacelli, N. (2016), Entrepreneurial intention in the time of

crisis: a field study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(6), 835-859.

9. Boussoura, E., Drine, R., & Jahmane, A. (2025). Quand le chercheur devient entrepreneur: étude des

déterminants de la valorisation de la recherche scientifique. Innovations, I-XXXIII.

10. Badri, R.- Hachicha, N. (2019), Entrepreneurship education and its impact on students’ intention to start

up: A sample case study of students from two Tunisian universities. The International Journal of

Management Education, 17(2), 182-190.

11. Bağış, M. -Altınay, L. - Kryeziu, L. - Kurutkan, M. N. - Karaca, V. (2024), Institutional and individual

determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: evidence from developing and transition economies. Review

of Managerial Science, 18(3), 883-912.

12. Barba-Sánchez, V. - Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2017), Entrepreneurial motivation and self-employment:

evidence from expectancy theory. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13, 1097-

1115.

13. Béchard, J. P.- Grégoire, D. (2005), Entrepreneurship education research revisited: The case of higher

education. Academy of management learning & education, 4(1), 22-43.

14. Boyd, N. G.- Vozikis, G. S. (1994), The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial

intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 18(4), 63-77.

15. Borsi, B. - Dőry, T. (2020), Perception of multilevel factors for entrepreneurial innovation success: A

survey of university students. Acta Oeconomica, 70(4), 615-632.

16. Bird, B. J. (1992). The operation of intentions in time: The emergence of the new

venture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1), 11-20.

17. Brunner, P., & Schaeffer, V. (2024). The features of student entrepreneurs as leaders of social,

environmental and sustainable entrepreneurial projects. Journal of Innovation Economics &

Management, 43(1), 69-101.

18. Bruton, G. D. - Ahlstrom, D. - Obloj, K. (2008), Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are

we today and where should the research go in the future. Entrepreneurship Theory

19. and Practice, 32(1), 1–14.

20. Busenitz, L. W., Gomez, C., & Spencer, J. W. (2000), Country institutional profiles: Unlocking

entrepreneurial phenomena. Academy of Management journal, 43(5), 994-1003.

21. Caputo, A. - Pellegrini, M. M. (eds) (2020). The entrepreneurial behaviour: Unveiling the cognitive and

emotional aspect of entrepreneurship. Emerald Publishing Limited.

22. Casson, M. (1991). L’entrepreneur, coll. Gestion. Economica.

23. Charfeddine, L.- Zaouali, S. (2022), The effects of financial inclusion and the business environment in

spurring the creation of early-stage firms and supporting established firms. Journal of Business, Elsevier,

143(C), 1-15.

24. Davidsson, P. (2015), Entrepreneurial Opportunities and the Entrepreneurship Nexus: A Re-

Conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674–695.

25. De Clercq, D.- Lim, D. S.- Oh, C. H. (2013), Individual–level resources and new business activity: The

contingent role of institutional context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 303-330.

26. Dehghanpour Farashah, A. (2015), The effects of demographic, cognitive and institutional factors on

development of entrepreneurial intention: Toward a socio-cognitive model of entrepreneurial

career. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 13(4).

Page 3987

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

27. DiMaggio P.J.- Powell W.W. (1991): (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis.

University of Chicago Press (1–38).

28. El Ghoul, A.- Amrouni, H. (2017) , L’enseignement de l’Entrepreneuriat en Tunisie : Université versus

hors Université : Vers la mise en place de l’Approche par Compétence. In International Conference on

Business, Economics, Marketing & Management Research (BEMM-2017).

29. Engle, R. L. - Dimitriadi, N. - Gavidia, J. V. - Schlaegel, C.- Delanoe, S.- Alvarado, I. - Wolff, B. (2010),

Entrepreneurial intent: A twelve‐country evaluation of Ajzen's model of planned behavior. International

Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(1), 35-57.

30. Estrin, S.- Mickiewicz, T.- Stephan, U. (2013), Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social

and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 37(3),479-504.

31. Fayolle, Alain (2013), Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship &

Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692–701.

32. Fayolle, A. - Liñán, F. (2014), The Future of Research on Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Business

Research, 68, In press.

33. Gangi, Y. A. (2017), The role of entrepreneurship education and training on creation of the knowledge

economy: Qatar leap to the future. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable

Development, 13(4), 375-388.

34. Gartner, W. B. (1989), Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and

characteristics. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 14(1), 27-38.

35. GEM 2022/2023 Tunisia National Report, https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-20222023-

tunisia-national-report-2

36. Ge, J.- Carney, M. - Kellermanns, F. (2019), Who fills institutional voids? Entrepreneurs’ utilization of

political and family ties in emerging markets. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(6), 1124-1147.

37. Guerrero, M. – Marozau, R. (2022), Assessing the influence of institutions on students’ entrepreneurial

dynamics: evidence from European post-socialist and market-oriented economies. Small Bus Econ, 60,

503-519.

38. Hair, J. F. (2009). Multivariate data analysis.

39. Hair, J. F.- Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M.- Ringle, C. M. (2019), When to use and how to report the results of

PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1): 2-24.

40. HARBI, S.E. - ANDERSON, A.R. (2010), Institutions and the shaping of different forms of

entrepreneurship. Journal of socioeconomics, 39(3), 436-444.

41. Henseler, J.- Ringle, C. M.- Sarstedt, M. (2012), Using partial least squares path modeling in advertising

research: basic concepts and recent issues. In Handbook of research on international advertising. Edward

Elgar Publishing.

42. Hisrich, R. D.- O’Cinneide, B. (1986), The Irish entrepreneur: characteristics, problems and future

success. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, 66-81.

43. Komlósi, É. - Szerb, L. - Ács, Z. J. - Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015), Quality-related regional differences in

entrepreneurship based on the GEDI methodology: The case of Hungary. Acta Oeconomica, 65(3), 455-

477.

44. Korosteleva, J.- Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial dynamics and higher education institutions in the

post-Communist world. Regional Studies, 51(3), 439-453.

45. Kostova, T. (1997). Country institutional profiles: Concept and measurement. Academy of management

proceedings. (1), 180-184.

46. Krueger, N. F. - Reilly, M. D. - Carsrud, A. L. (2000), Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions.

Journal of Business Venturing, (15), 411-432.

47. Laouiti, R.- Haddoud, M. Y.- Nakara, W. A. - Onjewu, A. K. E. (2022). A gender-based approach to the

influence of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Research, (142), 819-

829.

48. Liao, S. - Javed, H.- Sun, L.- Abbas, M. (2022), Influence of entrepreneurship support programs on

nascent entrepreneurial intention among university students in China. Frontiers in

Psychology, 13,955591.

49. 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.

Page 3988

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

50. Liñán, F. - A. Fayolle, (2015), A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation,

thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11,

907–933.

51. Lüthje, C., - Franke, N. (2003), The ‘making’of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial intent

among engineering students at MIT. R&d Management, 33(2), 135-147.

52. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977), Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and

ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363.

53. Mickiewicz, T.- Stephan, U. - Shami, M. (2021), The consequences of short‐term institutional change in

the rule of law for entrepreneurship. Global Strategy Journal, 11(4), 709-739.

54. Miranda, F. J. - Chamorro-Mera, A. - Rubio, S. (2017), Academic entrepreneurship in Spanish

universities: An analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurial intention. European research on

management and business economics, 23(2), 113-122.

55. Nakara, W. A.- Laouiti, R.- Chavez, R., - Gharbi, S. (2020), An economic view of entrepreneurial

intention. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(8), 1807-1826.

56. Morris, M. H.- G. Shirokova, - T. Tsukanova, (2017), Student Entrepreneurship and the University

Ecosystem: A Multi-Country Empirical Exploration. European Journal of International Management, 11

(1), 65–85.

57. Nabi, G. - Liñán, F. (2011), Graduate entrepreneurship in the developing world: intentions, education

and development. Education+ training, 53(5), 325-334.

58. North, D. C. (1990), Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge university

press.

59. Nguyen, Q. D. - Nguyen, H.T. (2023) , Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention : The

mediating role of entrepreneurial capacity. International Journal of Management Education., 21(1),

100730

60. Oftedal, E.M. – Iakovleva, T. A. - Foss, L. (2018), University context matter. Educ Train 60:873–890.

61. Ogunsade, A. I. - Obembe, D. - Woldesenbet, K. - Kolade, S. (2021), Entrepreneurial attitudes among

university students: the role of institutional environments and cultural norms. Entrepreneurship

Education, 4,169-190.

62. Paradeise, C.- Thoenig, J. C. (2013). Academic institutions in search of quality: Local orders and global

standards. Organization studies, 34(2), 189-218.

63. Petković, S. (2017), Univеrsity students’еntrеprеnеurial intentions: insights from bih (republic of

srpska). Acta Economica, 15(27), 59-92.

64. Plotnikova, M.- Romero, I.- Martínez-Román, J. A. (2016): Process innovation in small businesses: The

self-employed as entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 47(4): 939–954.

65. Preradovic, D. - Micic, L. (2020). Ict-based student entrepreneurial projects analysis of systematic

support and evaluation of student interesT. Acta Economica, 18(32),107 – 123.

66. Rodriguez-Ulcuango, O. - Guerra-Flores, C. - Fernandez, G. Q. - Ayaviri-Nina, D. - Giner-Pérez, J. M.

(2023), Bibliometric Analysis of Determining Factors in Entrepreneurial Intention. Academic Journal of

Interdisciplinary Studies, 12(2), 84-93.

67. Schacter, D. - Gilbert, D. - Wegner, D. - Hood, B. (2011). Psychology: European Edition. Basingstoke,

UK: Palgrave Macmillan

68. Schlaegel, C.- Koenig, M. (2014), Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta–analytic test and

integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 38(2): 291-332.

69. Schlaegel, C.- He, X.- Engle, R. L. (2013), The direct and indirect influences of national culture on

entrepreneurial intentions: A fourteen-nation study. International Journal of Management, 30(2), 597.

70. Scott, W. (1995). Richard: Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks.

71. Shapero, A.- Sokol, L. (1982), The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in

Entrepreneurship.

72. 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, 34(4), 386-399.

Page 3989

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

73. Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., Bogatyreva, K., Edelman, L. F., & Manolova, T. S. (2022). Moving from

intentions to actions in youth entrepreneurship: An institutional perspective. Entrepreneurship Research

Journal, 12(1), 25-69.

74. Souitaris, V.- Zerbinati, S.- Al-Laham, A. (2007), Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial

intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal

of Business venturing, 22(4), 566-591.

75. Solesvik, M. Z. -Westhead, P. -Matlay, H. - Parsyak, V. N. (2013), Entrepreneurial assets and mindsets:

benefit from university entrepreneurship education investment. Education+ Training, 55(8-9), 748-762.

76. Spiller, P. T.- Tommasi, M. (2005): The institutions of regulation: An application to public

utilities. (eds): Springer, New institutional economics (515-543).

77. Stenholm, P.- Hytti, U. (2014), In search of legitimacy under institutional pressures: A case study of

producer and entrepreneur farmer identities. Journal of Rural Studies, 35, 133-142.

78. Teixeira, S. J. - Casteleiro, C. M. L. - Rodrigues, R. G. - Guerra, M. D. (2018), Entrepreneurial intentions

and entrepreneurship in European countries. International Journal of Innovation Science, 10(1), 22-42.

79. Tounés, A. (2006), L’intention entrepreneuriale des étudiants : le cas français. La revue des sciences de

gestion, (3), 57-65.

80. Urban, B.- Kujinga, L. (2017), The institutional environment and social entrepreneurship

intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(4), 638-655.

81. Urbano, D. - Alvarez C (2014): Institutional dimensions and entrepreneurial activity: an international

study. Small Bus Econ, 42,703–716.

82. Valdez, M. E.,

-

Richardson, J. (2013), Institutional determinants of macro–level

entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 37(5), 1149-1175.

83. Van Gelderen, M.- Kautonen, T.- Fink, M. (2015), From entrepreneurial intentions to actions: Self-

control and action-related doubt, fear, and aversion. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5),655-673.

84. Vinogradova, N.- Novac. A. -Jáki, E. - Aranyossy, M. (2023), The impact of entrepreneurship education

on entrepreneurial intentions and competencies of students in Moldova. Society and Economy, 45(1),

33-52.

85. Vesalainen, J.- Pihkala, T. (1999): Entrepreneurial identity, intentions and the effect of the push-

factor. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(2),1-24.

Page 3990

www.rsisinternational.org