| Literature DB >> 35756254 |
Abstract
This study investigated the psychological mechanism by which parents' socioeconomic status, including income and social class, influences the international entrepreneurship intentions of young adults. Two datasets, self-reported (survey) and objective, were collected from 372 undergraduate students across 19 universities in China. Parents' income and social class had a positive effect on international entrepreneurship intentions. Sense of power and motivational cultural intelligence (CQ) played mediating roles in this relationship, and work experience moderated this relationship. The mediation tests revealed that sense of power and motivational CQ comprise a serial mediation process, in that order. The effect of motivational CQ on international entrepreneurship intentions was strengthened by young adults' work experience. We identified the underlying mechanism and moderator of the relationship between socioeconomic factors and international entrepreneurship intentions.Entities:
Keywords: cultural intelligence; international entrepreneurial intention; parent socioeconomic status; sense of power; work experience
Year: 2022 PMID: 35756254 PMCID: PMC9226893 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.894717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1The conceptual model.
Confirmatory factor analyses.
|
| df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR |
| 1. 356.587 | 129 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.04 | 0.05 |
| 2. 320.861 | 132 | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
| 3. 366.975 | 134 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
| 4. 1072.981 | 135 | 0.41 | 0.34 | 0.17 | 0.10 |
Correlations and discriminant validity.
| Construct | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 1. Sex | 1.34 | 0.56 | − | |||||||||||
| 2. Age | 22.65 | 10.61 | –0.02 | − | ||||||||||
| 3. Business department | 0.63 | 0.48 | 0.20 | –0.07 | − | |||||||||
| 4. Art department | 0.30 | 0.46 | −0.22 | 0.08 | −0.87 | − | ||||||||
| 5. Science department | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.05 | –0.01 | −0.30 | −0.15 | − | |||||||
| 6. Parents’ income (monthly) | 2.29 | 1.35 | 0.14 | –0.04 | 0.35 | −0.39 | 0.03 | − | ||||||
| 7. Social class | 5.54 | 1.61 | –0.04 | 0.04 | 0.12 | −0.19 | 0.11 | 0.49 | − | |||||
| 8. Sense of power | 3.30 | 0.70 | –0.08 | 0.04 | 0.10 | −0.11 | 0.01 | 0.26 | 0.20 | (0.78) | ||||
| 9. Motivational CQ | 3.35 | 0.72 | –0.02 | –0.03 | –0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.52 | (0.76) | |||
| 10. Behavioral CQ | 3.45 | 0.70 | −0.18 | 0.04 | –0.08 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.49 | 0.63 | (0.83) | ||
| 11. Work experience (hours) | 1.37 | 2.74 | –0.05 | 0.07 | 0.02 | –0.04 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.12 | –0.03 | 0.05 | 0.02 | – | |
| 12. IE intention | 2.70 | 0.87 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.22 | −0.22 | –0.00 | 0.38 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.37 | 0.12 | 0.08 | (0.95) |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Indirect path coefficients.
| Path | Direct effect | Indirect effect | ||
| Effect | 95% BC confidence interval | Effect | 95% BC confidence interval | |
| Parents’ income → IE intention | 0.21 | (0.154, 0.278) | ||
| Parents’ social class → IE intention | 0.08 | (0.028, 0.136) | ||
| Parents’ income → Sense of power → IE intention | 0.03 | (0.014, 0.056) | ||
| Parents’ social class → Sense of power → IE intention | 0.02 | (0.011, 0.051) | ||
| Sense of power → Motivational CQ → IE intention | 0.19 | (0.105, 0.300) | ||
| Sense of power → Behavioral CQ → IE intention | –0.01 | (–0.105, 0.070) | ||
Conditional indirect effect process analysis.
| Conditional effect | Level | Effect | Boot S.E. | 95% BC confidence interval |
| Sense of power on IE intention through motivational CQ at levels of work experience | Low | 0.19 | 0.04 | (–0.121, 0.192) |
| High | 0.20 | 0.05 | (0.202, 0.582) | |
| Index of moderated mediation | 0.00 | 0.00 | (0.012, 0.017) | |
| Sense of power on IE intention through behavioral CQ at levels of work experience | Low | –0.01 | 0.04 | (–0.103, 0.068) |
| High | –0.01 | 0.04 | (–0.105, 0.076) | |
| Index of moderated mediation | –0.00 | 0.00 | (–0.003, 0.004) |
FIGURE 2Johnson-Neyman regions of significance for the H4a moderated mediation. The solid line depicts the trajectory of the conditional indirect effect, and the dashed lines depict the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI.
Serial mediation test in PROCESS macro Model 6 (5,000 bootstrap samples at 95% confidence).
| Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total | ||||||||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g = b*e | h = a*f | i = b*c*f | d+g+h+j | |||||||
| X→M1 | X→M2 | M1→M2 | X→Y | M1→Y | M2→Y | X→M1→Y | X→M2→Y | X→M1→M2→Y | X→Y | |||||||
| β | β | β | β | β | β | Est. | Lo | Hi | Est. | Lo | Hi | Est. | Lo | Hi | Est. | |
| PI→SP–MCQ→IEI |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.009 | –0.013 | 0.032 | 0.010 | –0.004 | 0.030 |
| 0.011 | 0.041 |
|
| PI→SP–BCQ→IEI |
|
|
|
|
| 0.010 |
| 0.010 | 0.060 | –0.000 | –0.006 | 0.007 | 0.000 | –0.011 | 0.012 |
|
| PSC→SP–MCQ→IEI |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.012 | –0.002 | 0.031 |
| 0.000 | 0.033 |
| 0.006 | 0.030 |
|
| PSC→SP–BCQ→IEI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.010 | 0.056 | –0.000 | –0.005 | 0.005 | –0.001 | –0.010 | 0.005 |
|
Effect sizes in bold are sig: P < 0.001 for effects > 0.089; p < 0.01 for effects > 0.060; p < 0.05 for effects > 0.013. PI, parents’ income; PSC, parents’ social class; SP, sense of power; MCQ, motivational CQ; BCQ, behavioral CQ; IEI, IE intention.