mathematics

Article
Personal Traits and Digital Entrepreneurship: A Mediation
Model Using SmartPLS Data Analysis
Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih 1,2,3, * and Ibrahim A. Elshaer 1,2,4, *

1 The Saudi Investment Bank Scholarly Chair for Investment Awareness Studies, the Deanship of Scientific
Research, the Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University,
Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
2 Management Department, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University,
Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
3 Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University, Cairo 12612, Egypt
4 Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.E.E.S.); [email protected] (I.A.E.)

Abstract: Technological advancements have created a plethora of opportunities for entrepreneurs

to develop and extend their business operations. Hence, internet has promoted to the emergence
of digital entrepreneurship as a growing form of entrepreneurship among many entrepreneurs,
especially digital natives. This research examines to what extent personal traits of digital natives’
impact on their digital entrepreneurship intention. The research examined the direct impact of the big
five personal traits, i.e., openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism, on digital entrepreneurship intention and the indirect impact through personal attitude.
For this purpose, a pre-examined questionnaire was directed to senior students in computer sciences
and information technology colleges at public universities in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The
results of structural equation modeling using SmartPLS (version 4) confirmed a direct positive and
significant impact of the big five personal traits on personal attitude. However, the results revealed
Citation: Sobaih, A.E.E.; Elshaer, I.A. that the impact of the big five personal traits (except agreeableness) on digital entrepreneurship
Personal Traits and Digital intention were positive but insignificant. Additionally, a mediating effect was confirmed for personal
Entrepreneurship: A Mediation attitude in the link between personal traits and digital entrepreneurship intention among senior
Model Using SmartPLS Data students in KSA higher education. The results contributed to the research gap in relation to personal
Analysis. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926. traits and its impact on personal attitude and ultimatly on digital entrepreneurship intention, es-
https://doi.org/10.3390/math10213926 pecially among digital natives. Several impactions were merged and discussed for scholars, policy
Academic Editors: Anna Firsova and makers and educators in higher education institutions.
Galina Chernyshova
Keywords: personal traits; digital entrepreneurship intention; personal attitude; SmartPLS; quantitative
Received: 22 September 2022
analysis; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Accepted: 19 October 2022
Published: 23 October 2022
MSC: 91C99
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations. 1. Introduction
The concept of digitization has altered the entire world, with the digital economy
emerging as the second most important economic development after the industrial rev-
olution [1,2]. The adoption of digital technologies regarded as a critical motivator for
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
entrepreneurship [3]. Technology advancements have created a plethora of opportunities
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
for entrepreneurs to develop and extend their business operations [4]. Internet and technol-
distributed under the terms and
ogy have dramatically altered how businesses are founded and the structure of the business
conditions of the Creative Commons environment, which has led to the emergence of a type of entrepreneurship known as
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// “digital entrepreneurship” [5,6]. The connection between internet and entrepreneurship has
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ been associated with several concepts as electronic entrepreneurship, digital entrepreneur-
4.0/). ship or internet entrepreneurship [7]. There has been a wide body of published academic

Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10213926 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 2 of 19

literature on the traditional entrepreneurship; however, there are a limited number of

studies regarding digital entrepreneurship and digital entrepreneurship intention to the
best of researchers’ knowledge. The limited emergent literature clearly showed that the
topic of digital entrepreneurship is still in its infancy and requires further understanding
and investigation [8,9]. In general, digital entrepreneurship has been considered as a subset
of traditional entrepreneurship in which some or all of what is tangible in a typical busi-
ness is digitalized [10]. Digital entrepreneurship is the result of a newly launched digital
business on the market or creative concept in response to a change that is carried out using
technology [11]. Digital entrepreneurship gradually being regarded as a desirable career
path, with approximately 10 million results returned by a Google search for “start an online
business” as of November 2021 [12].
With regard to the relationship between personal traits and digital entrepreneurship,
according to Zhao et al. [13], personal traits are a crucial component of the entrepreneur in-
tention, which ideally have an impact on digital entrepreneurship intention. Personal traits
affect the entrepreneurs’ decisions towards their new venture goals [14]. Therefore, under-
standing the potential entrepreneur personal traits is crucial for policy-makers, economic
planners and scholars. Additionally, understanding the correlation between personal traits
and investment intention will be beneficial for planners to modify service and products to
outfit their potential client’s desires [15]. The literature review on personal traits attempted
to determine multiple personality traits that might exist. For instance, in 1943, 16 personal
qualities listed by Cattell [16], while Allport [17] proposed 4000 personality traits. Yet, these
theories criticized for being overcomplicated. Hence, the “Big Five Trait Taxonomy” theory
included five main personal traits, which was established as the list of adjectives related to
personal. The five-factor theory are known as “OCEAN” which stands for openness to ex-
perience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The theory has
been initiated by Fiske’s [18], work in 1949. The big five-personality model is a supportive
tool toward the understanding of dissimilar individuals’ personalities in different samples.
The big five-personality theory [19,20], serves as the foundation for this research.
In the context Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has witnessed
structural modifications to support economic growth while maintaining stability and
economic sustainability. This is visible in the strengthening of the business environment in
Saudi Arabia as well as the ongoing effort to enable the private sector to assist economic
diversification and overcome impediments to make it more appealing to invest in previously
unexplored industries (https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/, accessed on 15 September 2022).
Consequently, KSA’s leadership is moving quickly to reform laws and regulations, remove
barriers, and increase access to financing services in order to support young investors
and entrepreneurs [21]. In this context, KSA government formed the “Monsha’at” as
a singular authority to support small and medium-sized initiatives and to develop the
spirit of entrepreneurship. In particular, Roomi et al. [22], stated that Saudi Arabia is
presently ranked sixth on the Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEI), owing in great part to
the government’s economic assistance to boost the economy in general and to alleviate the
economic effects of COVID-19 in particular, mainly among SMEs.
The current study defines the nature of university students’ personal traits linked
to their digital entrepreneurship intentions in KSA. It examines the extent to which the
attitude towards behavior, as an important factor in the dimensions of theory of planned
behaviour (TPB), influences university students’ intentions toward digital entrepreneurship.
The current research adopts a comprehensive model that investigate the direct impact of
personal traits, particularly big five trait taxonomy “i.e., openness, extroversion, conscien-
tiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism” on digital entrepreneurship intentions among
university senior students in KSA. Additionally, the study examines the indirect impact
of students’ big five traits taxonomy on their intention toward digital entrepreneurship
through their personal attitude. More specifically, the current study has four objectives.
First, it investigates the direct influence of big five trait taxonomy “openness, extroversion,
conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism” on the intention of higher education
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 3 of 19

Saudi students toward digital entrepreneurship. Second, it examines the direct impact of
attitude on intention for university students to engage in digital entrepreneurship activities.
Third, it investigates the impact of student personal traits “big five” on students’ attitude
toward behavior. Fourth, it examines the mediating roles of personal attitude in the rela-
tionship between big five-trait taxonomy on student intention of digital entrepreneurship.
Thus, based on the above argument, there are four research questions (RQ) as follows:
RQ 1: What is the influence of big five-trait taxonomy on intention of university students
toward digital entrepreneurship?
RQ 2: What is the influence of big five-trait taxonomy on personal attitude of university
students toward digital entrepreneurship?
RQ 3: What the influence of personal attitude on students’ intention toward digital en-
trepreneurship?
RQ 4: How does students’ attitude intermediate between big five-trait taxonomy and
digital entrepreneurship intention?
For achieving the purpose and answering the research question, we started Section 1
by highlighting the research gap and the purpose for conducting the research. We then
moved to Section 2 presenting the study’s conceptual framework. We constructed research
hypotheses and developed the theoretical model based on the review on personal traits
and its association with digital entrepreneurship intention. In Section 3, we presented the
study design and methods employed for data collection and analysis. We presented the
findings of the study using SmartPLS structural equation modeling analysis in Section 4.
In Section 5, we discussed the results compares to the earlier results to establish some
implications for scholars and policy-makers. Finally, we highlighted the limitations of our
study in Section 6, and future study directions.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. The Concept of Digital Entrepreneurship
According to Davidson and Vaat [23], digital entrepreneurship can be defined as
“practice of pursuing new venture opportunities presented by new media and internet
technologies”. Likewise, Younis et al. [11], added that digital entrepreneurship referred to
generating new values with digital services or products, in a digital workplace, in digital
market, through digital distribution channels, or some mixture of all of these factors. In that
sense, the European Commission’s Digital Entrepreneurship Monitor [24] further defined
digital entrepreneurship as the application of cloud and mobile technology and social
media in the practice of entrepreneurship. The core elements of traditional and digital
entrepreneurship are similar in aspects of idea generation, opportunity identification, and
product/service commercialization [25]. Yet, the primary distinction between traditional
and digital entrepreneurship is the usage of digital technology in the venture’s numerous
value chain activities [26]. Martinez Dy [27] classified the digital entrepreneurship to simple
e-commerce websites, complicated multimedia platforms and cloud computing space.
While, Giones and Brem [28] offered three linked forms of technology entrepreneurship:
(1) technology entrepreneurship, (2) digital technology entrepreneurship, and (3) digital
entrepreneurship, which they used to develop their digital entrepreneurship theory.

2.2. Personal Traits and Personal Attitude towards Digital Entrepreneurship

According to Durand et al. [29], the motivator of human conduct is personality. A
growing number of studies, e.g., [14,29], confirmed that decisions of individuals to engage
in entrepreneurship activities influenced by personality traits. According to Caliendo
et al. [30], personality traits distinguish entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs and have a
significant impact self-employment intention [13,31]. Personality traits have been used to
explain variations in behavior and choices in a variety of spheres of life, giving insight into
common ways of feeling, thinking, and acting [32]. According to Fietze and Boyd [33], the
big five and narrow traits have been linked to entrepreneurship attitude and successful
entrepreneurship [34–36]. Whereas, narrow traits were characterized by Caliendo et al. [30]
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 4 of 19

as particular traits, sometimes known as entrepreneurial traits; they have been extensively
examined in relation to their impact on career choice [37,38].
Ajzen [39] stressed that background variables, such as the big five personality traits,
can affect the attitudes toward behavior, as well as their impact on intentions and resulting
behaviors. It has been indicated that certain personality traits make people more likely
to behave in particular ways when engaged with risky decisions [40]. Furthermore, Fini
et al. [41], claimed that psychological traits such as motivational and emotional forces have
been identified as the focal point of three major theoretical traditions (functional perspective,
reinforcement perspective and the cognitive consistency perspective). Based on these
theoretical traditions, when people anticipate being exposed to an action, they engage in a
cognitive process to assess their capacity to handle it by changing their attitudes [42] and
adopt a behavior toward these situations that is favorable or unfavorable, as the TPB has
proposed. In the same context, Wu and Chen’s [43] extended TPB and exposed the impacts
of attitudes on behavioral intention are different in distinct groups divided by personality
traits. Thus, personality traits, or innate qualities of an individual, may operate as the
precursors of perceptual constructs in forecasting a person’s behavioral intention [44]. For
example, a cheerful individual would consider digital entrepreneurship pleasurable; thus,
s/he could have a positive attitude toward digital entrepreneurship. Whereas, conscious
persons would continually feel they do not have enough time or information for digital
entrepreneurship. Han and Kim [45] extended TPB, which includes external elements to
fully explain the development of people’s intents to digital entrepreneurship and suggested
that the big five personality traits that include extroversion, agreeableness, openness to
experience, conscientiousness and neuroticism have an impact on attitude toward digital
entrepreneurship, which in turn impact digital entrepreneurs’ intentions of students. As
result, the following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Agreeableness positively affect students’ personal attitude in towards digital
entrepreneurship.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Conscientiousness positively affect students’ personal attitude in towards

digital entrepreneurship.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Extroversion positively affect students’ personal attitude in towards digital
entrepreneurship.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Neuroticism positively affect students’ personal attitude in towards digital
entrepreneurship.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Openness to experience affect students’ personal attitude in towards digital
entrepreneurship.

2.3. Personal Traits and Digital Entrepreneurship Intention

Personality traits encompass emotional and cognitive characteristics that affect numer-
ous decisions of people [46]. Personality traits have an impact on investment management
spending, and risk tolerance [47,48]. The big five trait model that projected by McCrae and
Costa [32] is the most popular and well-known model in use today [49]. Agreeableness
defined as “trusting, altruistic, cooperative, and modest, they show sympathy and concern
for the needs of others” [36] (p. 387). Individual who are cooperative, caring and kind, are
supposed to be agreeable. Jain [50] asserted that agreeableness has a positive significant
role in entrepreneurial intention. Nevertheless, other studies, e.g., [51,52] indicated that
agreeableness did not predict entrepreneurship intention. While, Pak and Mahmood [53]
argued that agreeableness negatively influence individuals’ risky behavior. This is because
it was argued that agreeableness is an attribute that is typically considered to be negatively
connected with entrepreneurial activity since it calls for a lower level of competitiveness, a
higher degree of social orientations, and a focus on others rather than on oneself.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 5 of 19

According to Zhao et al. [36] conscientiousness can be defined as “level of achievement,

work motivation, organization and planning, self-control and acceptance of traditional
norms, and virtue and responsibility toward others” (p. 384). Bandera and Passerini [54]
added that a person’s capacity for conscientiousness is defined as their capability to de-
liberate before acting, to adhere to standards and procedures, to behave analytically and
responsibly (as opposed to emotionally or intuitively), and to plan and organize activities.
conscientiousness was positively correlated with entrepreneurial intention and perfor-
mance [55]. Likewise, Durand et al. [56] suggested that persons with conscious personali-
ties have a favorable connection with their trading behavior. Yet, Jain et al. [50] added that
conscientiousness does not have significant correlation with the entrepreneurial intention.
Similarly, Bandera and Passerini [54] did not expect different levels of conscientiousness
among traditional and digital entrepreneurs. Zhao et al. [36] defined extraversion as “gre-
garious, outgoing, warm, and friendly; they are energetic, active, assertive, and dominant
in social situations; they experience more positive emotions and are optimistic” (p. 387).
Extraversion has been demonstrated to have a considerable impact on investing decisions’
tendency [57]. Additionally, extraversion fosters a positive attitude, which influences
one’s estimation of the likelihood of success and may lead to excessive confidence in one’s
ability to make sound financial decisions [58]. Since extraversion has been shown to highly
correlate with interest in entrepreneurial activities, it is anticipated to have a positive and
direct relationship with the development of entrepreneurial intentions [36]. Costa et al. [19]
indicated that extroverted persons are more likely toward entrepreneurship intention. Like-
wise, Almandeel [59] proved that extraversion has significant impact on entrepreneurial
intention.
Openness to experience can be defined as intellectually curious, imaginative, and
creative seeks out new ideas and alternative values” [36] (p. 385). According to Martins [60],
those who possess the trait of openness to experience are creative, resourceful, and broad-
minded. They are motivated to innovation and aesthetics [61]. Whereas, Zhao et al. [36]
stated that entrepreneurs are frequently viewed as heroes because they question the existing
quo and follow their creative vision despite opposition and barriers. Depending on their
level of risk tolerance and the effect of prior experience, digital entrepreneurs may or
may not be more open to experience than traditional entrepreneurs may. However, the
rapid pace and evolution of technology, particularly newly developed digital and internet-
based technology, may necessitate a higher aptitude for change and embracing novel
experiences, which would justify a higher expectation of openness in digital start-up
founders as opposed to founders of conventional start-ups [54]. Almandeel [59] confirmed
that openness is the strongest predictor of entrepreneurial intention and positively influence
entrepreneurship intention. At the end, Baum and Locke [52] predicted that there are no
differences in the level of conscientiousness between and traditional entrepreneurs.
Zhao et al. [36], defined neuroticism as experience a range of negative emotions more
frequently and intensely, including anxiety and worry, depression, and low self-esteem” (p.
386). It is common knowledge that neuroticism is accompanied by unfavorable feelings
like worry, anxiety, and sadness. People that exhibit these characteristics as entrepreneurs
may be less likely to persevere, look for creative solutions, and may not be able to handle
criticism and unforeseen difficulties successfully [54]. Neuroticism is likely to diminish
people’s willingness to take risks and their ability to acquire social capital [62]. In that sense,
Pak and Mahmood [25] discovered that neuroticism has a negative relationship toward
risky behavior. Likewise, Almandeel [59] argued that neuroticism did not influence en-
trepreneurship intention. In the context of digital entrepreneurship, individuals may have
higher needs for emotional stability and, consequently, exhibit lower neuroticism levels
than traditional entrepreneurs gave their ability to pivot frequently, which is enabled by
lower start-up infrastructure [26]. Additionally, it was suggested that persons who scored
highly on the extroversion and openness scales had higher risk tolerance than persons who
scored well on the conscientiousness scales [63] Experiments by Oehler et al. [64], showed
that extroversion and neuroticism had a considerable impact on individuals’ behavior.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 6 of 19

To conclude, according to study conducted by [52], openness to experience was deter-

mined to be the most important predictor toward intention among the predictor variables,
followed by extraversion. While the other factors agreeableness, conscientiousness and
neuroticism have not a significant impact on digital entrepreneurial intention. Likewise,
Brandstätter [65], argued that entrepreneurs generally higher levels of conscientiousness,
extraversion and openness to experience, but lower levels of agreeableness and neuroticism.
In the context of digital entrepreneurial intention, can be defined as “the intention of an
individual to start a new business through means of digital technology including internet,
world wide web, mobile technologies, web 2.0 and related technologies” [12]. Intention
toward digital entrepreneurship is a field that has received a less attention than intention
toward traditional entrepreneurship [12]. Summing up, earlier studies, e.g., [66–69] have
investigated the concept of traditional entrepreneurship, while there is very limited research
to examine the intention toward to digital entrepreneurial. Based on these arguments, the
following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 6 (H6). Agreeableness positively affects students’ intentions of digital entrepreneurship.

Hypothesis 7 (H7). Conscientiousness positively affects students’ intentions of digital entrepreneurship.

Hypothesis 8 (H8). Extroversion positively affects students’ intentions of digital entrepreneurship.

Hypothesis 9 (H9). Neuroticism positively affects students’ intentions of digital entrepreneurship.

Hypothesis 10 (H10). Openness positively affects students’ intentions of digital entrepreneurship.

2.4. Attitude toward Digital Entrepreneurship Intention

According to the theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposed by Ajzen and Fishbein [70],
behavioral intentions are perceptive and serve as a sign of a person’s propensity to engage
in a particular behavior. Additionally, TPB suggested that behavior was determined
by intention, i.e., incentive to conduct a certain behavior [70,71]. Likewise, Elliott and
Ainsworth [72] proposed that the behavioral intentions influenced mainly by attitude
(attitudinal evaluations about acting the behavior). Similarly, Gibbs [73] emphasized that
the intention is a psychological condition that reflects a person’s plan of action and based
on desires that are achievable. The intention is a significant aspect in the creation of
behavior. To conclude, based on TPB the best predictor of behavior is intention because the
tendency of someone to do or not do something referred to as his or her intention to conduct
behavior [74]. The intent is described as a person’s intention to perform a behavior based
on attitudes toward behavior, behavioral control and subjective norms. Phan and Zhou [75],
indicated that psychological elements such as optimism, risk attitude, herd behavior and
overconfidence were the most important factor that influence the investment intention.
Gopi and Ramayah [76], indicated that there was a positive connection between attitude and
intention to trade online. Younis et al. [11] emphasized that there is a significant correlation
between student attitude and digital entrepreneurship, While the rest of TPB dimensions
were not significantly correlate to digital entrepreneurship. On contrary, Lai and To [77],
argued that perceived behavior control and subjective norms have a significant impact on
digital entrepreneurship while individual attitude toward did not has a significant impact
on digital entrepreneurship. Based on these arguments, it could be proposed that:

Hypothesis 11 (H11). Personal attitude positively affects digital entrepreneurship intention of

university students.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 7 of 19

2.5. The Mediating Effect of Attitude the Link between Personal Traits and Digital
Entrepreneurship Intention
TPB implies that an individual will have higher intents to engage in a certain conduct
if they have a more positive attitude about it. Attitudes are not as consistent as personality
traits; they might vary with time and because of a person’s interactions with their environ-
ment [78]. Additionally, TPB proposed that intention to act behavior is predicted through
attitude towards behavior. The motivating variables that influence behavior are thought to
be captured by intentions, which also serve as indicators of people’s willingness to try to
exert effort in order to carry out the behavior [79]. Several studies have employed TPB to
determine the influence of attitude on intention, e.g., [13,48,74,80]. Such studies confirmed
that attitude has a positive impact on individual intention. On the other side, studies,
e.g., [12,36,81] have argued that personal traits have impact on digital entrepreneurship in-
tention. Furthermore, a study conducted by Kusmintarti’s et al. [82], indicated that attitude
performed as a mediator between entrepreneurial traits and traditional entrepreneurial
intentions. The current research can be considered as the first attempt to address the mediat-
ing role of personal attitude in the link between personal traits and digital entrepreneurship
intention. All of the direct and indirect relationships are presented in Figure 1. Hence, it
could be hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 12 (H12). Attitude has a mediating effect on the link between Agreeableness and
digital entrepreneurial intention of university students.

Hypothesis 13 (H13). Attitude has a mediating effect on the link between conscientiousness and
digital entrepreneurial intention of university students.

Hypothesis 14 (H14). Attitude has a mediating effect on the link between extraversion and digital
entrepreneurial intention of university students.

Hypothesis 15 (H15). Attitude has a mediating effect on the link between Neuroticism and digital
entrepreneurial intention of university students.

Hypothesis
Mathematics REVIEW Attitude
16 (H16).
2022, 10, x FOR PEER has a mediating effect on the link between openness to experience
8 of 19
and digital entrepreneurial intention of university students.

Figure 1.model
Figure 1. The theoretical The theoretical
“straight model
line“straight
refers toline refers effect;
direct to directdotted
effect; dotted line refers
line refers to indirect
to indirect
effect”.
effect”.
3. Methodology
3.1. Study Measures
The survey’s first section introduced the study’s goals and provided instructions for
completing the questionnaires. The second section asked respondents to provide infor-
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 8 of 19

3. Methodology
3.1. Study Measures
The survey’s first section introduced the study’s goals and provided instructions
for completing the questionnaires. The second section asked respondents to provide
information about themselves, including their demographics. The third part represents
the research main questions using a five-point (1–5) Likert scale, in which 1 indicated
“strongly disagree” and 5 indicated “strongly agree.” Digital entrepreneurship intention
was measured by four items derived from Lee et al. [83], the items were modified to fit
the study context, sample items include” “I can stand the inconvenience caused by digital
projects,” and “I will continue to invest in digital projects”. The scale items demonstrated
high consistent reliability (a = 0.952). The scale of the attitude toward established digital
projects was generated by asking senior students 4-items derived from Ajzen’s theory
of planned behavior scale [39], sample items include “I think that digital projects are
an intelligent choice”. The attitude 4-items measure showed a satisfactory Cronbach
alpha (a) reliability (a = 0.923). The “big five-factor model” is one of the most popular
personality research models [84]. Research on personality traits, such as agreeableness,
extroversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness, has been studied in diverse
intervals, cultures, and environments [85]. The scale items of personality traits in our study
were derived from the “NEO Five-Factor Inventory” (NEO–FFI) [83,86,87]. Teng et al. [88]
argued that a condensed version of the Big Five Personality Scale can reduce research
expenses, increase the number of participants, and facilitate survey administration. The
personality traits dimensions and items are presented in Table 1. The five employed five
dimensions of personality traits demonstrated a satisfactory internal consistency reliability:
agreeableness (a = 0.910), extroversion (a = 0.931), neuroticism (a = 0.928), conscientiousness
(a = 0.981), and openness (a = 0.939).
The scale was piloted by fifteen professors and twenty senior students from the
faculties of computer science and information technologies to ensure its consistency, clarity,
and simplicity, and no adjustments were made to the employed questionnaire. As stated
in the introduction to the questionnaire, the collected information is guaranteed to be
completely anonymous and kept in strict confidence. Since the primary method of data
collection utilized by the research questionnaire is self-reporting, the likelihood of there
being a common method variance has been increased (CMV) [89]. To identify any possible
CMV, Harman’s single-factor analysis was performed with the exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) method, and the values of all the extracted factors were standardized to 1.0. The
findings showed that CMV is not an issue because only one single factor was extracted to
explain 35% of the variance in the endogenous variables (less than 50%) [89].

3.2. Participants and Data Collection

Senior students in computer sciences and information technology faculties in the
kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) public universities were randomly targeted in our study
through an online questionnaire. This specific population was targeted since they are
expected to be engaged in digital entrepreneurship, because of their studies in computer
science and information technology. Because senior students in computer science and
information technology faculties frequently think about their future digital careers and may
have an interest in starting their own digital businesses, we asked them to fill out the survey.
The research team used their network to distribute the online questionnaire to three main
universities in KSA: King Faisal University (Eastern Province), Imam Mohammad ibn Saud
Islamic University (Riyadh Province), and Umm Al-Qura University (Mecca Province).
In April and May of 2022, the questionnaire was distributed to the targeted sample. The
research team was successful in collecting 440 online questionnaires, of which 420 answers
were found to be valid and 10 surveys were excluded due to misplaced data, resulting in a
response rate of 93% and a total of 410 valid questionnaires. The early and late collected
responses’ means were assessed employing an independent sample t-test. It was revealed
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 9 of 19

that there were no significant variations (p > 0.05) between the early response mean and
the late response means, which suggests that non-response bias was not an issue [90].

Table 1. Evaluation of the Outer Measurement Model & VIF for multicollinearity.

Abbr. Outer Loading α C.R AVE VIF

Digital entrepreneurship intentions 0.952 0.953 0.912
DEI_1 “I will recommend others to invest in digital projects”. 0.946 4.510
DEI_1 “I will continue to invest in digital projects”. 0.955 3.405
DEI_1 “I can stand the inconvenience caused by digital projects”. 0.963 3.034
Attitude 0.923 0.926 0.811
Att._1 “I think that digital projects are meaningful”. 0.904 3.410
Att._2 “I think that digital projects are enjoyable”. 0.891 3.257
Att._3 “I think that digital projects are novel”. 0.897 3.288
Att._4 “I think that digital projects are an intelligent choice”. 0.911 3.755
Personal traits
Agreeableness 0.910 0.911 0.849
Agre._1 “I am on good terms with nearly everyone”. 0.872 2.131
Agre._2 “I often get into arguments with my family and co-workers”. 0.950 3.750
Agre._3 “Some people think of me as cold and calculating”. 0.940 2.322
Extroversion 0.931 0.936 0.879
Ext._1 “I often feel as if I am bursting with energy”. 0.929 3.380
Ext._2 “I am a cheerful, high-spirited person”. 0.956 2.088
Ext._3 “I am a very active person”. 0.927 3.875
Conscientiousness 0.981 0.983 0.945
“I am pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on
Cons._1 0.987 3.331
time”.
Cons._2 “I make plans and stick to them”. 0.985 4.309
Cons._3 “I continue my job until everything is perfect”. 0.970 2.388
Cons._4 “I never seem to be able to get organized”. 0.947 3.691
Openness to experience 0.939 0.945 0.891
Open._1 “I often try new things”. 0.942 2.835
Open._2 “I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract ideas”. 0.911 3.720
“I have little interest in speculating on the nature of the universe or
Open._3 0.977 2.457
the human condition”.
Neuroticism 0.928 0.928 0.873
Neur._1 “I often feel inferior to others”. 0.938 4.148
“When I am under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I am
Neur._2 0.946 4.526
going to pieces”.
Neur._3 “I seldom feel lonely or blue”. 0.920 3.006

3.3. Data Analysis Techniques

Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques are used
in our study to examine the collected data with SmartPLS 4. PLS-SEM is widely used
in the field of management and information technology (IT), where it is said to yield re-
liable outcomes [91]. PLS-SEM is a non-parametric technique exploiting the explained
variance in latent dimensions, that are not able to be observed in any direct way. Unlike the
covariance-based SEM (COV–SEM), smart PLS-SEM requires less information about resid-
ual distributions, measurement scales, and sample sizes [92]. Smart PLS-SEM is deemed
suitable for analyzing the complex research models that are proposed as an estimation
framework incorporating related theories and empirical data. Following Leguina’s [93],
suggestion, a two-step approach was adopted, in which, the proposed theoretical model
first tested the outer model for convergent and discriminant validity, then second the inner
model was evaluated for hypotheses testing.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 10 of 19

4. Findings
4.1. Demographic and Descriptive Statistics
The tremendous majority (79%) of the respondents were male, and 75% were aged
between 17 to 24 years old. 35% of the senior student were from King Faisal University, 30%
from Mohammad ibn Saud Islamic University, and 35% from Umm Al-Qura University.
The respondents’ mean (M) values ranged from 2.50 to 4.01, and the standard deviation
(S.D.) values ranged from 0.960 to 1.05, indicating that the results were more dispersed
and less condensed around the mean value [90]. The skewness and kurtosis values of the
data distribution, have no values exceeding −2 or +2, indicating the data follows a normal
distribution curve [88]. Additionally, the VIF values for all the study variables (as depicted
in Table 1) were found to be less than 0.5 indicating that multicollinearity is not a problem
in our study [94].

4.2. Evaluation of the Outer Measurement Model

Several statistics were employed to calculate the reliability and validity of the study
outer model as suggested by Hair et al. [92], Kline [95]. These statistics include “composite
reliability” (CR); “internal consistency reliability” (Cronbach’s alpha); “convergent valid-
ity”; and “discriminant validity”. First, according to Table 1, Cronbach’s alpha (α) values
ranged from 0.910 to 0.981 and composite reliability (CR) values ranged from 0.911 to 0.983,
indicating that the scale has acceptable internal reliability [95].
Second, each of the factors had values of “Standardized Factor Loading” (SFL) that
were greater than 0.70, which provided further evidence that the study dimensions have
a satisfactory level of reliability. Third, convergent validity was ensured by evaluating
whether or not AVE values were higher than 0.5 [89]. This value is the minimum level of
acceptability that is considered to be adequate convergent validity.
Additionally, three main criteria were employed to encore the scale has an adequate
discriminant validity as suggested by Leguina [93]. These criteria included the “cross-
loading matrix”, the “Fornell-Larcker criterion method”, and the “heterotrait-monotrait
method” ratio (HTMT). To start, as shown in Table 2, the outer-loading (bolded) of each
latent unobserved variable needs to be higher than the cross-loading (with other measure-
ments) to guarantee discriminant validity. In addition, as can be seen in Table 3, the bolded
diagonal AVE values are greater than the inter-variable correlation coefficient, which is
indicative of high discriminant validity [89]. Finally, as stated by Leguina [89], HTMT
values should be under 0.90. Study HTMT levels were significantly lower than the reference
value (see Table 3). Taken together, the previous results confirm and support the scale
reliability, discriminant, and convergent validity as approved in the study measurement
outer model. Accordingly, we can move forward with the structural outer model to test the
study hypotheses.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 11 of 19

Table 2. Factors Cross-loading.

Digital En-
Openness to
Agreeableness Attitude Conscientiousness trepreneurship Extroversion Neuroticism
Experience
Intentions
Agre._1 0.872 0.344 0.126 0.128 0.088 0.134 0.081
Agre._2 0.950 0.361 0.097 0.122 0.003 0.140 0.106
Agre._3 0.940 0.363 0.101 0.096 0.079 0.143 0.136
Att._1 0.352 0.904 0.194 0.741 0.131 0.210 0.192
Att._2 0.294 0.891 0.183 0.615 0.181 0.141 0.183
Att._3 0.317 0.897 0.167 0.641 0.128 0.218 0.224
Att._4 0.429 0.911 0.204 0.566 0.151 0.177 0.169
Cons._1 0.101 0.198 0.987 0.156 0.163 0.216 0.116
Cons._2 0.095 0.185 0.985 0.164 0.157 0.225 0.102
Cons._3 0.123 0.218 0.970 0.183 0.157 0.197 0.125
Cons._4 0.134 0.203 0.947 0.164 0.178 0.207 0.123
DEI_1 0.095 0.668 0.150 0.946 0.224 0.040 0.106
DEI_2 0.125 0.674 0.163 0.955 0.226 0.007 0.093
DEI_3 0.138 0.708 0.178 0.963 0.266 0.032 0.091
Ext._1 0.006 0.149 0.146 0.250 0.929 0.322 0.015
Ext._2 0.010 0.153 0.177 0.248 0.956 0.239 0.029
Ext._3 0.024 0.158 0.149 0.203 0.927 0.313 0.021
Neur._1 0.152 0.193 0.203 0.035 0.331 0.938 0.077
Neur._2 0.176 0.191 0.221 0.066 0.309 0.946 0.105
Neur._3 0.098 0.201 0.185 0.096 0.231 0.920 0.092
Open._1 0.109 0.203 0.123 0.103 0.028 0.084 0.942
Open._2 0.120 0.193 0.076 0.070 0.002 0.126 0.911
Open._3 0.104 0.209 0.137 0.110 0.033 0.073 0.977

Table 3. Inter-construct correlations, the square root of AVE, and HTMT results.

Fornell-Larcker Criterion HTMT Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1-Agreeableness 0.92
2-Attitude 0.38 0.90 0.422
3-Conscientiousness 0.11 0.20 0.97 0.123 0.217
4-Digital Entrepreneurship
0.12 0.71 0.17 0.95 0.134 0.759 0.177
Intention
5-Extroversion 0.01 0.16 0.16 0.25 0.93 0.072 0.177 0.176 0.264
6-Neuroticism 0.15 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.31 0.93 0.165 0.224 0.228 0.076 0.336
7-Openness to Experience 0.11 0.21 0.12 0.10 0.02 0.09 0.94 0.127 0.229 0.123 0.106 0.024 0.107

4.3. Assessment of the Structural Inner Model

A structural equation investigation was employed to test the study proposed hy-
potheses. Specifically, the main aim is to examine the model’s aptitude to explain and
predict the variation in the endogenous variables caused by the exogenous variable [89].
Furthermore, Chin [96], suggested R2 value of at least 0.10 to ensure a satisfactory model
fit. Accordingly, the endogenous variables “attitude” has an R2 value of 0.462, similarity,
“digital entrepreneurship intention” has an R2 value of 0.631, both R2 values exceeded the
recommended threshold score and designating that the study model sufficiently represents
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 12 of 19

the collected data (Table 4). Likewise, The Stone-Geisser Q2 calculation displayed a value
of (0.252) for attitude and 0.314 for digital entrepreneurship intention, both values are more
than zero (Table 4), indicating a satisfactory predictive power of the structure model [97].
Finally, the SRMR value should be less than 0.08 and the NFI value should be more than
0.90 to guarantee a good model fit to data [98], as shown in Table 4 the SRMR value is 0.038
and the NFI value is 0.961 exceeding the recommended threshold value and approving a
good of fit (GoF).

Table 4. Coefficient of determination (R2) and (Q2) and model fit (SRMR-NFI).

Endogenous Latent Factors (R2) (Q2)

Attitude 0.462 0.252
Digital entrepreneurship intention 0.631 0.314
SRMR NFI
Model Fit indices
0.038 0.961

In the end, a bootstrapping method was implemented in smart PLS4 to determine the
path coefficient and its associated t-value for both the direct and mediating relationships.
The current research paper suggested sixteen hypotheses, 11 out of the 16 are direct rela-
tionships and 5 are indirect. The smart PLS results showed that all the direct impacts of the
five dimensions of personality traits on attitude are positive and significant: agreeableness
(β = 0.312, t-value = 0.5.69, p < 0.001); conscientiousness (β = 0.27, t-value = 4.151, p < 0.001);
extroversion (β = 0.21, t-value = 4.364, p < 0.000); Neuroticism(β = 0.25, t-value = 5.279,
p < 0.001), and openness to experience(β = 0.31, t-value = 7.255, p < 0.001), consequently,
hypotheses H1, H2, H2, H4, and H5 were supported respectively. On the other hand, the
results revealed that all the direct impacts of personality traits (except agreeableness) on
attitude are positive but insignificant: conscientiousness (β = 0.13, t-value = 0.291, p = 0.771);
extroversion (β = 0.08, t-value = 1.241, p = 0.092); neuroticism (β = 0.11, t-value = 1.869, p =
0.62), and openness to experience (β = 0.03, t-value = 0.265, p = 1.135). hence hypotheses
H7, H8, H9, and H110 were not supported. One exception is the impact of agreeableness on
digital entrepreneurship intention which was found to be positive and significant (β = 0.160,
t-value = 3.046, p < 0.000) hence supporting hypothesis H6. Additionally, the Smart PLS4
results demonstrated a high direct positive and significant impact on attitude on digital
entrepreneurship intention (β = 0.69, t-value = 12.11, p < 0.000) supporting hypothesis H11.
The results also give data about the specific indirect effect to test the mediation effects
attitude in the relationship between the five dimensions of personality traits on digital
entrepreneurship intention (see Table 5 and Figure 2). All the specific indirect effects were
found to be positive and significant supporting the mediation effects of attitude in the
relationships between: agreeableness and digital entrepreneurship intention (β = 0.22,
t-value = 7.12, p < 0.000); extroversion and digital entrepreneurship intention (β = 0.15,
t-value = 4.26, p < 0.000); neuroticism and digital entrepreneurship intention (β = 0.17,
t-value = 4.97, p < 0.000); conscientiousness and digital entrepreneurship intention (β = 0.19,
t-value = 4.00, p < 0.000); and openness to experience to digital entrepreneurship intention
(β = 0.23, t-value = 2.92, p < 0.000); hence supporting hypotheses H12, H13, H14, H15, and
H16 was supported.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 13 of 19

Table 5. Study Tested Hypotheses.

Study Tested Hypotheses Beta (β) (T-Value) p Values Results

H1 Agreeableness -> Attitude 0.31 7.265 0.000 Accepted
H2 Conscientiousness -> Attitude 0.27 4.151 0.000 Accepted
H3 Extroversion -> Attitude 0.21 4.364 0.000 Accepted
H4 Neuroticism -> Attitude 0.25 5.279 0.000 Accepted
H5 Openness to Experience -> Attitude 0.31 7.225 0.000 Accepted
H6 Agreeableness -> Digital Entrepreneurship Intention 0.16 3.046 0.000 Accepted
H7 Conscientiousness -> Digital Entrepreneurship Intention 0.01 0.291 0.771 Not Accepted
H8 Extroversion -> Digital Entrepreneurship Intention 0.08 1.214 0.092 Not Accepted
H9 Neuroticism -> Digital Entrepreneurship Intention 0.11 1.869 0.62 Not Accepted
Openness to Experience -> Digital Entrepreneurship
H10 0.03 1.135 0.256 Not Accepted
Intention
H11 Attitude -> Digital Entrepreneurship Intention 0.69 12.11 0.000 Accepted
Agreeableness -> Attitude -> Digital Entrepreneurship
H12 0.22 7.12 0.000 Accepted
Intention
Conscientiousness -> Attitude -> Digital
H13 0.19 4.00 0.000 Accepted
Entrepreneurship Intention
Extroversion -> Attitude -> Digital Entrepreneurship
H14 0.15 4.26 0.000 Accepted
Intention
Neuroticism -> Attitude -> Digital Entrepreneurship
H15 0.17 4.97 0.000 Accepted
Intention
Openness to Experience -> Attitude -> Digital
H16
Mathematics 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0.23 2.92 0.003 Accepted
14 of 19
Entrepreneurship Intention

Figure2.2.Inner
Figure Inner&&Outer
OuterModel.
Model.

5. Discussion and Implication

This study was established to examine the direct effect of the big five personal traits
on digital entrepreneurship intention among higher education senior students in KSA and
the indirect effect through their personal attitude. As hypothesised, the results of struc-
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 14 of 19

5. Discussion and Implication

This study was established to examine the direct effect of the big five personal traits
on digital entrepreneurship intention among higher education senior students in KSA
and the indirect effect through their personal attitude. As hypothesised, the results of
structural equation modelling using Smart PLS4 (version 4) analysis supported all the
direct paths and impacts of the big five personal traits on personal attitude towards the
use of technology in entrepreneurship as all paths were positive and significant. More
specifically the findings supported the first set of research hypotheses. First, there was
a direct positive significant impact of agreeableness of senior students on their personal
attitude towards digital entrepreneurship, which supported H1. Second, there was a
direct positive significant impact of conscientiousness of senior students on their personal
attitude towards digital entrepreneurship supporting H2. Third, the results supported H3
on a direct positive significant impact of extroversion of senior students on their personal
attitude towards digital entrepreneurship. Fourth, the results supported H4 on a direct
positive significant impact of neuroticism of senior students on their personal attitude
towards digital entrepreneurship, which supported H4. Fifth, there was a direct positive
significant impact of openness to experience of senior students on their personal attitude
towards digital entrepreneurship, which supported H5. These results extend the use of TPB
by confirming that the big five personality traits, including agreeableness, extroversion,
openness to experience, conscientiousness and neuroticism, are determinants of personal
attitude and have an impact on personal attitude toward digital entrepreneurship, which
also coincidence with the results of previous research studies, e.g., [43,44].
On the other hand, all the direct paths of the big five personal traits (except agreeable-
ness) on digital entrepreneurship intention were positive but insignificant. Thus, only H6
was supported on the direct positive impact of agreeableness on the digital entrepreneur-
ship intention of senior students. However, the research hypotheses H7, H8, H9, and H10
were not supported respectively. This means that conscientiousness, extroversion, neuroti-
cism and openness to experience had no significant positive impact on senior student’s
digital entrepreneurship intention. These results do not support the work of Lai [43] that
personality traits operate as the precursors of perceptual constructs in forecasting a per-
son’s behavioral intention. More specifically, these results does not support previous that
conscientiousness positively correlated with entrepreneurial intention [53]; extraversion
has significant impact on entrepreneurial intention [19,49]; and openness is the strongest
predictor of entrepreneurial intention and positively influence entrepreneurship inten-
tion [49]. Nonetheless, it partially support the work of Jain et al., [49], who found that
conscientiousness does not have significant correlation with the entrepreneurial intention.
One exception of these big five personal traits was the impact of agreeableness on digital
entrepreneurship intention, which was found to be positive and significant. These results
coincidence with the recent work of Jain et al., [49] that agreeableness has a positive signifi-
cant role in entrepreneurial intention. Nevertheless, the results are not line with other old
studies, e.g., [50,51], which indicated that agreeableness do not have a positive significant
impact on entrepreneurship intention or even a negative impact on individuals’ risky
behavior [52]. These results confirm that when graduates show a cooperative, altruistic
and sympathy traits, they are more likely to engage in digital entrepreneurship intention.
The results also supported the assumption of TPB [38] and confirmed a direct posi-
tive impact of personal attitude and digital entrepreneurship intention confirming H11.
Additionally, the results, for the first time, confirmed that all the specific indirect effects
were found to be positive and significant. The findings supported the last set of research
hypotheses (H12, H13, H14, H15 and H16 respectively). This confirms mediating effects
of personal attitude in the link between the five personal traits of senior students in the
KSA universities: agreeableness, conscientiousness, extroversion, neuroticism, openness to
experience and their digital entrepreneurship intention. This means that attitude has the
ability to change the effect of big five personal traits on digital entrepreneurship intention
of senior university student.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 15 of 19

The above results have numerous implications for scholars, especially in relation to
personal traits and its association with personal attitude as well as digital entrepreneurship
intention. The current study contribute to the academic body of literature on personal
traits and its impact on personal attitude as well as digital entrepreneurship intention.
The literature has confirmed that, with no doubt, internet has promoted the emergence of
digital entrepreneurship [5]. Nonetheless, it was confirmed that there are a limited number
of studies regarding digital entrepreneurship and digital entrepreneurship intention [6,8].
Intention toward digital entrepreneurship is a field that has received a less attention
than intention toward traditional entrepreneurship [12]. Additionally, the literature gave
contradictory findings about the direct effect of personal traits on entrepreneurial intention
in general with limited attention to digital entrepreneurship intention, which did not receive
full attention from researchers to date. The literature did not also gave full attention to
the direct effect of personal traits on digital entrepreneurship intention through constructs
of TPB. The current study extend the theory of TBP and contributes significantly to this
research gap. The results confirmed, for the first time, the indirect effect of personal traits
on digital entrepreneurship intention through personal attitude. This means that personal
attitude has an effect on this relationship and can change this relationship. Despite there
was no direct effect of personal trait on digital entrepreneurship intention. This effect was
achieved through the effect of personal attitude. It also confirmed that the big five personal
traits are determinants of personal attitude towards digital entrepreneurship intention.
The results have several also implications for policymakers, economy planners and
educators in higher education that that more efforts are needed to shape the personal traits
of the graduates since this will have an effect on their personal attitude and ultimatly
on digital entrepreneurship intention. Attention should be paid to the big five personal
traits: extroversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness and neu-
roticism. This could be done by integrating a new section or part about positive traits for
entrepreneurship in the “principals of entrepreneurship” course, which recently added to
the crucial of higher education students in KSA. More training and development programs
can also be provided to higher education to promote the positive personal attitude since it
has a great effect on digital entrepreneurship intention of senior university student. Hence,
investment should also be directed to today’s student, digital natives, attitudes towards
useful adoption of internet and technology in digital entrepreneurship intention.

6. Limitations of the Study

This study was concerned with senior students’ personal traits and its association
with their personal attitudes and hence their digital entrepreneurship intention. The study
was conducted on a sample of senior students at public universities in KSA. Therefore,
caution should be considered during the generalization of the results to the whole private
universities or universities in other countries. The study only examined the meditating
role of personal attitude as a major construct in the TPB, albeit did not examine the role
of subjective norms nor the role of perceived behavioural control, which could be an
opportunity for future studies on this topic. Another good research opportunity could
be to examine the moderating role of students’ demographics, i.e., gender or age, or the
type of university specialization and study on the link between personal trait and digital
entrepreneurship intention. Further research opportunities could include undertaking
qualitative research approach using focus groups and interviews and observation methods
to obtain a more rigorous understanding of this topic.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.E.E.S. and I.A.E.; methodology, A.E.E.S. and I.A.E.;
software, I.A.E.; validation, A.E.E.S. and I.A.E.; formal analysis, A.E.E.S. and I.A.E.; investigation,
A.E.E.S. and I.A.E.; resources, I.A.E.; data curation, A.E.E.S. and I.A.E.; writing—original draft
preparation, A.E.E.S. and I.A.E.; writing—review and editing, A.E.E.S. and I.A.E.; visualization,
A.E.E.S. and I.A.E.; supervision, A.E.E.S. and I.A.E.; project administration, A.E.E.S. and I.A.E.;
funding acquisition, A.E.E.S. and I.A.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 16 of 19

Funding: This work was supported by The Saudi Investment Bank Scholarly Chair for Investment
Awareness Studies, the Deanship of Scientific Research, the Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and
Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (Grant No. CHAIR25).
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the deanship of scientific research ethical committee, King
Faisal University (project number: CHAIR25, date of approval: 01/02/2022).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement: Data is available upon request from researchers who meet the eligibility
criteria. Kindly contact the first author privately through the e-mail.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kraus, S.; Palmer, C.; Kailer, N.; Kallinger, F.L.; Spitzer, J. Digital entrepreneurship: A research agenda on new business models
for the twenty-first century. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2019, 25, 353–375. [CrossRef]
2. Tandon, A.; Dhir, A.; Islam, A.K.; Mantymaki, M. Blockchain in healthcare: A systematic literature review, synthesizing framework
and future research agenda. Comput. Ind. 2020, 122, 103290. [CrossRef]
3. Hejazinia, R. The impact of IT-based entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention. Int. J. Manag. Account. Econ. 2015,
2, 243–253.
4. Tajvidi, R.; Tajvidi, M. The growth of cyber entrepreneurship in the food industry: Virtual community engagement in the
COVID-19 era. Br. Food J. 2020, 123, 3309–3325. [CrossRef]
5. Nambisan, S.; Wright, M.; Feldman, M. The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and
key themes. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 103773. [CrossRef]
6. Alkhalaileh, M.Y. Systematic Review: Digital Entrepreneurship Intention. Netw. Intell. Stud. 2021, 9, 17.
7. Wang, Y.S.; Lin, S.J.; Yeh, C.H.; Li, C.R.; Li, H.T. What drives students’ cyber entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of
disciplinary difference. Think Skills Creat. 2016, 22, 22–35. [CrossRef]
8. Badaruddin, M.N.; Arokiasamy, L.; Nordin, N.M.; Yusof, H.; Zakaria, T. Cyber-entrepreneurial intention among business
undergraduates in institutions of higher learning in Malaysia. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Management,
Langkawi Kedah, Malaysia, 11–12 June 2012.
9. Badaruddin, M.N.; Abduallah, N. Study on intention mediating role in cyber entrepreneurship adoption among undergraduates
in Malaysia. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Res. Manag. 2018, 3, 4, 8–15.
10. Hull, C.E.; Hung, Y.C.; Hair, N.; Perotti, V.; DeMartino, R. Taking advantage of digital opportunities: A typology of digital
entrepreneurship. Int. J. Netw. Virtual Organ. 2007, 4, 290–303. [CrossRef]
11. Younis, H.; Katsioloudes, M.; Al Bakri, A. Digital entrepreneurship intentions of Qatar university students motivational factors
identification: Digital entrepreneurship intentions. IJEEI 2020, 10, 56–74. [CrossRef]
12. Mir, A.A.; Hassan, S.; Khan, S.J. Understanding digital entrepreneurial intentions: A capital theory perspective. Int. J. Emerg.
Mark. 2022. ahead of print. [CrossRef]
13. Zhao, H.; Seibert, S.E.; Hills, G.E. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Appl.
Psychol. 2005, 90, 1265. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Sarwar, D.; Sarwar, B.; Raz, M.A.; Khan, H.H.; Muhammad, N.; Azhar, U.; Kasi, M.K. Relationship of the big five personality
traits and risk aversion with investment intention of individual investors. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 819–829. [CrossRef]
15. DeBondt, W.; Forbes, W.; Hamalainen, P.; Muragoglu, Y.G. What can behavioural finance teach us about finance? Qual. Res.
Financ. Mark. 2010, 2, 29–36. [CrossRef]
16. Cattell, R.B. The description of personality: I. Foundations of trait measurement. Psych. Rev. 1943, 50, 559–594. [CrossRef]
17. Allport, G.W. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation; Holt: Oxford, UK, 1937.
18. Fiske, D.W. Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1949, 44, 329.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Costa, P.T.; McCrae, R.R.; Holland, J.L. Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 69,
390–400. [CrossRef]
20. Digman, J.M. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1990, 41, 417–440. [CrossRef]
21. Al-Mamary, Y.H.; Alshallaqi, M. Impact of autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness
on students’ intention to start a new venture. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100239. [CrossRef]
22. Roomi, M.; Kelley, D.; Coduras, A. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia National Report 2020–2021; Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report
(GEM): Santiago, Chile, 2021.
23. Davidson, E.; Vaat, E. Digital entrepreneurship and its sociometrical enactment. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on System Sciences 2010, Honolulu, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2010; pp. 1–10.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 17 of 19

24. European Commission. Effects and Impact of Entrepreneurship Programmes in Higher Education. 2012. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=7428 (accessed on 16 September 2022).
25. Ngoasong, M.Z. Digital entrepreneurship in a resource-scarce context. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2018, 25, 483–500. [CrossRef]
26. Martinez Dy, A. Levelling the playing field? Towards a critical-social perspective on digital entrepreneurship. Futures 2019, 135,
102438. [CrossRef]
27. Giones, F.; Brem, A. Digital technology entrepreneurship: A definition and research agenda. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2017, 7,
44–51. [CrossRef]
28. Durand, R.B.; Newby, R.; Sanghani, J. An intimate portrait of the individual investor. J. Behav. Financ. 2008, 9, 193–208. [CrossRef]
29. Caliendo, M.; Fossen, F.; Kritikos, A.S. Personality characteristics and the decisions to become and stay self-employed. Small Bus.
Econ. 2014, 42, 787–814. [CrossRef]
30. McClelland, D.C. Achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. J. Pers Soc. Psychol. 1965, 1, 389–392. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
31. McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T., Jr. Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am. Psychol. 1997, 52, 509–516. [CrossRef]
32. Fietze, S.; Boyd, B. Entrepreneurial intention of Danish students: A correspondence analysis. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2017, 23,
656–672. [CrossRef]
33. Peng, Z.; Lu, G.; Kang, H. Entrepreneurial intentions and its influencing factors: A survey of the university students in Xi’an
China. Creat. Educ. 2012, 3, 95–100. [CrossRef]
34. Segal, G.; Borgia, D.; Schoenfeld, J. The motivation to become an entrepreneur. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2005, 11, 42–57. [CrossRef]
35. Zhao, H.; Seibert, S.E.; Lumpkin, G.T. The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-
analytic review. J. Manag. Res. 2010, 36, 381–404. [CrossRef]
36. Díaz-Casero, J.C.; Ferreira, J.J.M.; Mogollón, R.H.; Raposo, M.L.B. Influence of institutional environment on entrepreneurial
intention: A comparative study of two countries university students. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2012, 8, 55–74. [CrossRef]
37. Roy, R.; Akhtar, F.; Das, N. Entrepreneurial intention among science & technology students in India: Extending the theory of
planned behavior. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2017, 13, 1013–1041.
38. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychol. Health 2011, 26, 1113–1127. [CrossRef]
39. Brooks, C.; Williams, L. The Impact of Personality Traits on Attitude to Financial Risk. 2021. Available online: https://ssrn.com/
abstract=3729114 (accessed on 16 September 2022).
40. Fini, R.; Grimaldi, R.; Marzocchi, G.L.; Sobrero, M. The determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and
newly established firms. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2012, 36, 387–414. [CrossRef]
41. Rogers, R.W. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Psych. 1975, 91, 93–114. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Wu, S.I.; Chen, J.H. A study of purchase behavior toward internet bookstore by theory of planned behavior. Chin. Manag. Rev.
2006, 9, 1–23.
43. Lai, C. Personality Traits and Stock Investment of Individuals. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5474. [CrossRef]
44. Han, H.; Kim, Y. An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of
planned behaviour. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 659–668. [CrossRef]
45. Dolan, P.; Elliott, A.; Metcalfe, R.; Vlaev, I. Influencing financial behavior: From changing minds to changing contexts. J. Behav.
Financ. 2012, 13, 126–142. [CrossRef]
46. Krishnan, R.; Beena, F. Measurement of conformity to behavior finance concepts and association with individual personality. J.
Behav. Financ. 2009, 6, 25–40.
47. Mayfield, C.; Perdue, G.; Wooten, K. Investment management and personality type. J. Financ. Serv. Res. 2008, 17, 219–237.
48. Rossberger, R.J. National personality profiles and innovation: The role of cultural practices. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2014, 23, 331–348.
[CrossRef]
49. Jain, R.; Sharma, D.; Behl, A.; Tiwari, A.K. Investor personality as a predictor of investment intention–Mediating role of
overconfidence bias and financial literacy. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2022. [CrossRef]
50. Zhao, H.; Seibert, S. The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. J. Appl. Psychol.
2006, 91, 259–271. [CrossRef]
51. Soumyaja, D.; Alexander, L. A study on the influence of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention among working profes-
sionals in the Indian technical organizations. Pac. Bus. Rev. Int. 2016, 9, 12–19.
52. Pak, O.; Mahmood, M. Impact of personality on risk tolerance and investment decisions. Int. J. Commer. Manag. 2015, 25, 370–384.
[CrossRef]
53. Bandera, C.; Passerini, K. Personality traits and the digital entrepreneur: Much of the same thing or a new breed? JICSB 2020, 1,
81–105.
54. Baum, J.R.; Locke, E.A. The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. J. Appl.
Psychol. 2004, 89, 587. [CrossRef]
55. Durand, R.; Newby, R.; Tant, K.; Trepongkaruna, S. Overconfidence, overreaction and personality. Rev. Behav. Financ. 2013, 5,
104–133. [CrossRef]
56. Sadi, R.; Asl, H.G.; Rostami, M.R.; Gholipour, A.; Gholipour, F. Behavioral Finance: The Explanation of Investors’ Personality and
Perceptual Biases Effects on Financial Decisions. Int. J. Financ. Econ. 2011, 3, 234–241. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 18 of 19

57. Keil, M.; Depledge, G.; Rai, A. Escalation: The role of problem recognition and cognitive bias. Decis. Sci. 2007, 38, 391–421.
[CrossRef]
58. Almandeel, S.M. The Impact of Employees’ Personality Traits in Perceiving Leadership Styles and Organizational Attitude in
Saudi Banking Context. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK, 2014.
59. Martins, N. A model for managing trust. Int. J. Manpow. 2002, 3, 754–769. [CrossRef]
60. Gunkel, M.; Schlaegel, C.; Langella, I.A.; Peluchette, J.V. ‘Personality and career deciciveness: An international empirical
comparison of business students’ career planning. Pers. Rev. 2010, 39, 503–524. [CrossRef]
61. Baluku, M.M.; Kikooma, J.F.; Kibanja, G.M. Does Personality of Owners of Micro Enterprises Matter for the Relationship Between
Startup Capital and Entrepreneurial Success? AJBM 2016, 10, 13–23.
62. Pan, C.H.; Statman, M. Investor Personality in Investor Questionnaires; Working Paper, Leavey School of Business; Santa Clara
University: Santa Clara, CA, USA, 2012.
63. Oehler, A.; Wendt, S.; Wedlich, F.; Horn, M. Investors’ personality influences investment decisions: Experimental evidence on
extraversion and neuroticism. J. Behav. Finan. 2018, 19, 30–48. [CrossRef]
64. Brandstätter, H. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Pers. Ind. Ivid. Differ. 2011, 51, 222–230.
[CrossRef]
65. Chang, S.H.; Shu, Y.; Wang, C.L.; Chen, M.Y.; Ho, W.S. Cyber-entrepreneurship as an innovative orientation: Does positive
thinking moderate the relationship between cyber-entrepreneurial self-efficacy and cyber-entrepreneurial intentions in Non-IT
students? Comp. Hum. Behav. 2020, 107, 105975. [CrossRef]
66. Chang, S.H.; Wang, C.L.; Lee, J.C.; Yu, L.C. Who needs entrepreneurial role models? Driving forces of students’ cyber-
entrepreneurial career Intention. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. 2018, 14, 3083–3098.
67. Farani, A.; Karimi, S.; Motaghed, M. The role of entrepreneurial knowledge as a competence in shaping Iranian students ’ career
intentions to start a new digital business. EJTDS 2017, 41, 83–100. [CrossRef]
68. Chen, L.; Claire, E. IT entrepreneurial intention among college students: An empirical study. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 2013, 24, 233–244.
69. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980.
70. Sheeran, P.; Trafimow, D.; Armitage, C.J. Predicting behaviour from perceived behavioural control: Tests of the accuracy
assumption of the theory of planned behaviour. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 42, 393–420. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Elliott, M.A.; Ainsworth, K. Predicting university undergraduates’ binge-drinking behavior: A comparative test of the one- and
two-component theories of planned behavior. Addict. Behav. 2012, 37, 92–101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Gibbs, R.W., Jr. Intentions in The Experience of Meaning; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004.
73. Ajzen, I. Attitudes, Personality, and Behaviour; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
74. Phan, C.K.; Zhou, J. Vietnamese individual investors’ behavior in the stock market: An exploratory study. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Manag.
2014, 3, 46–54.
75. Gopi, M.; Ramayah, T. Applicability of theory of planned behavior in predicting intention to trade online: Some evidence from a
developing country. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2007, 2, 348–360. [CrossRef]
76. Lai, L.S.; To, W.M. E-Entrepreneurial intention among young Chinese adults. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2020, 28, 119–137. [CrossRef]
77. Robinson, P.B.; Stimpson, D.V.; Huefner, J.C.; Hunt, H.K. An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrep.
Theory Pract. 1991, 15, 13. [CrossRef]
78. Ajzen, I. Martin Fishbein’s legacy: The reasoned action approach. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 2012, 640, 11–27. [CrossRef]
79. Munir, F.; Nielsen, K.; Garde, A.H.; Albertsen, K.; Carneiro, I.G. Mediating the effects of work–life conflict between transforma-
tional leadership and health-care workers’ job satisfaction and psychological wellbeing. J. Nurs. Manag. 2012, 20, 512–521.
80. Piroth, P.; Ritter, M.S.; Rueger-Muck, E. Online grocery shopping adoption: Do personality traits matter? Br. Food J. 2020, 122,
957–975.
81. Kusmintarti, A.; Thoyib, A.; Ashar, K.; Maskie, G. The Relationships among Entrepreneurial Characteristics, Entrepreneurial
Attitude, and Entrepreneurial Intention. JBM 2014, 16, 25–32. [CrossRef]
82. Lee, N.H.; Koo, T.Y.; Wu, G.S.; Yu, T.K. Construction of the behavioral tendency model of tourist in Kinmen. J. Manag. 2004, 21,
131–151.
83. Spence, R.; Owens, M.; Goodyer, I. Item response theory and validity of the NEO-FFI in adolescents. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2012, 56,
801–807. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. De Fruyt, F.; Bolle, M.D.; McCrae, R.R.; Terracciano, A.; Costa, J.P.T. Assessing the universal structure of personality in early
adolescence: The NEO-PI-R and NEO-PI-3 in 24 cultures. Assessment 2009, 16, 301–311. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Costa, P.T.; McCrae, R.R. NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI); Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa, FL, USA, 1989;
Volume 3.
86. Shafer, A.B. Mediation of the big five’s effect on career decision making by life task dimensions and on money attitudes by
materialism. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2000, 28, 93–109. [CrossRef]
87. Teng, C.I.; Tseng, H.M.; Li, I.C.; Yu, C.S. International English Big-five mini-markers: Development of the traditional Chinese
version. J. Manag. 2011, 28, 579–615.
88. Nunnally, J.; Bernstein, I. Psychometric Theory; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
89. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3926 19 of 19

90. Bryman, A.; Cramer, D. Quantitative Data Analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19: A Guide for Social Scientists; Routledge: London, UK,
2011; ISBN 978-0-203-18099-0.
91. Avkiran, N.K.; Ringle, C.M. (Eds.) Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Recent Advances in Banking and Finance;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018.
92. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31,
2–24. [CrossRef]
93. Leguina, A. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2015, 38,
220–221. [CrossRef]
94. Becker, J.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Völckner, F. How collinearity affects mixture regression results. Mark. Lett. 2015, 26,
643–659. [CrossRef]
95. Rex, B.K. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
96. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336.
97. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In Advances
in International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; Volume 20,
pp. 277–319. [CrossRef]
98. Hair, J.F.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated Guidelines on Which Method to Use. Int.
J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123. [CrossRef]