www.ijcrsee.com

649

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

Original scientific paper

Received: September 30, 2025.

Revised: October 27, 2025.

Accepted: November 06, 2025.

UDC:

37.018.43:004.738.5

10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-3-649-665

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Corresponding author: mladen.subotic@uns.ac.rs

Abstract: This study investigates how various socio-demographic variables influence the entrepreneurial potential

among university students. The research was conducted on a sample of 1,008 students from three countries: Serbia, Bosnia

and Herzegovina and Belgium. The instruments applied were the Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Traits (QET) and the Scale of

Entrepreneurial Potential (SEP). The primary objective was to examine: (a) the role of gender in shaping entrepreneurial potential,

(b) the influence of national context, (c) differences between urban and rural backgrounds, (d) the impact of students’ material

status, and (e) the relationship between academic performance and the development of entrepreneurial capacity. Canonical

discriminant analysis confirmed significance and the structure of differences among students considering their gender, country

of origin and different material status of students, and their scores on the dimensions of the Entrepreneurial Traits model QET as

well as on the Entrepreneurial Potential model SEP. Canonical discriminant analysis did not confirm significance and the structure

of differences among students considering their place of residence and success during studies in their scores on the dimensions

of Entrepreneurial Traits model QET as well as on the Entrepreneurial Potential model SEP. The findings of this research indicate

that socio-demographic factors have a significant impact on students’ entrepreneurial potential, offering a valuable framework for

future studies and analyses, particularly in the context of the growing importance of entrepreneurship in developing countries.

Keywords: Socio-demographic, entrepreneurship, development, student population.

Mia Marić

, Mladen Subotić

, Slavica Mitrović Veljković

, Ana Nešić Tomašević

Branislav Dudić

, Vesna Rodić Lukić

University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Education in Sombor, Serbia,

e-mail: mia.maric@uns.ac.rs, mladen.subotic@uns.ac.rs, vesna.rodiclukic@uns.ac.rs

University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia, e-mail: mslavica@uns.ac.rs, ana.nesic@uns.ac.rs

Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Management, Slovakia. e-mail: branislav.dudic@fm.uniba.sk

Socio-demographic Factors and Their Influence on the Development of

Entrepreneurial Potential of Students

Introduction

There is a growing interest in fostering entrepreneurship, particularly in developing countries where

entrepreneurs are increasingly viewed as pivotal agents in addressing persistent economic challenges,

such as high unemployment rates. Number of authors in their recent researches considers the phenom-

enon of entrepreneurship to be crucial implement of faster economic development (Apurba, 2023; Borah

and Bhowal, 2023; Van Praag, Versloot, 2007; Parker, 2009; Audretsch and Peña 2012; Brixiova, 2013;

Toma, Grigore, and Marinescu, 2014). In order to define factors that contribute the most to the develop-

ment of entrepreneurship, recent literature review shows that different authors studied economic factors

and their impact on entrepreneurship (Muithui et al., 2023; Parker, 2004; Sun, 2024; Wennekers et al.,

2005) and on the other hand others examined influence of personality factors and education on entrepre-

neurship (Isma et al., 2023; Thomas and Muller, 2005; Yan, 2010; Martin, McNally and Kay, 2013; Pfeifer,

Sarlija and Zekic Susac, 2016; Soomro et al., 2025; Suryadi and Anggraeni, 2023).

In this study we turn to the impact of sociodemographic factors and the importance of their influence

on the development of entrepreneurship of student population. According to Thornton, Ribeiro-Soriano

and Urbano, (2011) “international organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) and European Union (EU) are focusing on the environmental drivers of entrepre-

www.ijcrsee.com

650

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

neurship, especially the social and cultural factors that influence the individual career choice to be an entre-

preneur and to create a new business (European Commission, 2004, 2006; OECD, 1998, 2000)” (p.106).

Furthermore they conclude that social cultural factors and their influence on entrepreneurship remains

under researched. Turker and Selcuk in their study of factors that affect student entrepreneurial potential

conclude that society that is supportive towards entrepreneurship and fosters entrepreneurial activity of its

younger population will as a result have a higher level of confidence among young entrepreneurs which

leads to development of entrepreneurial activity. Gurol and Atsan, (2006) conclude that in order to define

entrepreneurial characteristics of a society we need to closely examine different factors. Urbano and Alva-

rez (2013) researched the influence of institutions on entrepreneurial activity and their sample consisted

of 36,525 individuals from 30 countries according to (GEM and IMD data for 2008). In their overall assess-

ment they stated that: “while the regulative and normative environments encourage people to become

entrepreneurs, a strong cultural-cognitive environment is needed to create a new firm” (p. 713). Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor studies contextual factors like socio-cultural and demographical influence the

process of forming our personality and influence our perception and the way we act (GEM, 2010).

In our study we will investigate different sociodemographic factors focusing on gender, country of

origin, influence of rural and urban area of residence, material status of students, and influence of success

during studies and try to assess how they influence entrepreneurial potential of students.

Hofsted et, al. (2004) in their research concludes that factors influencing the development of entrepre-

neurship in a society are multidimensional and complex. Nicolae, M., Ion, I. and Nicolae, E. (2016), in their

study state: “that entrepreneurship phenomenon is currently understood as a reflection of the local competi-

tive advantages and disadvantages of the external environment” (p 394). In our research we will focus on

student population and examine sociodemographic factors and their influence on this part of population. Ac-

cording to Shinnar, Giacomin and Janssen, (2012) who used Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud (2000) statement:

“Students fac[e] an immediate career choice [and]...starting a business may be a realistic option” (p. 425).

This study employed two conceptual frameworks: the Entrepreneurial Traits Model (QET) and the En-

trepreneurial Potential Model (SEP). The QET model encompasses six dimensions—unconventionality and

creativity, achievement orientation and challenge acceptance, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, assertiveness

and communication skills, positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship, as well as interest and knowledge

related to entrepreneurial activity. The SEP model evaluates entrepreneurial potential through dimensions

such as intellectual capacity, self-confidence, motivation, social interaction, physical constitution, emotional

stability, extroversion, and organizational competence. The SEP instrument quantifies respondents’ scores

across these dimensions, with higher scores indicating a greater degree of entrepreneurial potential.

Liberty, Tunde and Tinuola (2016) conclude in their study that sociodemographic factors influence

development of entrepreneurial activity. In this research we will assess the influence of following sociode-

mographic factors: (a) the role of gender in shaping entrepreneurial potential, (b) the influence of national

context, (c) differences between urban and rural backgrounds, (d) the impact of students’ material status,

and (e) the relationship between academic performance and the development of entrepreneurial capacity.

Influence of gender on the development of entrepreneurial potential

Research conducted on the student population revealed that male students exhibit a higher readi-

ness to initiate their own businesses and pursue entrepreneurial careers. This research also shows that

even though women enjoy family support, they feel less self-confident to start their own business (Bela

et al., 2021; Dabic et al., 2012; Martín-Gutiérrez et al., 2025). Despite encountering socio-economic

challenges—such as limited resource access, market inequality, and persistent gender-based stereo-

types—women exhibit resilience through strategies like professional networking, skill development, and

continuous learning (Đurđević, 2025). Gupta and Bhawe (2007) researched proactive personality as a

characteristic that is significantly associated to entrepreneurship. They assessed that this is especially

evident in an environment that is not supportive towards potential entrepreneurs, this lack of support is

characteristic for the environment of developing countries such as Serbia and Bosnia we are researching.

They concluded in their research that more proactive woman had significantly more developed entrepre-

neurial potential, and that this fact held them back from becoming entrepreneurs because of the common

stereotype that entrepreneurship is connected to male population and that proactivity is commonly associ-

ated as a masculine trait. Envick and Lim (2011) according to Bartos et al. (2015) examine in their study

www.ijcrsee.com

651

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

of gender and entrepreneurial orientation in the sample of 4 countries: US, Korea, Malaysia and Fiji that

male entrepreneurs are more prone to risk propensity behaviour, they display more aggressive behaviour

when competing on the market than females do, they also discovered that males lead in regard to female

population of US and Korea in regard to independent decision making, and males are also found to be

more confident in decision making process across the sample. Differences in level of entrepreneurial de-

velopment between genders can be explained by gender discrimination women face (Fischer et al., 1993).

Since 1999, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) provides data on the fact that women develop less

entrepreneurial potential and stay behind men in entrepreneurship activity. Research results from Bul-

garia show that women have less expressed entrepreneurial potential than men (Yordanova and Tarrazon,

2010), this survey is very interesting to our own study because of the similarity in the mentality in the region

of Balkans. Bartos et al. (2015) conclude in their study that male entrepreneurs in Czech Republic are

more aggressive than female entrepreneurs and more innovative. Shinnar, Giacomin and Janssen, (2012)

in their research which is similar to our own used a sample of 761 university students from three different

nations: Belgium, China and United States, their study pointed to the existence of significant influence of

gender and culture for development of entrepreneurship in a society. Also, this research found that gender

negatively influences the development of entrepreneurship through the society’s lack of support for female

entrepreneurship. Research conducted on student population in India shows that student gender is a fac-

tor that strongly influences the development of entrepreneurship (Sonia Katherin Mathew and Dr. Johney

Johnson, 2014). Demographic factor like gender among others is strongly connected to self-employment

and influences entrepreneurial potential of individuals (Wilson, Kickul and Marlinon, 2007).

Influence of rural and urban area of residence on entrepreneurial potential

Hyunjeong, (2011) in his research found that most of the literature collects data in urban settings

and gives exzamples of Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) and the Global Entrepreneur-

ship Monitor (GEM). He concludes in his study that main difference between rural and urban entrepreneur-

ship is in resources, rural areas lack in education and financial resources but show rich entrepreneurial

potential. Different research point to the fact that the rate of entrepreneurial development is significantly

lower in rural than in urban areas (Eurobarometer, 2007).

According to the research of Capelleras, Contín-Pilart, Martin-Sanchez and Larraza-Kintana, (2013)

that used data from the Spanish GEM project, they found: “that individuals in rural areas who perceive

new opportunities are more likely to become nascent entrepreneurs rather than those who live in urban

ones” (p. 97). Urban environments are assumed to foster greater entrepreneurial intentions in students

due to increased exposure to economic activities compared to rural environments (Al Harrasi and Ali,

2025). Rural and urban areas of residence significantly influence entrepreneurial potential among women

entrepreneurs in Pakistan, with differences in home ownership, household size, and financial position

(Muhammad and Ximei, 2022). Faggio and Silva (2014) in their research of self-employment and entre-

preneurship in rural and urban markets argue that self-employment in rural and urban areas is not the

part of the same phenomenon of entrepreneurship. They find that urban areas provide self-employment of

working people based on innovative behaviour, risk taking propensity which form entrepreneurship, while

rural workers more often engage in self-employment because they lack other job opportunities. Accord-

ing to Duricova (2014) Baumgartner et al., (2013) state that: “entrepreneurship has become a key topic

in rural development” (p. 197). Duricova (2014), in her study on entrepreneurship across rural and urban

regions within the EU, argues that individuals residing in underdeveloped rural areas are more inclined to

engage in entrepreneurial activities compared to those living in more developed urban settings.

However, empirical findings on the influence of residential context remain inconsistent. While some

studies suggest that urban environments exert a stronger impact on the development of entrepreneurial

potential, others indicate that rural areas contribute equally to fostering entrepreneurial capabilities.

Influence of material status of students

Material status has a complex but generally positive influence on students’ entrepreneurial poten-

tial, with financial resources serving as a key enabler of entrepreneurial intentions. The evidence suggests

multiple dimensions of material status impact entrepreneurship. Li (Li et al., 2022) found materialism

positively predicts entrepreneurial intention through a serial mediation involving achievement motivation,

www.ijcrsee.com

652

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

while another author (Rajković et al., 2021) specifically noted that financial opportunities to start a new

business was the most influential variable on entrepreneurial intentions. According to Lee and Persson,

(2012) there are number of research that provide evidence of significant connection among personal

wealth and propensity to start entrepreneurial activity (Alger and Weibull, 2010). Friedline and West,

(2015) in their research examined the impact of wealth on young adults and their entrepreneurial activity.

They concluded that young adults with lower material status encounter difficulties in acquiring financial

resources needed to start their own business.

Hosseini (2016) states in his research that: “financial resources within the family stimulates entry into

entrepreneurship” (p. 31). He even found that wealthier is the family background larger is the entrepreneuri-

al venture individuals form. Research in the field of entrepreneurship show that entrepreneurial background

in the family poses a source of different assets for the new entrepreneurs in the family, such as financial

resources, suppliers, connections in the market, connection with the suppliers and knowledge of needed

technologies (Dunn and Holtz-Eakin, 2000). According to Mustapha and Selvaraju, (2015) family also stimu-

lates students by creating a supportive environment which provides them with resources and knowledge

that help them start their entrepreneurial activity after they finish their studies (Bagheri and Pihie, 2010).

OECD and European Commision (2014) consider that young people are more prone to entrepre-

neurial activity, but statistics shows that their rate of becoming entrepreneurs is lower than one of the

adults. They state that: “this is the result of barriers related to lack of awareness, orientation of education

and training, lack of experience, fewer financial resources, limited networks, and market barriers”. OECD

and European Commision (2014) also imply that EU entrepreneurship programs can overcome these

obstacles. One of the programs is The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) Activities supported include:

“encourage schools and employment services to promote and provide continued guidance on entrepre-

neurship and self-employment for young people”. This can be very important and helpful for the young

people coming from families with lower material status. Motivation and support they lack at home they can

overcome by formal programs and entrepreneurship education. According to Jiménez, Palmero-Cámara,

González-Santos, González-Bernal, Jiménez-Eguizábal, (2015) in their research they concluded that

education influences the increases of entrepreneurial activity, and it is connected to the level of the higher

self-confidence, lower perceived risk and enhanced human capital.

Influence of success during studies on the development of entrepreneurial potential of students

The influence of academic success factors such as education, motivation, practical experience,

and social support positively impacts students’ readiness to become entrepreneurs, as they have great

potential to start businesses with innovative ideas, relevant skills, and necessary resources (Marpaung

et al., 2023). Anderson, Samimi, and Boh (2010) in their book asses that academic success and formal

education can be a “security ceiling” that is hard to escape and embrace other possibilities outside the

given framework of a false feeling of security. Ward (2004) in his research states: “More than ever we

need to prepare young people to build a life of purpose and opportunity in which they are aware of and can

draw on their various talents and abilities. Enterprise Education offers a framework for this kind of learn-

ing” (p. 105). Sharma and Madan, (2014) found in their research that students with high scores on intel-

ligence tests had low propensity towards entrepreneurship but attendance of entrepreneurship courses

resulted in higher propensity towards entrepreneurship. Chad Moutray (2009) examined the Department

of Education data in the USA and found that students with better academic achievement had slightly less

chances of being self-employed and becoming entrepreneurs. Research conducted on student popula-

tion in India shows that student age is a factor that strongly influences the development of entrepreneur-

ship (Sonia Katherin Mathew and Dr. Johney Johnson, 2014). Peterman and Kennedy (2003) conclude

that different educational programs can significantly influence development of entrepreneurship. Several

studies (Gyang et al., 2023; Machado et al., 2022; Mumtaz et al., 2024) provide comprehensive evidence

that entrepreneurial education significantly enhances students’ entrepreneurial potential across different

educational contexts and geographic regions. Gyang et al. (2023) specifically identified self-efficacy as

a critical mediating factor, showing that education builds students’ confidence in their entrepreneurial

abilities, while Machado et al. (2022) added academic engagement as another important mechanism,

demonstrating that entrepreneurial education creates more engaged learners with higher entrepreneurial

potential. Mumtaz et al. (2024) confirmed that students develop positive attitudes, subjective norms, and

www.ijcrsee.com

653

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

behavioral control - all key components of entrepreneurial intention. The same author identified a critical

gap between students’ entrepreneurial potential and current curriculum offerings, suggesting that while

the impact is positive, educational systems need improvement to fully capitalize on students’ entrepre-

neurial capacity. Levesque and Minniti (2006) in their research revealed that age is significantly connected

to entrepreneurial potential and activity. Students that are older have more experience and attend more

entrepreneurial courses and consequently have more developed entrepreneurial potential, so attendance

of entrepreneurial programs and courses shows more impact on development of entrepreneurial potential

than student academic success. Above literature survey implies that academic success does not provide

a pattern that detects significant relation between academic success and development of entrepreneur-

ship potential of students.

Materials and Methods

Research methodology

The primary aim of this study is to examine the influence of various socio-demographic factors on

the entrepreneurial potential of university students. The research utilized two key instruments: the Ques-

tionnaire on Entrepreneurial Traits (QET) and the Scale of Entrepreneurial Potential (SEP). Five groups of

socio-demographic factors were analysed: (a) the role of gender in shaping entrepreneurial potential, (b)

the influence of national context, (c) differences between urban and rural backgrounds, (d) the impact of

students’ material status, and (e) the relationship between academic performance and the development

of entrepreneurial capacity.

In this paper we hypothesize that students with different demographic background differ from each

other in terms of expression of certain dimensions of entrepreneurial potential models QET and SEP.

Data collection and descriptive statistics

The research sample comprised university students from three countries—Serbia and Bosnia and

Herzegovina, as EU candidate countries, and Belgium, an EU Member State. Participants were recruited

from three universities and eleven faculties, resulting in a total of 1,008 respondents, including 589 male

and 419 female students. The study adhered to ethical research standards, including institutional approval

from participating universities. Questionnaires were administered during regular class sessions, ensuring

respondent anonymity and the exclusive use of data for scientific purposes. Participants reported clear

understanding of the instructions, and no issues were encountered during the data collection process.

Instruments

This study employed two primary instruments: the Scale of Entrepreneurial Potential (SEP) and the

Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Traits (QET). The SEP scale assesses entrepreneurial potential across

eight sub-scales: intellectual abilities, self-confidence, motivation, social relations, physical constitution,

emotional stability, extroversion, and organizational skills.

Each SEP sub-scale captures a distinct dimension of entrepreneurial potential. The intellectual

abilities sub-scale evaluates resourcefulness in various situations, the capacity for independent problem-

solving and decision-making, as well as a proactive attitude toward learning and personal development.

The self-confidence sub-scale measures boldness in expressing personal views and assertiveness in

social and professional contexts.

The physical constitution sub-scale reflects aspects of physical fitness, energy, and endurance, which

are considered relevant to sustained entrepreneurial engagement. The organizational skills sub-scale assess-

es individuals’ preference for managerial roles and their ability to effectively plan, structure, and execute tasks.

The extroversion sub-scale—referred to as openness in earlier conceptualizations—includes traits

such as risk-taking propensity, openness to new experiences, and creativity. The motivation sub-scale encom-

passes competitive spirit, grit, initiative, goal orientation, ambition, perseverance, dedication, and work ethic.

The emotional stability sub-scale evaluates an individual’s self-regulation, resilience under stress,

emotional balance, and general optimism. Finally, the social relations sub-scale measures leadership

potential, communicative competence, social influence, teamwork orientation, adaptability, conflict resolu-

www.ijcrsee.com

654

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

tion skills, and the ability to make a positive impression in social settings

The SEP inventory consists of 34 items designed to assess respondents’ scores across the eight

sub-scales representing different dimensions of entrepreneurial potential. The total entrepreneurial poten-

tial score is calculated by summing the scores across all sub-scales, with higher total scores indicating

stronger entrepreneurial potential. This instrument was developed specifically for the purposes of this

study, based on theoretical frameworks and prior research on entrepreneurial characteristics.

Responses were recorded using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to

“strongly disagree.” Confirmatory factor analysis supported the factorial validity of the inventory, and the

instrument demonstrated acceptable reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.751 to

0.756 across individual sub-scales.

The Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Traits (QET), developed by Gracanin and Coso (2013), is

designed to assess entrepreneurial self-efficacy and attitudes toward entrepreneurship. The inventory

comprises 58 items and evaluates six sub-scales: entrepreneurial unconventionality and creativity, focus

on achievement and acceptance of challenges, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, assertiveness and com-

munication, positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship, and interest in entrepreneurship and knowledge.

The total QET score is obtained by summing scores across all sub-scales, with higher values indicating a

greater level of entrepreneurial potential.

The QET inventory evaluates six interrelated sub-scales that collectively capture key dimensions

of entrepreneurial traits. The first sub-scale, unconventionality and creativity, reflects an individual’s ten-

dency to approach problem-solving in original and non-traditional ways, often involving a willingness to

take risks. It also measures self-perceived creativity and confidence in utilizing these traits. The second

sub-scale, focus on achievement and acceptance of challenges, pertains to one’s motivation to tackle

complex tasks and engage in activities with uncertain outcomes, demonstrating a readiness to embrace

challenges as part of the entrepreneurial process. The third sub-scale, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, is

the most extensive and central within the inventory. It assesses confidence in personal entrepreneurial

capabilities, persistence in goal pursuit, general entrepreneurial orientation, and leadership potential. The

fourth sub-scale, assertiveness and communication, captures interpersonal skills vital to entrepreneur-

ship, particularly the ability to express ideas clearly and interact effectively with others. The fifth sub-scale,

positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship, evaluates favorable perceptions of entrepreneurs and entre-

preneurship, along with an individual’s openness to becoming an entrepreneur. Lastly, the sixth sub-scale,

interest in entrepreneurship and knowledge, focuses on self-assessed understanding of entrepreneurial

concepts and the extent of recent learning in this domain.

All responses were collected using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to

“strongly disagree.” Confirmatory factor analysis supported the factorial validity of the instrument, con-

firming its underlying structure. In the present study, the QET demonstrated satisfactory reliability, with

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.732 to 0.805 across the sub-scales.

Data analysis

The data were processed using the statistical software packages Statistica and SPSS. Descriptive

statistics were employed to examine the basic characteristics of the sample and the distribution of vari-

ables. To assess the existence and strength of relationships between the observed variables, canonical

discriminant analysis was conducted. This method enabled the identification of socio-demographic factors

that most significantly differentiate levels of entrepreneurial potential among student respondents.

Results

The significance and structure of gender differences in scores on the dimensions of the QET ques-

tionnaire were determined using canonical discriminant analysis.

www.ijcrsee.com

655

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

Table 1. Indicators of the significance of discriminant functions in separating groups

Function Λ % of

variance

explained

(canonical

correlation)

partial Wilks’

Lambda

(chi-square

statistic)

(chi-square

statistic)

(p-value)

1 .038 100.0 .190 .964 37.058 6 .000

Male students have higher scores on the dimensions Positive Attitudes toward Entrepreneurs and

Interest in Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Assertiveness and Communication, and

lower scores on Knowledge (ΛW=.964, χ2 (df=6)= 37.058, p<0.01). The ability of these two functions to

classify respondents was 57.6 %.

Table 2. Structural matrix and discriminant function values at group centroids

Function – Indicator Coefficient

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy .642*

Assertiveness and communication .576*

Knowledge -.488*

Positive attitudes toward entrepreneurs and interest in entrepreneurship .331*

Unconventionality and creativity .251

Achievement orientation and acceptance of challenges .183

Function at group centroids

Male .163

Female -.230

Legend:* indicates a statistically signicant structural coefcient

Canonical discriminant analysis was used to determine the significance and structure of gender

differences between male and female students in scores on the dimensions of the SEP questionnaire.

Table 3. Indicators of the significance of discriminant functions in separating groups

Function Λ

% of

variance

explained

Rc ΛW χ² df p

1 0.032 100.0 0.177 0.969 31.927 8 0.000

Male students have higher scores on Motivation (ΛW=.969, χ2 (df=8)= 31.927, p<0.01). The clas-

sification accuracy of this function was 56.7%.

Table 4. Structural matrix and discriminant function values at group centroids

Function – Indicator Coefficient

Motivation –0.513*

Openness –0.215

Self-confidence 0.161

Constitution 0.149

Intellectual abilities –0.097

Social relationships –0.073

Emotionality 0.042

Organizational abilities 0.011

Function at group centroids

Male -.152

Female .213

Legend:* indicates a statistically signicant structural coefcient

www.ijcrsee.com

656

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

Canonical discriminant analysis was used to determine the differences and the structure of differ-

ences between students from different countries in scores on the dimensions of the QET questionnaire.

Table 5. Indicators of the significance of discriminant functions in separating groups

Function Λ

% of variance

explained

Rc ΛW χ² df p

1 0.066 65.8 0.249 0.907 97.756 12 0.000

2 0.034 34.2 0.182 0.967 33.747 5 0.000

The results indicate that students from Belgium, when compared to their peers from Bosnia and

Herzegovina, scored significantly higher on the QET sub-scales Positive Attitudes toward Entrepreneurs

and Interest in Entrepreneurship, Unconventionality and Creativity, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and As-

sertiveness and Communication, while exhibiting lower scores on the Knowledge. These differences were

statistically significant (ΛW = 0.907, χ²(df = 12) = 97.756, p < 0.01).

Furthermore, in comparison to students from Serbia, Belgian students demonstrated signifi-

cantly higher scores on the sub-scales Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, Assertiveness and Communica-

tion, Achievement Orientation and Acceptance of Challenges, and Knowledge (ΛW = 0.967, χ²(df = 5) =

33.747, p < 0.01).

The overall classification accuracy of the two discriminant functions was 45.5%, with the lowest

classification precision observed among students from Serbia, indicating greater overlap in their entrepre-

neurial trait profiles relative to the other groups.

Table 6. Structural matrix and discriminant function values at group centroids

Dimension Function 1 Function 2

Positive Attitudes toward Entrepreneurs and Interest 0.620* 0.244

Unconventionality and Creativity 0.505* –0.106

Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy 0.503* 0.709*

Assertiveness and Communication 0.416* 0.701*

Achievement Orientation and Acceptance of Challenges 0.242 0.603*

Knowledge –0.469* 0.565*

Function at group centroids

Serbia 0.077 0.053

Bosnia and Herzegovina –0.767 –0.069

Belgium 0.227 –0.819

Legend: *statistically signicant structural coefcient

Canonical discriminant analysis was used to determine the differences and the structure of differ-

ences between students from different countries in scores on the dimensions of the SEP questionnaire.

Table 7. Indicators of the significance of discriminant functions in separating groups

Function Λ % of variance explained Rc ΛW χ² df p

1 0.043 77.9 0.204 0.947 54.617 16 0.000

2 0.012 22.1 0.110 0.988 12.198 7 0.094

Students from Bosnia and Herzegovina, in comparison to their peers from Belgium, demonstrated

significantly higher scores across all dimensions of the SEP model (ΛW = 0.947, χ²(df = 16) = 54.617, p

< 0.01). The most discriminating dimensions contributing to this difference were Organizational Abilities,

Social Relationships, Self-Confidence, Constitution, and Motivation.

The second discriminant function did not significantly distinguish the groups of students from differ-

www.ijcrsee.com

657

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

ent countries. The classification accuracy of these two functions was 36.5%, with the poorest classifica-

tion results observed among students from Serbia.

Table 8. Structural matrix and discriminant function values at group centroids

Dimension Function 1

Organizational Abilities 0.818*

Social Relationships 0.793*

Self-Confidence 0.694*

Constitution 0.664*

Motivation 0.584*

Openness 0.524*

Emotionality 0.362*

Intellectual Abilities 0.392*

Function at group centroids

Serbia 0.005

Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.342

Belgium –0.822

Legend: *statistically signicant structural coefcient

Canonical discriminant analysis did not find a statistically significant difference between students

from different places of residence in scores on the dimensions of the QET questionnaire (ΛW = 0.996,

χ²(df = 6) = 3.556, p > 0.05).

Table 9. Indicators of the significance of discriminant functions in separating groups

Function Λ

% of variance

explained

Rc ΛW χ² df p

1 0.004 100.0 0.059 0.996 3.556 6 0.736

Canonical discriminant analysis did not find a statistically significant difference between students

from different places of residence in scores on the dimensions of the SEP questionnaire (ΛW = 0.997,

χ²(df = 8) = 3.068, p > 0.05).

Table 10. Indicators of the significance of discriminant functions in separating groups

Function Λ % of variance explained Rc ΛW χ² df p

1 0.003 100.0 0.055 0.997 3.068 8 0.930

Canonical discriminant analysis was used to determine the differences and the structure of differ-

ences between students with different material status on the dimensions of the QET questionnaire.

Table 11. Indicators of the significance of discriminant functions in separating groups

Function Λ % of variance explained Rc ΛW χ² df p

1 0.075 88.5 0.265 0.921 82.581 12 0.000

2 0.010 11.5 0.099 0.990 9.792 5 0.081

Students with below-average material status scored significantly higher on the Knowledge (ΛW =

0.921, χ²(df = 12) = 82.581, p < 0.01) compared to those with average material status. The second discri-

minant function did not significantly distinguish the groups of students with different material status. The

classification accuracy of these two functions was 45.9%, and students from all categories were classified

with roughly equal success.

www.ijcrsee.com

658

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

Table 12. Structural matrix and discriminant function values at group centroids

Dimension Function 1

Knowledge 0.898*

Unconventionality and Creativity –0.128

Assertiveness and Communication –0.143

Achievement Orientation and Acceptance of Challenges –0.127

Positive Attitudes toward Entrepreneurs and Interest –0.056

Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy –0.229

Function at group centroids

Below-average .440

Average –0.182

Above-average 0.191

Legend: *statistically signicant structural coefcient

Canonical discriminant analysis was used to determine the differences and the structure of differ-

ences between students with different material status on the dimensions of the SEP questionnaire.

Table 13. Indicators of the significance of discriminant functions in separating groups

Function Λ % of variance explained Rc ΛW χ² df p

1 0.033 79.0 0.179 0.959 41.553 16 0.000

2 0.009 21.0 0.094 0.991 8.828 7 0.265

Students with above-average material status, compared to those with average status, have higher

scores on Social Relationships, Organizational Abilities, Self-Confidence, and Openness (ΛW = 0.959,

χ²(df = 16) = 41.553, p < 0.01). The second discriminant function did not significantly distinguish the

groups of students with different material status. The classification accuracy of these two functions was

42.5%, with the poorest classification observed among students with below-average material status.

Table 14. Structural matrix and discriminant function values at group centroids

Dimension Function 1

Social Relationships 0.684*

Organizational Abilities 0.587*

Self-Confidence 0.356*

Openness 0.298M

Motivation 0.288

Intellectual Abilities 0.253

Constitution 0.126

Emotionality –0.262

Function at group centroids

Below-average 0.220

Average –0.119

Above-average 0.439

Legend: *statistically signicant structural coefcient

M - marginally signicant coefcient

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine whether the dimensions of the applied models

predict student success. This analysis was conducted only on the 208 students who responded to this question.

It was not established that the dimensions of the QET model predict academic success (adjusted

R² = –0.01, F(6, 201) = 0.674, p > 0.05).

www.ijcrsee.com

659

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

It was not established that the dimensions of the SEP model predict academic success (adjusted

R² = 0.03, F(8, 199) = 1.769, p > 0.05).

Table 15. Significance of the multiple regression model

Model R R² Adjusted R² df reg df res F p

QET 0.140 0.020 –0.010 6 201 0.674 0.670

SEP

0.258 0.066 0.029 8 199 1.769 0.085

Discussion

The entrepreneurial potential of young people represents a category of dynamic and complex na-

ture, and as such is subject to the action of various internal and external factors, some of which are heredi-

tary, static and unchanging in nature, while others are subject to minor or major variations and changes

(GEM, 2010; Liberty, Tunde and Tinuola, 2016; Martin, McNally and Kay, 2013; Parker, 2004; Pfeifer,

Sarlija and Zekic Susac, 2016; Thomas and Muller, 2013; Yan, 2010). The main goal of this paper was

to examine the effect of five groups of socio-demographic factors on the development of dimensions of

entrepreneurial potential among the student population: gender, country and place of residence, material

status and success in studies. Entrepreneurial characteristics are theoretically defined and operationally

measured with the help of two models of entrepreneurial potential - QET and SEP. The central research

assumption posited that students would differ in the expression of specific entrepreneurial characteristics,

as measured by the QET and SEP models, depending on the influence of various socio-demographic

factors. The study showed that the expressiveness of the students’ entrepreneurial potential is related to

three categories of socio-demographic factors - gender, country, and financial status of the respondents.

Regarding the relationship between gender and the expression of entrepreneurial potential, the

findings confirmed the existence of gender-based differences across several dimensions of the QET and

SEP models. Specifically, within the QET model, male students exhibited significantly higher scores on

the sub-scales positive attitudes toward entrepreneurs and interest in entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial

self-efficacy, and assertiveness and communication, while scoring lower on the interest in entrepreneur-

ship and knowledge sub-scale compared to female students. Also, the results showed that male students

have a more pronounced dimension of Motivation, within the SEP model. This finding is expected and

speaks of a more pronounced entrepreneurial potential in the male population, in the domain of most

entrepreneurial traits (Bartos et al., 2015; Bela et al., 2021; Dabic et al., 2012; Fischer et al., 1993; Gupta

and Bhawe, 2007; Martín-Gutiérrez et al., 2025; Mathew and Johnson, 2014; Shinnar, Giacomin and

Janssen, 2012; Wilson, Kickul and Marlinon, 2007; Yordanova and Tarrazon, 2010).

When considering the characteristics of the development of certain traits through evolution, the

characteristics of the current socio-cultural environment and the specifics of occupations that have tradi-

tionally been considered predominantly male, and this certainly includes entrepreneurship, the obtained

findings have their deep evolutionary and social roots (Dabic et al., 2012; Gupta and Bhawe, 2007;

Mathew and Johnson, 2014). Namely, throughout the evolutionary period, the qualities of proactivity, in-

dependence, fighting spirit, and willingness to openly and directly advocate for one’s own goals, and even

to take certain risks and deviate from the expected norms and rules, when the situation so dictates, were

encouraged in men (Bartos et al., 2015; Wilson, Kickul and Marlinon, 2007).Traditionally, the socialization

and education of women have emphasized traits such as modesty, adherence to social norms, and be-

havioral conformity, often reinforcing passivity and a dependence on expected roles—primarily within the

family sphere—while placing less emphasis on career independence or entrepreneurial aspirations. This

orientation has frequently directed women toward traditionally female-dominated occupations (Fischer et

al., 1993; Shinnar, Giacomin, and Janssen, 2012; Yordanova and Tarrazon, 2010). In light of these histori-

cal and cultural patterns, it is not surprising that male students tend to show greater interest in entrepre-

neurship, express more positive attitudes toward entrepreneurial careers, demonstrate higher confidence

in goal achievement, display stronger assertiveness and communication skills, and exhibit greater overall

motivation for entrepreneurial engagement.

The finding that female students exhibit higher levels on the interest in entrepreneurship and knowl-

www.ijcrsee.com

660

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

edge sub-scale is encouraging, as it indicates the presence of a critical cognitive predisposition for engag-

ing in entrepreneurial activity. However, the results also suggest that they may lack, to some extent, the

necessary motivation, self-confidence, and active interest to translate this knowledge into entrepreneurial

behavior. These insights should be carefully considered when designing and implementing programs

aimed at fostering female entrepreneurship. Such initiatives should begin by cultivating motivation and

entrepreneurial interest among young women, with the goal of empowering them to independently pursue

and succeed in entrepreneurial careers (Karnavat et al., 2024; Wilson, Kickul and Marlinon, 2007; Yor-

danova and Tarrazon, 2010).

The results also confirmed significant cross-national differences in the expression of entrepre-

neurial potential dimensions, as measured by both the QET and SEP models, among students from the

countries included in the study.Thus, compared to students from BiH, students from Belgium have more

developed dimensions Positive attitudes about entrepreneurs and interest in entrepreneurship, Uncon-

ventionality and creativity, Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and Assertiveness and communicativeness, and

less expressed Knowledge, within the QET model. At the same time, compared to students from Serbia,

students from Belgium have more pronounced dimensions Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, Assertiveness

and communicativeness, Orientation to achievement and acceptance of challenges and Knowledge. This

finding is expected and speaks in favor of the fact that young people from the EU have a more developed

majority of characteristics that make them predisposed to engage in entrepreneurship. On one hand,

these differences may reflect specific socio-cultural contexts in which young people are socialized, par-

ticularly in Western European countries. In these settings, educational systems and societal norms tend

to emphasize achievement orientation, independence, self-reliance, a proactive approach to problem-

solving, as well as the cultivation of uniqueness and creativity from an early age (Bartos et al., 2015;

Gupta and Bhawe, 2007; Pfeifer, Sarlija and Zekic Susac, 2016; Urban and Alvarez, 2013; Yordanova

and Tarrazon, 2010), while on the other hand, different more specific educational contents and meth-

ods, starting from preschool institutions up to higher education institutions, as well as direct programs

intended to encourage and develop entrepreneurship (GEM, 2010; European Commission, 2004, 2006,

2014; Martin, McNally and Kay, 2013; OECD, 1998, 2000, 2014; Thomas and Muller, 2005; Yan, 2010),

in children and young people during their entire growing up, develop entrepreneurial qualities and foster

an entrepreneurial spirit.

The findings show that compared to students from Belgium, students from Bosnia and Herzegovina

have more developed all dimensions of the SEP model, where they are best distinguished by the devel-

opment of the dimensions of Organizational Ability, Social Relations, Self-Confidence, Constitution and

Motivation. Although somewhat unexpected, this finding is nonetheless encouraging, as it demonstrates

that young people from developing, non-EU countries possess several core attributes of entrepreneurial

potential—such as organizational skills, social relations, self-confidence, and motivation—despite facing

different socio-economic conditions. These results underscore the importance of further strengthening

and guiding these existing capacities through targeted educational initiatives and concrete entrepreneur-

ship support programs. Given that the entrepreneurial potential of youth is a key driver of social trans-

formation and broader socio-economic development, especially in transitional contexts, investing in the

entrepreneurial empowerment of young individuals from outside the EU is both a strategic and necessary

endeavor (Audretsch and Peña 2012; Baporikar, 2020; Brixiova, 2013; Čeko and Rađenović-Kozić, 2023;

Kudysheva, 2020; Parker, 2009; Sarlija and Susac, 2010; Sulejman, 2020; Toma, and Marinescu, 2013;

Yordanova and Tarrazon, 2010).

The results did not show the existence of significant differences between students from urban

and rural areas in the expressiveness of the entrepreneurial potential dimensions of the QET and SEP

models. The results of previous studies in this domain are not completely unambiguous (Capelleras et

al., 2013; Duricova 2014; Faggio and Silva, 2014; Al Harrasi and Ali, 2025; Hyunjeong, 2011; Muham-

mad and Ximei, 2022) and this finding points to the fact that young people in urban and rural areas have

equally developed entrepreneurial abilities, skills, knowledge, motivation, and interests needed to engage

in entrepreneurship. To a certain extent, this finding gives a positive picture, when it comes to the urban

and rural population and its readiness to engage in entrepreneurial occupations, which speaks of positive

tendencies and opportunities for growth and development, both in urban and rural areas (Capelleras et

al., 2013; Duricova 2014). On the other hand, if certain incentive programs are planned for the develop-

ment of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial potential of the population, it is necessary to organize

www.ijcrsee.com

661

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

and implement them, with equal intensity, both in urban and rural areas, whereby the specificities and

needs characteristic of the given environment can be included in concrete incentives and activities (Fag-

gio and Silva, 2014; Hyunjeong, 2011).

When it comes to the effect of financial status on the development of entrepreneurial potential

among young people, differences between students of different financial status were confirmed in terms

of the expressiveness of the dimensions of the QET and SEP models. The analysis revealed that students

with below-average financial status scored higher on the interest in entrepreneurship and knowledge sub-

scale of the QET model compared to those with average financial status. In contrast, students with above-

average financial status demonstrated significantly higher scores on the SEP sub-scales social relations,

organizational skills, self-confidence, and extroversion, relative to students with average financial status.

These findings suggest that different dimensions of entrepreneurial potential may be deferentially influ-

enced by students’ material conditions.This result indicates that young people who are in a better financial

condition have more developed key qualities for engaging in entrepreneurship, such as organizational

skills, self-confidence, and openness to change, skills in social contacts. It is possible that the material

condition alone directly provides them with certain security, self-confidence and openness to various op-

portunities (Alger and Weibull, 2010; Friedline and West, 2015; Hosseini, 2016; Lee and Persson, 2012),

while there is also the possibility that the good material condition of such young people is a consequence

of growing up in a stimulating environment, where the entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurship are

nurtured, which further represents an additional factor that contributes to their development of entrepre-

neurial potential (Bagheri and Pihie, 2010; Dunn and Holtz-Eakin, 2000; Li et al., 2022; Mustapha and

Selvaraju, 2015; Rajković et al., 2021). Young people who are of lower material status only have a more

developed dimension of knowledge, which is very encouraging and can have positive effects, if in the

educational sense they are directed in a timely manner towards the development of other entrepreneurial

capacities and skills, and especially motivated through various stimulating programs for engaging in en-

trepreneurship (Jiménez et al., 2015; OECD and European Commission, 2014).

An interesting finding of the study is that students’ academic success does not exhibit a direct cor-

relation with the dimensions of entrepreneurial potential as measured by the QET and SEP models. This

suggests that the core characteristics underlying entrepreneurial potential may operate independently

of traditional academic performance, reflecting distinct cognitive, motivational, and behavioral traits not

necessarily captured by academic achievement alone. and speaks of the fact that they are more related

to practical abilities, skills and action, and less to the general success in the academic community, theo-

retical knowledge and skills needed to achieve success in learning, in a narrower sense, but without the

application of knowledge (Anderson, Samimi and 2010; Machado et al., 2022; Moutray, 2009; Mumtaz et

al., 2024; Sharma and Madan, 2014). The absence of a direct link between academic success and en-

trepreneurial potential—along with the recognition that academic achievement alone does not guarantee

success in entrepreneurship—highlights the need to broaden educational content and methodologies.

Specifically, curricula should be expanded to actively foster the development of entrepreneurial potential

among young people. This includes promoting students’ readiness to engage in entrepreneurship through

practical, experience-based learning formats such as hands-on teaching practice, independent project

work, and guided mentorship. Crucially, these activities should take place in environments that closely

simulate real-world conditions and future workplace settings, thereby enhancing the relevance and appli-

cability of entrepreneurial education (Levesque and Minniti, 2006; Mathew and Johnson, 2014; Peterman

and Kennedy, 2003; Sharma and Madan, 2014; Ward, 2004).

Conclusions

The results of this research confirmed that various socio-demographic factors influence the expres-

sion of the entrepreneurial potential of young people. Thus, it was confirmed that young male respond-

ents, students from the EU, as well as respondents with a better financial status have better developed

most entrepreneurial traits, while young people from urban and rural areas, as well as students of different

academic success, do not differ from each other in terms of the development of dimensions of entrepre-

neurial potential.

Analyzing the social and economic background of the countries from which the respondents in-

www.ijcrsee.com

662

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

volved in this research come from, we can already detect major differences in the social structure and

class system that could provide interesting insight for future research. Respondents from Bosnia and

Herzegovina and Serbia come from, a decades long socialist system that now days evolved in market

economy having a very harsh trasitional period. While respondents from Belgium as an EU country come

from a decedes long capitalist system, that nurtured entrepreneurship as its core value. This alone points

to major differences of the respondents perspective of researched phenomenon. Future research com-

paring post socialist societies and the differences in the development of entrepreneurship in regard to

developed countries could be potentially very interesting.

The results obtained in this study hold considerable significance for both theoretical and practical

domains. Theoretically, they enhance the conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial potential, offering

insights into its multidimensional structure and the socio-demographic factors that shape the develop-

ment of specific dimensions. Practically, the findings open important avenues for the more effective plan-

ning and implementation of educational interventions and entrepreneurship support programs. These

programs should be strategically designed to promote female entrepreneurship, support entrepreneurial

initiatives in transitional economies at various stages of EU accession, and empower socially vulnerable

populations—particularly individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Furthermore, the results

highlight the need for a thorough revision and innovation of school and university curricula, with the aim

of systematically fostering entrepreneurial potential among children and youth through the development

of relevant cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral traits. Possible limitations of the study simultane-

ously open questions for future research, in which it would be expedient to include primary and secondary

school students, to expand the number of countries included in the sample, especially those from the

EU, as well as to examine potential interactions between various socio-demographic factors, with the aim

of creating a more comprehensive model of the action of various factors of entrepreneurial potential in

children and young people.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,

or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Data availbility statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material,

further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S. and M.M.; Methodology, M.M., M.S., V. R.L. and S.M.; Formal analysis, V.

R.L. and S.M..; Visualization, V. R.L.; Validation, S.M. and M.S.; Resources, M.S.; Supervision, M.S. and

B.D.; Writing—original draft, M.M., S.M. and M.S.; Writing—review & editing, M.M., V.R.L., S.M., M.S.,

A.N.T. and B.D.; Investigation, A.N.T. and B.D.; Data curation, A.N.T.; Project administration, B.D.

www.ijcrsee.com

663

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

References

Al Harrasi, Z. A., & Ali, M. H. (2025). The Inuence of Urban and Rural Environments on Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Concep-

tual Framework. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 12(07), 306–319. https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1207.19139

Alger, I., & Weibull, J. W. (2010). Kinship, incentives, and evolution. American Economic Review, 100(4), 1725–1758. https://

doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.4.1725

Anderson, T., Samimi, T., & Bohl, K. (2010). Student Success: Managing your Future Through Success at University and

Beyond. Trafford Publishing.

Apurba, Z. I. (2023). The Magnitude of Relationship Between Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. SSRN Electronic

Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4514258

Audretsch, D. B., & Peña, I. (2012). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: An introduction to the special issue.

Small Business Economics, 39(3), 531–537. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-011-9328-5

Bagheri, A., & Pihie, Z. A. L. (2010). Role of university entrepreneurship programs in developing students’ entrepreneurial

leadership competencies: Perspectives from Malaysian undergraduate students. Journal of Education for Business,

85(1), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.638681

Baporikar, N. (2020). Innovation to Harness Youth Entrepreneurial Potential. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and

Governance in Cognitive Cities, 1(2), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijegcc.2020070103

Bartoš, P., Ključnikov, A., & Popesko, B. (2015). Are Men More Innovative and Aggressive in Business? Case Study From the

Czech Republic, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/ijek-2015-0014

Baumgartner, D., Schulz, T., & Seidl, I. (2013). Quantifying entrepreneurship and its impact on local economic performance: A

spatial assessment in rural Switzerland. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(3–4), 222–250. https://doi.org

/10.1080/08985626.2012.710266

Bela, L., Riani, A., & Indriayu, M. (2021). Analysis Gender in Entrepreneurship Education: Role of Entrepreneurial Potential

and Mindsets on Intention Students in Universities. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Economics,

Business and Economic Education Science, ICE-BEES 2020, 22–23 July 2020, Semarang, Indonesia. https://doi.

org/10.4108/eai.22-7-2020.2307871

Borah, A. J., & Bhowal, A. (2023). The Economics of Entrepreneurship: Drivers, Impacts, and Policy Implications. South Asian

Journal of Social Studies and Economics, 20(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.9734/sajsse/2023/v20i2703

Brixiova, Z. (2013). Modeling productive entrepreneurship in developing countries. Small Business Economics, 41(1), 183–

194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9410-z

Capelleras, J. L., Contín-Pilart, I., Martin-Sanchez, V., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2013). The inuence of individual perceptions

and the urban/rural environment on nascent entrepreneurship. Investigaciones Regionales, 26(26), 97–113.

Dabić, M., Daim, T. U., Bayraktaroğlu, E., Novak, I., & Bašić, M. (2012). Exploring gender differences in attitudes of university

students towards entrepreneurship: An international survey. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship,

4(3), 316–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566261211264172

Dunn, T., & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2000). Financial capital, human capital, and the transition to self-employment: Evidence from inter-

generational links. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(2), 282–305. https://doi.org/10.1086/209959

Duricova, V. (2014). Entrepreneurship in Urban and Rural Areas in the EU. Cers 2014: 5th Central European Conference in

Regional Science, International Conference Proceedings, 197–204.

Đurđević, M. (2025). The resilience of female freelancing in Serbia: Socio-economic determinants and adaptive strategies. Jour-

nal of Entrepreneurship and Business Resilience, 8(1), 91–106. https://jebr.mek.edu.rs/index.php/jebr/article/view/139

Envick, B. R., & Lim, D. S. (2011). Gender and entrepreneurial orientation: A multi-country study. In Bartos, P. et al. (2015),

Procedia Economics and Finance, 34, 164–171. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11365-011-0183-2

Eurobarometer. (2007). Entrepreneurship survey of the EU (25 Member States), United States, Iceland and Norway. European

Commission.

European Commission. (2004). Facing the challenge: The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment. Brussels: European

Communities.

European Commission. (2006). Implementing the Lisbon Community Programme for Growth and Jobs: Transfer of Businesses

– Continuity through a new beginning. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Faggio, G., & Silva, O. (2014). Self-employment and entrepreneurship in urban and rural labour markets. Journal of Urban

Economics, 84, 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2014.09.001

Fischer, E. M., Reuber, A. R., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and en-

trepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90017-Y

Friedline, T., & West, S. (2016). Young Adults’ Race, Wealth, and Entrepreneurship. Race and Social Problems, 8(1), 42–63.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-016-9163-z

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2010). Global Report 2010. https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2010-global-report

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (od 1999). GEM Global Reports. https://www.gemconsortium.org

www.ijcrsee.com

664

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

Gyang, T. D., Dakung, R. J., Maklu Nanteer Yonla, Auta, H. D., & Fredrick, K. L. (2023). The effect of self efcacy in the relation-

ship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial potential among senior secondary school students in Jos

North lga, Plateau State. African Journal of Research and Management Sciences, 3(1). Crossref.

https://ajormsplasu.ng/

wp-content/uploads/2024/05/06-Tongshahap-doi6-79-94.pdf

Gupta, V. K., & Bhawe, N. M. (2007). The inuence of proactive personality and stereotype threat on women’s entrepreneurial in-

tentions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(4), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130040901

Gurol, Y., & Atsan, N. (2006). Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: Some insights for entrepreneurship

education and training in Turkey. Education + Training, 48(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610645716

Hofstede, G., Noorderhaven, N. G., Thurik, A. R., Uhlaner, L. M., Wennekers, A. R. M., & Wildeman, R. E. (2004). Culture’s

role in entrepreneurship: Self-employment out of dissatisfaction. In Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Culture (pp.

162–203). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hosseini, F. (2016). Family Wealth and Entrepreneurship: Swedish House of Finance Research Paper No. 16-22. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2139/ssrn.2868700

Hyunjeong, J. (2011). Comparative Analysis of Rural and Urban Start-Up Entrepreneurs: Theses and Dissertations – Agricul-

tural Economics. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/agecon_etds/1

Jiménez, A., Palmero-Cámara, C., González-Santos, M. J., González-Bernal, J., & Jiménez-Eguizábal, J. A. (2015). The

impact of educational levels on formal and informal entrepreneurship. Business Research Quarterly, 18(3), 204–212.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.02.002

Čeko, M., & Rađenović-Kozić, B. (2023). Entrepreneurial potential in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the context of current socio-

economic movements. Trendovi u Poslovanju, 11(2), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.5937/trendpos2302033c

Isma, A., Rakib, M., Mubaraq, M. S., & Suci, M. (2023). The Inuence of Personality and Entrepreneurship Education on Interest

in Entrepreneurship Faculty of Economics and Business Students with Attitude of Entrepreneurship as Intervening Vari-

able. Indonesian Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship Research, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.62794/ijober.v1i1.16

Karnavat, B., Rathod, C., Patel, C., & Patel, C. P. (2024). A Study on Women Empowerment through Entrepreneurship Devel-

opment Program in Gujarat. ITM Web of Conferences, 65, 05001. https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20246505001

Krueger Jr, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000) Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Business

Venturing, 15, 411-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0

Kudysheva, A. (2020). Entrepreneurship development among the youth (based on Poland and Kazakhstan). Academy of

Management, 4(1), 166–188. https://open.icm.edu.pl/handle/123456789/18210

Lee, S., & Persson, P. (2016). Financing from Family and Friends. Review of Financial Studies, 29, 2341–2386. https://doi.

org/10.1093/rfs/hhw031

Levesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2006). The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2),

177–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.04.003

Li, Y., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, F. (2022). Materialism Predicts College Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention: A Serial Mediation

Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.864069

Machado, P. G. B., Porto-Martins, P. C., Vosgerau, D. S. A. R., & Viacava, J. J. C. (2022). Entrepreneurial Potential and Aca-

demic Engagement in College Students. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 32. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e3226

Marpaung, Erlina Ali, Sitohang, Ella Fiana br, Dilla, Farah, & Hasyim Hasyim. (2023). Pengaruh Dan Peluang Usaha Terhadap

Kesiapan Mahasiswa Untuk Menjadi Wirausaha. Moneter : Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Keuangan, 2(1), 176–186. Crossref.

https://doi.org/10.61132/moneter.v2i1.148

Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analy-

sis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jbusvent.2012.03.002

Martín-Gutiérrez, Á., Sanz-Ponce, R., & Azqueta, A. (2025). Exploring Gender Differences in the Impact of a Pro-

gram on the Development of Entrepreneurial Potential. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy. https://doi.

org/10.1177/25151274251369512

Mathew, S.,K. & Johnson,J., (2014). An empirical study on the inuence of age and gender on the Entrepreneurial Attitude

Orientation of engineering students in Kerala state: Commere Spectrum Journal p-ISSN 2321-371X

Moa-Liberty Alausa Waheed, Tinuola Odunuga Lateefat, & Tunde Arogundade Odunayo. (2016). The inuence of self-efcacy

and socio-demographic factors on the entrepreneurial intentions of selected Youth Corp members in Lagos, Nigeria.

Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 34(34), 63–71. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=423194

Moutray, C. (2009). The Small Business Economy, A Report to the President. Ofce of Advocacy, United States Government

Printing Ofce: Washington.

Muhammad, S., & Ximei, K. (2022). Does It Matter Where You Live? Rural–Urban Context Among Women Entrepreneurs in

Pakistan. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.827634

Muithui, L. W., Okirigiti, C. A., & Mwebi, R. B. (2023). Inuence of Economic Factors on Entrepreneurial Engagements by Uni-

versity Students in Public Universities in Nairobi Metropolitan Region. European Journal of Business and Management

Research, 8(1), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2023.8.1.1775

www.ijcrsee.com

665

Marić, M. et al. (2025). Socio-demographic factors and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential of

students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 649-665.

Mumtaz, U., Siddiqui, D., & Ahmad, N. (2024). Pioneering Pathways: Unveiling the Impact of School Education in Cultivating

an Entrepreneurial Spirit among Secondary School Students. SEDME: Small Enterprises Development, Management

& Extension Journal, 51(3), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/09708464241278414

Mustapha, M., Selvaraju, M. (2015). Personal atributies, family inuences, entrepreneurship education, and entrepreneurship

inclination among university students. Kajian Malaysia, 33 (1), 155–172.

Nicolae, M., Ion, I., & Nicolae, E. (2016). Entrepreneurship and external environment: A review of Romanian entrepreneurship.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 221, 394–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.130

OECD & European Commission. (2014). The missing entrepreneurs 2014: Policies for inclusive entrepreneurship in Europe.

OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264213593-en

OECD. (1998). Fostering entrepreneurship. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

OECD. (2000). OECD Employment Outlook 2000. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Parker, S. C. (2004). The economics of self-employment and entrepreneurship. Cambridge University Press.

Parker, S. C. (2009). The economics of entrepreneurship. Cambridge University Press.

Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Inuencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepre-

neurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-6520.2003.00035.x

Pfeifer, S., Sarlija, N., & Zekić Sušac, M. (2016). Shaping the entrepreneurial mindset: Entrepreneurial intentions of business

students in Croatia. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 102–117. https://doi.rg/10.1111/jsbm.12133

Rajković, J., Poštin, J., Konjikušić, M., Jagodić-Rusić, A., Stojković, H., Strahinja, & Nikolić, M. (2021). The enterprise potential,

individual entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial intentions of students in Serbia. The European Journal of

Applied Economics, 18(1), 106–125. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsbm.12133

Sharma, L., & Madan, P. (2014). Effect of individual factors on youth entrepreneurship: A study of Uttarakhand state, India.

Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 4(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-7316-2-3

Shinnar, R. S., Giacomin, O., & Janssen, F. (2012). Entrepreneurial perceptions and intentions: The role of gender and culture.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 465–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00509.x

Sonia Katherin Mathew, & Johney Johnson. (2014). Impact of demographic and psychological factors on entrepreneurial inten-

tion among undergraduate students in India. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 3(9), 41–47.

Soomro, S., Fan, M., Soomro, S., Shaikh, S. N., Kherazi, F. Z., & Akhtar, S. (2025). Unraveling the entrepreneurial journey:

The role of education, personality, and gender. Journal of the International Council for Small Business, 6(2), 331–352.

https://doi.org/10.1080/26437015.2024.2405546

Sulejman, R. (2020). The inuence of entrepreneurship in youth unemployment in transition and MENA countries. Zbornik

Veleučilišta u Rijeci, 8(1), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.31784/zvr.8.1.7

Sun, X. (2024). A Literature Review of the Macroeconomic Implications of Entrepreneurship: A Research Perspective of the

Future. Journal of Enterprise and Business Intelligence, 095–104. https://doi.org/10.53759/5181/jebi202404010

Suryadi, N., & Anggraeni, R. (2023). Can Entrepreneurship Education and Personality Encourage Students to Become Entre-

preneurs? Journal of The Community Development in Asia, 6(2), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.32535/jcda.v6i2.2276

Thomas, A. S., & Mueller, S. L. (2000). A case for comparative entrepreneurship: Assessing the relevance of culture. Journal

of International Business Studies, 31(2), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490906

Thornton, P. H., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Urbano, D. (2011). Socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial activity: An overview.

International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610391930

Toma, S. G., Grigore, A. M., & Marinescu, P. (2014). Economic development and entrepreneurship. Procedia Economics and

Finance, 8, 436–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00111-7

Turker, D., & Selcuk, S. S. (2009). Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? Journal of European

Industrial Training, 33(2), 142–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590910939049

Urbano, D., & Alvarez, C. (2013). Institutional dimensions and entrepreneurial activity: An international study. Small Business

Economics, 42(4), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9523-7

Van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business

Economics, 29(4), 351–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9074-x

Ward, A. (2004). Enterprise skills and enterprise learning. Foresight, 6(2), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680410537565

Wennekers, S., van Stel, A., Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic develop-

ment. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-1994-8

Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efcacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implica-

tions for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/

j.1540-6520.2007.00179.x

Yan, J. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurial personality traits on perception of new venture opportunity. New England Journal

of Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 21–35.

Yordanova, D. I., & Tarrazon, M. (2010). Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions: Evidence from Bulgaria. Journal of

Developmental Entrepreneurship, 15(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946710001543