Extending social cognitive career theory: a study of entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Central and Eastern Europe

Despite many efforts to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit, especially among the youth, many university graduates are not interested in becoming entrepreneurs. Promoting entrepreneurship as a feasible option and understanding the drivers of entrepreneurial intentions (EI) is vital to supporting and encouraging those who show potential and interest in this path. This is because entrepreneurship is considered a complex process that includes entrepreneurial cognition and action. Moreover, entrepreneurship is assumed to be an intentional behavior, it is, therefore, essential to study people's EI.

Studying EI offers vital insights into creating a venture, such as identifying the precursors to starting a business and understanding their impact (Hirschi & Fischer, 2013). Understanding EI is essential for comprehending entrepreneurial behavior (Esfandiar, Sharifi-Tehrani, Pratt, & Altinay, 2019; Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000) because, without intentions, there is no reason to expect actions (Ajzen, 1991; Armstrong, 2014).

Entrepreneurial intention, like entrepreneurship itself, lacks a universally accepted definition (Fayolle & Liñán, 2014). Over time, many scholars have sought to define it and have proposed models for investigating this phenomenon (Batista-Canino, Santana-Hernández, & Medina-Brito, 2024). Shapero and Sokol (1982) pioneered research in this area with their Entrepreneurial Event Model (EEM), which, though not initially intended as a theory of entrepreneurial intention, laid the groundwork for its study. Ajzen (1991) contributed significantly with his theory of planned behavior.

Despite many years of empirical research and developed theoretical models (Bird, 1988; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993; Gartner, Shaver, Gatewood, & Katz, 1994; Batista-Canino et al., 2024), there is still no clarity regarding the antecedents of EI. Moreover, the primary interest of researchers studying EI has focused on countries with stable market economies (Valliere, 2017), and Asian countries (Korpysa & Waluyohadi, 2022). However, an increasing number of studies examine the situation in developing countries, relatively few reports on this topic come from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) (Wach & Wojciechowski, 2016; Nowiński, Haddoud, Lančarič, Egerová, & Czeglédi, 2017; Głodowska & Wach, 2022). These are countries that have experienced a planned economic system in the past, which left little room for entrepreneurship.

Following the trend of investigating EI, we proposed an enriched version of the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) (Liguori, Bendickson, & McDowell, 2018) and tested it on selected Central and Eastern European countries. Through this research, we aim to make three significant contributions to the study of young people's EI.

First, this study extends SCCT to the entrepreneurial context, demonstrating its relevance beyond traditional career development research. In doing so, it introduces a novel operationalization of SCCT personal inputs in the form of Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation (IEO), encompassing innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking, as well as an expanded conceptualization of environmental and background inputs through a comprehensive Perceived Entrepreneurial Support Model. The model distinguishes three complementary dimensions of perceived support: perceived educational support (PES), PSS, and perceived relational support (PRS).To the best of our knowledge, such an integrated model, simultaneously incorporating IEO as a personal input and three distinct dimensions of perceived support (educational, relational, and structural), has neither been theoretically discussed nor empirically tested to date.

Second, the study examines this comprehensive framework within the underexplored socioeconomic and cultural context of post-transition CEE, assessing whether constructs validated in other regions operate in a comparable manner in CEE countries.

Third, we proved the significance of IEO in shaping EI, both directly and indirectly through entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE). We also showed that PES and PSS do not play a significant role in shaping young people's EI, as previous research suggested. However, PES influences EI indirectly through ESE. We also noted the direct impact of relational support.

In the following sections, we present a CEE countries context, then a literature review related to SCCT, the Entrepreneurial Support Model, IEO, and EI. The next part is devoted to describing the research, followed by a discussion and conclusions.

EI in post-socialist economies must be interpreted in light of their specific historical and institutional context. Although institutional arrangements in CEE were largely inspired by models from established market economies, resulting in formal convergence with Western European standards, the mere presence of market institutions does not automatically translate into the internalization of pro-entrepreneurial attitudes among young people. While today's students lack direct experience of the socialist economy, intergenerational narratives continue to shape ambivalent perceptions of entrepreneurship, emphasizing risk, instability, and informal practices. Consequently, entrepreneurial behavior in post-transition economies remains path-dependent, shaped by historically embedded formal and especially informal institutions originating from both the socialist period and the subsequent transition phase (Aidis, Estrin, & Mickiewicz, 2012; Głodowska & Wach, 2022). Despite the completion of systemic transition, Central and Eastern European countries continue to face persistent institutional instability (Anand, Aydin, Radević, & Knezović, 2025) as well as broader macroeconomic volatility (Kropiński, 2024). Heightened aversion to regulatory risk may therefore reduce the perceived predictability of entrepreneurial returns and encourage preferences for more stable career paths, despite the acknowledged role of formal institutions in economic development (Williamson & Mathers, 2011).

As a result, mechanisms explaining EI that are well established in Western contexts may not operate with the same strength or configuration in post-socialist settings. Differences in institutional quality, regulatory stability, social trust, and dominant career norms suggest that even well-grounded frameworks – such as SCCT – require empirical scrutiny in these environments. Rather than serving merely as a distinct institutional backdrop, the post-transition context actively shapes individual cognitive evaluations and motivational processes. Consequently, it alters the relative importance of specific pathways within entrepreneurial intention models, strengthening some mechanisms while attenuating others.

Against this background, Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland, and Ukraine provide a theoretically justified representation of CEE. These countries share a common legacy of centrally planned economies while differing in the timing and outcomes of their transitions. Poland, Bulgaria, and Latvia, as EU member states, operate within relatively stable regulatory frameworks, whereas Ukraine has faced heightened institutional uncertainty since 2014 following the outbreak of armed conflict in the Donbas region.

To understand the factors shaping EI, researchers often adopt theories from other domains. One such example is Ajzen's theory of planned behavior – originally unrelated to entrepreneurship – and SCCT, derived from Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (1986). SCCT explores how interpersonal, cognitive, external, and self-directed factors influence career behavior (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2002; Lent & Brown, 2006), integrating self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals as core constructs. Self-efficacy refers to belief in one's ability to perform tasks (Bandura, 1997), while outcome expectations reflect beliefs about the consequences of specific actions (Lent et al., 2002). Together, these predict a stronger intention to act when individuals believe they can succeed and expect positive outcomes.

Beyond these core components, SCCT has been expanded to include personality traits and contextual factors as influences on EI (Liguori, Winkler, Vanevenhoven, Winkel, & James, 2020). As argued by Santos and Liguori (2020), these antecedents strongly relate to both self-efficacy and outcome expectations and may even directly shape EI.

Consequently, empirical studies have proposed diverse operationalisations of these inputs. Personal inputs have included psychological predispositions such as risk preference, locus of control (Liguori et al., 2020), or general self-efficacy (Santos & Liguori, 2020). Contextual factors, in turn, are most often examined using the Entrepreneurial Support Model proposed by Turker and Selcuk (2009), which distinguishes three types of support – educational, relational, and structural – treated as separate determinants of EI. However, within many SCCT-based models, perceived support has typically been conceptualized in a limited or aggregated manner, typically focusing on educational and/or relational support, while structural support has received considerably less attention. As a result, the role of contextual factors remains insufficiently explained, with findings often contingent on the cultural and institutional settings in which studies are conducted.

Entrepreneurship research is inherently context-dependent (Welter, 2011), making cultural and institutional settings particularly salient for testing career-related theories (Shi, Yao, & Wu, 2020). Despite growing interest in SCCT-based models, empirical evidence from post-transition contexts remains limited and largely focused on overall model fit rather than on the relative strength of specific mechanisms (Licznerska & Ziemiański, 2022; Pfeifer, Šarlija, & Zekić Sušac, 2016). At the same time, scholars call for more context-sensitive extensions of SCCT that account for individual dispositions and differentiated forms of environmental support (Brown & Lent, 2017).

Building on these limitations, the present study addresses several important gaps in the SCCT-based entrepreneurship literature. First, it moves beyond fragmented conceptualizations of perceived support by incorporating the full Entrepreneurial Support Model and examining educational, relational, and structural support as distinct background inputs from a cognitive perspective. Second, it advances the SCCT framework by explicitly integrating IEO (Miller, 2011) as a key personal factor, encompassing innovation, proactivity, and risk-taking. Including IEO provides a deeper understanding of its role in entrepreneurial intention and its links to self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Together, these contributions offer a more comprehensive and context-sensitive understanding of entrepreneurial intention formation.

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO), introduced by Miller (1983, 2011) and expanded by Covin and Slevin (1991), comprises three dimensions: innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. Initially applied at the firm level, EO has been widely linked to business performance (Gupta & Gupta, 2015). Despite extensive research on EO at the firm level, IEO remains a relatively new area (Hassan, Anwar, Saleem, Islam, & Hussain, 2021). Although still underexplored, IEO has recently gained increasing scholarly attention as an important determinant of EI (Clark, Pidduck, Lumpkin, & Covin, 2024; Martins & Perez, 2025).

Research supports the link between IEO and entrepreneurial success (Bolton, 2012). Innovative individuals show higher EI, while proactive personalities predict entrepreneurial intention across various contexts (Kumar & Shukla, 2019; Prabhu, McGuire, Drost, & Kwong, 2012; Al-Mamary & Alshallaqi, 2022). Risk-takers also display stronger EI compared to risk-averse individuals (Sánchez, 2013; Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005). Ibrahim and Lucky (2014) confirmed IEO's relationship with EI among Nigerian students in Malaysia, though findings remain mixed. While some studies (Martins & Perez, 2020; Robinson & Stubberud, 2014) affirm this connection, Hassan et al. (2021) found no significant impact among Indian university students.

Considering IEO a critical input factor, this study examines how innovation, proactivity, and risk-taking collectively influence EI. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

SCCT highlights external factors influencing career achievement (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015), yet many contextual influences on EI remain underexplored (Nikitina, Licznerska, Ozoliņa-Ozola, & Lapina, 2023). To address this gap, our study integrates the perceived entrepreneurial support construct developed by Turker and Selcuk (2009) within SCCT. This construct categorizes key support types – educational, relational, and structural – aligning with SCCT's emphasis on environmental influences on career development. Incorporating these dimensions enhances understanding of how external support mechanisms shape self-efficacy and EI.

Educational support refers to resources provided by institutions to develop entrepreneurial skills and encourage student entrepreneurship. Universities play a key role in this by offering courses and fostering an entrepreneurial mindset (Audretsch, Lehmann, & Warning, 2017; Kurczewska, Doryń, & Wawrzyniak, 2020; Le, Doan, & Duong, 2023). Research confirms that entrepreneurship education positively influences entrepreneurial behavior (Bernal & Liñán, 2018; Galvão, Marques, Mendes, & Azevedo, 2024; Lyons, Mac an Bháird, & Lynn, 2016). However, students' perceptions of educational support matter more than the mere availability of courses, and these perceptions appear to be heterogeneous (Amani, Ismail, Makona, Changalima, & Kazungu, 2024). Thus, the hypothesis is proposed:

Relational support stems from social connections providing moral and practical assistance. Emotional, financial, and informational support from family, friends, and networks significantly shape entrepreneurial ambitions (Turker & Selcuk, 2009). Family background, motivation, mentorship, and connections all influence EI (Gelaidan & Abdullateef, 2017; Renzulli, Aldrich, & Moody, 2000). Social networks offer role models and trusted advice, reinforcing this impact (Keat, Selvarajah, & Meyer, 2011; Robson & Bennett, 2000). This influence is particularly pronounced in CEE, where strong social ties historically shape career choices (Polese & Rodgers, 2011). Since subjective perceptions of support impact intention formation, we propose:

Structural support includes formal resources like infrastructure, policies, and programs promoting entrepreneurship. Economic behaviors are shaped by institutional and social contexts (Welter, 2011). However, the link between structural support and EI is debated. Some studies highlight its enabling effect (Abdullah, Manan, & Khadijah, 2011; Nowiński, Haddoud, Wach, & Schaefer, 2020), while others suggest it may constrain entrepreneurship by shaping risk perceptions (Turker & Selcuk, 2009; Teixeira, Casteleiro, Rodrigues, & Guerra, 2018). Research on this relationship remains inconclusive, particularly in CEE (Pérez-Macías, Fernández-Fernández, & Vieites, 2022; Amofah, Gameli Dziwornu, Rachwał, Saladrigues, & Agyarko, 2024) and highly depends on the context (Ben-Hafaïedh et al., 2024). Given that perceptions influence EI more than objective conditions, we hypothesize:

Self-efficacy, a key construct in career and entrepreneurship studies (Anton & Mansingh, 2025), refers to belief in one's ability to achieve specific outcomes (Bandura, 1986). In entrepreneurship, this belief – ESE – reflects confidence in successfully launching a business (Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007; Zhao et al., 2005).

Within SCCT, self-efficacy plays a crucial role in intention formation, as individuals are unlikely to act unless they believe in their ability to succeed (Lent et al., 2002). Studies confirm its link to entrepreneurial intention (Shook & Bratianu, 2010; Zięba & Golik, 2018; Wilson et al., 2007; Karyaningsih, Wibowo, Saptono, & Narmaditya, 2020). Hence, the hypothesis:

Outcome expectations – the anticipated results of entrepreneurial activities – are key predictors of EI (Liguori et al., 2020). SCCT posits that individuals are more likely to pursue careers if they expect desirable outcomes (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; Williams, 2010). In entrepreneurship, positive expectations such as success, fulfillment, or social impact enhance entrepreneurial intention (Bandura, 1997; Wilson et al., 2007; Saputra, Wulandari, Wijayati Wardoyo, Soeatyo, & Listiadi, 2026).

Understanding how outcome expectations shape EI is critical, yet research on this relationship remains limited (Liguori et al., 2020; Santos & Liguori, 2020; Blaese, Noemi, & Brigitte, 2021). Thus, the hypothesis is proposed:

Beyond the direct effects of personal and contextual factors emphasized by SCCT, more complex models incorporating mediation should be explored (Fitzsimmons & Douglas, 2011). SCCT highlights the importance of both direct influences and mediating mechanisms (Lent et al., 1994). In this view, ESE and outcome expectations may clarify how IEO and perceived support shape EI.

ESE may mediate the link between IEO and intentions. According to SCCT, self-efficacy is key in shaping career decisions (Lent et al., 1994), and confidence in entrepreneurial abilities is central to forming intentions (McGee, Peterson, Mueller, & Sequeira, 2009). Bandura (1986) emphasized its role in persistence and resilience. Empirical evidence supports its mediating role in translating traits like risk-taking or experience into intentions (Zhao et al., 2005).

SCCT also posits that self-efficacy mediates the impact of perceived support – educational, relational, and structural – on EI (Lent & Brown, 2006). Research confirms that support boosts self-efficacy, which in turn fosters intentions (Bandura, 1986; Zhao et al., 2005; Liu, Gorgievski, Qi, & Paas, 2022; Gonzalez-Tamayo, Olarewaju, Bonomo-Odizzio, & Krauss-Delorme, 2024; Hoang, Le, Tran, & Du, 2020). For example, Nowiński et al. (2019), Aka and Enagogo (2025)and Yousaf, Ali, Ahmed, Usman, and Sameer (2021) found that entrepreneurial education enhances intentions via self-efficacy. Support from education, networks, and institutions also plays a reinforcing role (Kolvereid & Moen, 1997; Autio, Keeley, Klofsten, Parker, & Hay, 2001; Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Yesmin et al., 2024). Boyd and Vozikis (1994), as well as Bellò, Mattana, and Loi (2018), showed that role models and family support further strengthen self-efficacy and intentions.

These findings support the hypothesis that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between perceived support and EI, integrating personal and contextual variables within a unified framework.

Beyond ESE, entrepreneurial outcome expectations (EOE) represent a key cognitive mechanism linking personal characteristics with EI (Lent et al., 2002). In entrepreneurship, EOE reflect anticipated rewards such as autonomy and social recognition (Lanero, Vázquez, & Aza, 2016). Prior research shows that EOE mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and EI (Santos & Liguori, 2020), suggesting that individuals with higher entrepreneurial orientation are more likely to anticipate positive outcomes, thereby strengthening their EI (Foo, Uy, & Baron, 2009; Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014). This leads to the following hypothesis:

Prior research suggests that models incorporating mediation mechanisms provide a better fit than those considering only direct effects (Sheu et al., 2010). While studies have primarily focused on self-efficacy as a mediator between contextual factors and intentions (Lent, Lopez, Lopez, & Sheu, 2008), the role of outcome expectations remains underexplored. However, SCCT posits that support and barriers – conceptualized as process expectations – are directly linked to EOE (Lent & Brown, 2006).

Building on SCCT's emphasis on personal cognitive factors and contextual support in shaping entrepreneurial behavior, this study explores how positive outcome expectations strengthen the link between perceived support and EI.

Educational support: Peterman and Kennedy (2003) found that exposure to entrepreneurship education enhances students' perceptions of their entrepreneurial skills and intentions by shaping their outcome expectations; however, research among Vietnamese students does not support this mediating relation (Duong, Tran, & St-Jean, 2024).

Relational support: Encouragement from family and mentors improves individuals' perceptions of entrepreneurial success, thereby influencing intentions (Hieu & Loan, 2022; Santos & Liguori, 2020), as well as providing emotional encouragement (Haque, Kour, & Mahin, 2025).

Structural support: Favorable socio-economic and policy environments foster entrepreneurial activity by enhancing individuals' outcome expectations and, consequently, their EI (Acs, Autio, & Szerb, 2014).

This integrated approach highlights the significance of entrepreneurial outcome expectations in bridging the relationship between personal and contextual factors and entrepreneurial intention:

Research into EI using structural equation modelling (SEM) enables the analysis of complex relationships between constructs, including sequential mediating roles. This approach is also applied in research based on the SCCT and has been increasingly employed in recent empirical studies (Uansa-ard, Wannamakok, 2022; Pham, Phan, Le, & Bui Ngoc Tuan, 2024). It posits the existence of multiple interrelated pathways between personal factors, contextual factors and cognitive mechanisms shaping an individual's career decisions and intentions. The literature on this subject has devoted particular attention to analyzing sequential mediations between entrepreneurial education and EI. In this context, the mediating effects of ESE and EOE have been tested, amongst other things (Duong, Nguyen et al., 2024), as well as the mediating effects of ESE and entrepreneurial attitude (Yousaf et al., 2021). The results of these studies indicate the relevance of incorporating more complex mediating mechanisms into models explaining the formation of EI. In line with this trend, we also explore the potential role of sequential mediation, in which ESE and EOE are treated as sequential mediators in the relationship between IEO, perceived support, and EI.

Given the limited and inconsistent empirical evidence regarding these relationships, the following hypotheses are proposed strictly in an exploratory manner, without assuming their generalizability across contexts:

Accordingly, the model was specified a priori based on theoretical assumptions and analyzed in its full form. This exploratory extension of the SCCT framework highlights the complex interplay between personal characteristics, contextual support, and entrepreneurial cognition, offering a more nuanced understanding of how EI are shaped.

As the relationships postulated above may appear complex or unclear, the authors decided to present them graphically (Figure 1) as well as in the table (Table 1).

The study employed a quantitative research design, using a survey-based methodology to generate reliable, replicable data. A structured questionnaire was designed to empirically verify the developed hypotheses. Responses were collected using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree), with some questions also providing a simple yes/no option.

SEM was employed to test the hypothesized relationships among entrepreneurial orientation, self-efficacy, perceived support, outcome expectations, and EI. Given that these constructs are latent and interrelated, SEM provides an appropriate analytical framework that allows for the simultaneous estimation of measurement and structural components, while accounting for measurement error. This approach enables a rigorous examination of both direct and indirect effects proposed by the SCCT model of entrepreneurial intention formation.

The questionnaire was designed in accordance with the requirements of SEM, ensuring that each construct was measured using multi-item scales. Its development was informed by previously validated instruments (Table 2), which were adapted to the specific context of Central and Eastern European countries.

These adaptations were pilot-tested with 438 students to verify their appropriateness and to ensure that the questionnaire would accurately capture the data needed for SEM analysis. Construct validity and reliability were confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with factor loadings exceeding 0.6, AVE values above 0.5, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients above 0.7 for all constructs. The survey was translated into Bulgarian, Latvian, Polish, and Ukrainian using a standard back-translation procedure to ensure equivalence with the original English items.

Based on SCCT, several factors have been identified as potential influencers of EI. Accordingly, the study incorporated the following control variables:

1. Country of Origin (Sheu & Bordon, 2017) – Recognized as an important factor influencing career intentions.

2. Business Exposure (Carr & Sequeira, 2007) – Prior exposure to business environments may shape entrepreneurial aspirations.

3. Work Experience (Liñán & Chen, 2009) – Practical experience in the workforce can impact EI.

4. Although age is theoretically relevant, it was not included as a control variable due to minimal variation among the study population.

Additionally, since the study involved four technical universities, each of which has a business and economics department (considered less technical), the field of study was incorporated as an additional control variable. It was categorized into:

1. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields

2. Non-STEM fields (Business, Economics, and other disciplines)

The questionnaire was distributed among all first-year undergraduate students from the above-mentioned faculties at four universities in 2019. In total, 2,269 questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 35%. After removing inconsistent responses, outliers, questionnaires with flat response patterns (SD = 0), and those with more than 10% missing data, a final sample of 2,136 valid questionnaires was retained for analysis.

The characteristics of the sample are presented at Table 3.

After data preparation and demographic analysis, a combined exploratory factor analysis and CFA approach was used to test the construct validity of the study (Supplementary_material_appendix_1).

The results of testing hypothesis 1 with its sub-hypotheses are summarised in Table 4, together with their interpretation.

In order to determine the most influential factors, beta (a standardised estimate) was used. IEO β = 0.431, ESE beliefs β = 0.224, entrepreneurial outcome expectations β = 0.071 and PRS β = 0.056 were found to be the most influential factors on students' EI, respectively. This suggests that individuals with higher confidence in their entrepreneurial abilities are more likely to have strong intentions to engage in entrepreneurship.

To test the mediation effect, bootstrapping is used in this study. Table 5 shows the mediation effects of ESE from hypothesis 2.

The analysis confirms that both the direct and indirect paths from IEO to EI are statistically significant (b = 0.640, p = 0.001). This indicates partial mediation, as the ESE transmits part of the effect from IEO to EI, while IEO still maintains a significant direct effect on EI (Table 5).

The effect of PES on EI is fully mediated by ESE, because the direct effect is not significant. The effect is small (β = 0.019), but its statistical significance (p = 0.004) indicates that PES has a positive effect on ESE, which in turn increases EI. This means that educational support can strengthen people's beliefs about their entrepreneurial abilities, which is beneficial for developing EI.

The mediation effect of entrepreneurial outcome expectations for sub-hypotheses (H3a, H3b, H3c, H3d) is shown in Table 6.

The mediation analysis confirms that EOE partially mediates the relationship between IEO and EI (β = 0.030, p = 0.006), supporting H3a. However, the mediation analysis for PES → EOE → EI is not statistically significant, leading to the rejection of this hypothesis. Further, findings indicate that individuals with higher levels of PRS tend to report greater EOE, which subsequently increases their EI. This supportsH3c, confirming that PRS indirectly enhances EI through EOE. Conversely, the mediation analysis for PSS → EOE → EI is not statistically significant (p = 0.116), resulting in the rejection of H3d.

The final mediation analysis explores IEO, PES, PRS, and PSS, using both ESE and EOE as serial mediators (Table 7). However, results indicate statistically insignificant beta coefficients across all hypothesized pathways, with p-values exceeding 0.05. Thus, H4 is rejected, suggesting that ESE and EOE do not significantly mediate the relationships between the antecedents and EI. The lack of support for the sequential mediation hypotheses does not invalidate the inclusion of these paths in the model but rather indicates that such mechanisms may be context-dependent and weaker than theoretically anticipated.

To interpret the empirical findings, it is necessary to consider both the theoretical assumptions of SCCT and the specific institutional conditions characterizing post-transition economies. The findings indicate that SCCT retains partial explanatory validity in Central and Eastern European countries; however, its classical sequential logic requires contextualisation. While the key SCCT constructs, ESE and entrepreneurial outcome expectations (EOE), remain significant predictors of EI, they do not form a stable, linear chain, suggesting limits to the universal applicability of SCCT assumptions in post-transition contexts (Welter, 2011; Carsrud & Brännback, 2011).

IEO emerged as the strongest determinant of EI, contrasting with studies identifying ESE as the primary driver of EI (Pérez-Macías et al., 2022) and with claims questioning the relevance of IEO for intentions (Hassan et al., 2021). Instead, the results align with prior evidence demonstrating that innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking significantly shape EI (Koe, 2016; Sahoo & Panda, 2019) and support calls for greater recognition of IEO as a core personal input in individual-level entrepreneurship research (Clark et al., 2024).

IEO also exerted significant indirect effects on EI through both ESE and EOE, consistent with SCCT's proposition that personal traits influence career intentions via cognitive mechanisms (Lent & Brown, 2019; Lent et al., 2022) and with prior entrepreneurship research (Hsu et al., 2019; Newman, Schwarz, Nielsen, & Cohen, 2019). However, the absence of sequential mediation indicates that higher self-efficacy does not automatically translate into more positive outcome expectations, reflecting heightened institutional uncertainty and skepticism regarding entrepreneurial returns (Hsu et al., 2019), which is clearly evident in CEE countries.

ESE remained a strong direct and indirect predictor of EI, supporting extensive prior evidence on its central role in entrepreneurial decision-making (Bandura, 1986; Zhao et al., 2005; Cassar & Friedman, 2009; Anton & Mansingh, 2025). Nevertheless, its secondary position relative to IEO suggests that dispositional entrepreneurial orientation may play a more prominent role than cognitive self-beliefs in shaping EI in the studied context.

The effects of perceived entrepreneurial support were heterogeneous. PES did not exert a direct effect on EI, in line with Maheshwari and Kha (2022), Duong, Tran, et al. (2024) but contrary to the canonical entrepreneurial support model proposed by Turker and Selcuk (2009). Recent studies likewise report mixed effects of university support, depending on whether it is limited to knowledge transmission or extends to fostering an entrepreneurial culture (Sharma & Sahoo, 2025). Although PES did not directly translate into intentions, it indirectly influenced EI through ESE, confirming SCCT's assumption that contextual inputs primarily operate by strengthening perceived competence (Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, & Walmsley, 2017). The lack of mediation via EOE suggests that educational support alone may be insufficient to generate credible expectations of entrepreneurial rewards under conditions of institutional instability.

In contrast, PRS exerted a significant direct effect on EI and was mediated by EOE, underscoring the importance of family and social networks in CEE countries, where informal ties provide not only resources but also interpretive frameworks for evaluating the desirability and legitimacy of entrepreneurship (Aidis, Estrin, & Mickiewicz, 2008; Welter, 2011; Haque et al., 2025).

PSS was statistically insignificant, aligning with prior findings (Yurtkoru, Kuşcu, & Doğanay, 2014; Ambad & Damit, 2016) and reinforcing evidence that formal support mechanisms in CEE contexts are often perceived as ineffective or inaccessible (Estrin & Mickiewicz, 2011; Rajh et al., 2018). Under such conditions, structural support fails to activate either self-efficacy or positive outcome expectations.

Finally, although entrepreneurial outcome expectations were statistically significant, their effect on EI was weaker than anticipated, echoing mixed prior findings (Lanero et al., 2016; Belchior & Lyons, 2021; Romero-Galisteo et al., 2022). While EOE theoretically shape cost–benefit evaluations (Carsrud & Brännback, 2011; Estay, Durrieu, & Akhter, 2013), their motivational power diminishes when expected returns are perceived as uncertain or disproportionate to risk (Urbano, Orozco, & Turro, 2024). This pattern appears particularly salient in CEE countries, where heightened risk aversion and limited institutional trust persist due to ongoing institutional volatility (Kropiński, 2024; Anand et al., 2025).

This study contributes to the entrepreneurship and SCCT literature in three ways. First, it tests the applicability of the SCCT framework in the context of post-transition economies, thereby addressing a setting that remains underexplored in prior research. While SCCT has been validated in stable, developed environments, our findings demonstrate that its assumed linear and universal mechanisms do not fully capture EI in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The selective support for the hypothesized relationships delineates the empirical boundaries of the model in this context. It also highlights the need for more flexible, context-sensitive approaches that account for institutional uncertainty, historical legacies, and heterogeneous perceptions of entrepreneurial risk and rewards.

Second, the study builds on the SCCT framework by incorporating IEO as a personal input, thereby operationalizing individual dispositions toward entrepreneurship beyond the traditionally examined demographic factors – a dimension rarely considered in SCCT-based intention models. By demonstrating the significant impact of IEO on EI, both directly and indirectly, the study provides additional insight into the role of individual dispositions in shaping entrepreneurial motivation.

Third, the study incorporates a comprehensive Entrepreneurial Support Model, which captures educational, relational, and structural support. This offers a more integrated perspective compared to prior research, which has typically focused on isolated forms of support, most often limited to one, mainly educational contexts.

The findings underline the central role of IEO and ESE in shaping EI, suggesting that both educators and policymakers should focus on strengthening entrepreneurial attributes alongside individuals' confidence in their own capabilities. In line with SCCT, individuals are more likely to pursue career paths in which they perceive themselves as competent, making self-efficacy a key leverage point for entrepreneurship-related interventions. Educational programs should therefore emphasize mastery experiences, coping strategies, and observational learning to enhance students' confidence (Marshall, Meek, Swab, & Markin, 2020).

Although PES does not directly translate into EI, it exerts an indirect influence through ESE. This confirms the pivotal role of universities in shaping both ESE and elements of IEO through appropriately designed courses and learning environments (Le et al., 2023). Higher education institutions should move beyond predominantly knowledge-based entrepreneurship education and intentionally foster innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking, as these traits constitute the key mechanisms through which education translates into EI (Ndofirepi, 2020; Shi et al., 2020). Enhancing the visibility, accessibility, and experiential nature of entrepreneurial support – through incubators, live business projects, and mentorship programs – can further strengthen EI, particularly in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, where perceived support remains uneven.

More broadly, fostering entrepreneurial mindsets requires innovative teaching approaches that go beyond formal entrepreneurship courses (Krueger & Sussan, 2017; Hägg, 2021). Universities can optimize curricula and resources by diagnosing students' entrepreneurial orientations and designing targeted interventions, particularly for individuals with lower levels of innovativeness, proactiveness, or risk-taking (Taatila & Down, 2012; Perez, Martins, Aparicio, Lopez, & Urbano, 2026). These interventions should also be sensitive to cultural, gender, and disciplinary differences, addressing the specific needs of diverse student groups, including those in non-business and STEM fields (Maresch, Harms, Kailer, & Wimmer-Wurm, 2016; Nabi et al., 2017).

Importantly, support for the development of entrepreneurial orientation and self-efficacy should begin well before higher education. Early education that emphasizes creativity, problem-solving, and project-based learning can strengthen general and creative self-efficacy (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019), which in turn supports the long-term development of ESE (Puozzo & Audrin, 2021). Parental awareness is also crucial: child-rearing practices that promote autonomy, responsibility, and openness to challenges contribute indirectly to the formation of entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions later in life, even in families without an entrepreneurial background (Moussa & Kerkeni, 2021).

From a public policy perspective, the findings suggest that strengthening entrepreneurship in post-transition economies requires a shift away from institution-centered policies toward perception- and trust-oriented interventions. The weak impact of PSS highlights the importance of regulatory stability and predictability rather than the sheer availability of policy instruments (D'Andrea, 2023). Policies focused exclusively on financial incentives, incubators, or regulatory reforms may therefore have limited effectiveness if they are not accompanied by efforts to enhance trust, social legitimacy, and perceived accessibility of support mechanisms (Brown & Mawson, 2019; Riaz, Leitão, & Cantner, 2022).

Given the strong role of relational support identified in the model, entrepreneurship policy should actively leverage social capital and network-based mechanisms (Hernández-Carrión, Camarero-Izquierdo, & Gutiérrez-Cillán, 2020; Chowdhary et al., 2025). An ecosystem-oriented approach that strengthens informal institutions – such as mentorship networks, visible role models, family business support, and community-based initiatives – may be particularly effective in the CEE context, where institutional path dependence and regulatory uncertainty persist. Finally, involving a broader range of societal actors and promoting coherent public narratives that legitimize entrepreneurial careers (Laguía & Moriano, 2021; Hudik & Dvouletý, 2025) can create more conducive conditions for transition entrepreneurial potential into sustainable entrepreneurial activity across the region.

This study has several limitations. EI may evolve over time due to factors like experience. Future research should use longitudinal designs to capture changes, surveying students at different stages of their academic and professional journeys (Belchior & Lyons, 2021; Liñán, Jaén, & Rodriguez, 2024). Cognitive processes alone do not fully explain how EI are formed, and our model does not encompass all potentially relevant factors, such as skills, resources, or opportunities. Although it incorporates a broad set of variables theoretically linked to EI, it still cannot capture the full range of influences shaping this complex phenomenon. Future research could examine IEO as a mediator or investigate additional moderators, as well as incorporate contextual, cultural, or institutional variables (Hmieleski & Baron, 2009; Liñán & Fayolle, 2015) that may further deepen our understanding of EI. These limitations should be considered when interpreting and generalizing the findings.

The data were collected in 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the full-scale war in Ukraine, and were intended to examine relationships between constructs rather than their absolute levels under stable economic conditions. Consequently, the findings do not account for the profound and context-dependent distortions introduced by these extraordinary events, which may alter the strength and nature of the relationships and limit the model's explanatory power when applied to crisis-affected contexts.

As the study focuses on students in Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland, and Ukraine, the findings cannot be readily generalized to other contexts but provide a solid basis for future comparative research, also covering other CEE countries. Extending the analysis through cross-country comparisons would allow for a deeper examination of how cultural and institutional differences shape EI (Bogatyreva et al., 1999; Mustafa, Chin, Wegner, & Nungsari, 2025). Moreover, in light of the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine and the post COVID-19 reality, it would be particularly valuable to examine how heightened perceptions of political and economic instability influence young people's entrepreneurial attitudes. This applies not only within Ukraine but also in neighbouring countries exposed to the spillover effects of this uncertainty.

This study demonstrates that SCCT offers valuable but incomplete explanations of entrepreneurial intention formation in post-transition economies. While ESE and outcome expectations remain important cognitive mechanisms, their role is contingent on broader dispositional and contextual factors.

By introducing IEO as a personal input, the study shows that EI are shaped not only by perceived competence but also by proactive, innovative, and risk-oriented dispositions. The findings further reveal that contextual support mechanisms operate unevenly: relational support plays a direct motivational role, whereas educational and structural support influence intentions primarily through cognitive pathways or remain ineffective when perceived as inaccessible or unreliable.

Overall, the results indicate that the linear and universal logic often attributed to SCCT requires contextual adaptation. Entrepreneurial intention formation in post-transition settings appears to be driven by a complex interplay of individual dispositions, cognitive evaluations, and socially embedded perceptions of opportunity and risk. These insights underscore the need for more flexible, context-sensitive applications of SCCT and open avenues for future research integrating institutional uncertainty, cultural norms, and entrepreneurial identity processes. Rather than challenging the relevance of SCCT, these findings point to the need for more context-sensitive and flexible applications of the theory, where model complexity reflects theoretical completeness but empirical validation remains necessarily selective.

We would like to express our deepest gratitude to Magdalena Licznerska, a young and promising researcher who played an essential role in this study. Her intellectual input and dedication to the research process were invaluable. Sadly, Magdalena passed away before the completion of the paper. This work stands in part as a tribute to her memory, curiosity, and commitment to scientific inquiry.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.