Shaping entrepreneurial mindset through local cultural orientation and multicultural learning: intercultural sensitivity and global thinking orientation as moderators

The entrepreneurial mindset of students has received increasing attention from academicians and educational institutions worldwide for over a decade (Daspit et al., 2023; Ghina et al., 2025; Ikonen, 2013; Nguyen et al., 2025a). There is a consensus among scholars that the development of entrepreneurial mindset has been a major point of concern in the higher education systems of countries around the globe, because of the ever-growing unpredictability in the global labor markets, as well as the need to require graduates to think proactively, resiliently and opportunity-centrally (Elbaz et al., 2025; Shiri et al., 2025). With the change, entrepreneurial ecosystems are tilting towards knowledge-based, innovation-driven environments and universities will not only be required to develop entrepreneurial skills but also a mental system enabling students to orientate themselves within complex, ambiguous and culturally diverse systems (Aşkun and Yildirim, 2011). Recent scholarship has emphasized that the entrepreneurial mindset entails cognitive orientations toward opportunity recognition, innovative problem-solving and risk-taking, as well as affective behaviors such as resilience, adaptability and self-efficacy (Duong and Vu, 2025; Wu et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024a, b). Combined, these qualities will help people respond well to a changing, uncertain situation.

Literature review reveals that some studies documented the effect of national culture on entrepreneurial orientation (EO) (e.g. Kabir et al., 2024a, b). By the same token, while national culture affects EO (Kabir et al., 2023), students need to adapt to global cultures and develop skills of multicultural orientation so that they remain competitive in a dynamic environment by utilizing available resources and contributing to performance (Raji et al., 2026a). Recent studies reported the effect of green EO on the sustainable performance of small- and medium-scale enterprises (Raji et al., 2026b).

Although much focus on entrepreneurship education has increased (Tewari et al., 2025) has been evolving at an acceleration pace, there is still a gap in the knowledge concerning how culture contributes to the formation of entrepreneurial mindset, particularly in the LCO (Geerlings et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2022; Thurston, 2004). For example, Abakirov et al. (2025) and Wang et al. (2025a, b) documented that research has focused mostly on the traits, educational exposure and institutional environment of entrepreneurship, and has overlooked the cultural backgrounds that constitute the laissez-faire of entrepreneurial thinking and behavior. Further, although higher education is becoming more global, with students from various cultures represented in the classroom, little is known about how learning in multicultural environments can be translated into entrepreneurial thinking (Nguyen et al., 2025b).

University classrooms today are filled with students from various cultural backgrounds reflecting global trends in education. Increasing cross-border mobility, technological integration and the internationalization of higher education are attributable to changes in education at the global level (Duong and Vu, 2025; Zhang et al., 2024a, b). Although this evolution provides students with great exposure to different viewpoints, it also raises issues of cultural adjustment, cognitive burden and identity bargains. Scholars over the years have reported that, though such cultural stimuli are expected to be insensitive to entrepreneurship education, internationalization provides opportunities for creativity and learning (Aşkun and Yildirim, 2011; Elbaz et al., 2025). However, the role of students' multicultural exposure in transforming entrepreneurial attitudes has received scant attention. The literature review reveals two divergent approaches: (1) Global orientation, which prescribes cosmopolitanism, international opportunity-seeking and global mobility and (2) Local orientation, which centers on cultural identity, rootedness, ethical norms and opportunities recognition based on community. But the present-day university education exposes students to both national and international cultures, and this duality generates a tension in balancing them. To effectively function in both local and international cultural environments, students need a special skill called “cultural intelligence” (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008). In other words, students must balance their own home-culture information on the one hand and international entrepreneurial demands on the other, and the psycho-cognitive mechanisms that must correspond to such a balancing are still underdeveloped at the theoretical level (Tomasso et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2024a, b). In essence, a multicultural learning environment (MLE) constitutes the hub of often colliding views on local and global perspectives (Rajiah, 2025). MLE exposes students to culturally diverse viewpoints, different international pedagogies, international cases and teamwork across countries. On the positive side, Ji et al. (2025) documented that MLE increases cognitive flexibility, stimulates divergent thinking and allows perspective-taking, which are fundamental in shaping the entrepreneurial mindset. On the negative side, some scholars reported that, in the absence of sufficient cultural competencies, students can experience confusion, anxiety, or cognitive overload, which ultimately inhibits entrepreneurial behavior (Kim and Choi, 2020; Okagbue et al., 2022). In summary, MLE acts like a double-edged sword.

To counter the problems associated with MLE, we introduce two variables: intercultural sensitivity (ICS) and global thinking orientation (GTO) to play a vital role as moderators. People with high ICS will be able to move beyond ethnocentrism and appreciate other cultures. While LCO helps newcomers integrate into the system by following the shared values of a community, MLE integrates diverse backgrounds to reflect an inclusive environment that promotes equity and social justice. ICS helps strengthen the positive association between LCO and MLE. In other words, ICS helps people view multicultural experience as a developmental process rather than a threat that causes stress. GTO equips people with the mental gear to sort and process culturally plural data, enabling them to incorporate multicultural knowledge more strategically (Anton et al., 2025). MLEs can fail to generate their desirable effects without the competencies in question.

Despite the topicality of ICS and GTO, the literature is scant on how the relationship between LCO and the entrepreneurial mindset unfolds in their presence. This study focuses on exploring the antecedents to entrepreneurial mindset. According to Kuratko et al. (2021), the triad of entrepreneurial mindset consists of (1) cognitive (how entrepreneurs think), (2) behavioral (how entrepreneurs act) and (3) emotional (how entrepreneurs feel). The causal chain of entrepreneurial mindset as postulated by Haynie et al. (2010) include (1) interaction of entrepreneurial motivation with the environment, leading to (2) metacognitive awareness, requiring the (3) identification of resources (people, tasks and strategy), resulting in (4) taking action and (5) feedback. After reviewing 61 papers, Daspit et al. (2023) contend that entrepreneurial mindset refers to the extent to which individuals identify opportunities, make appropriate decisions with available information and exhibit adaptability in the present-day complex and dynamic environments. Internationalization of education provides students with an opportunity for exposure to diverse cultural backgrounds, and integration of global and local cultures requires cultural capabilities of students. According to cultural intelligence theory (CIT), the effects of cultural capabilities are not independent but affect individual behavior through the interplay of cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects (Earley, 2002). Though entrepreneurship research is exhaustive, additional research is needed to link the LCO, MLE and ICS, and GTO in explaining entrepreneurial mindset. Most importantly, how do students pursuing courses in higher educational institutions (HEIs) imbibe different cultures and recognize opportunities and take swift decisions in the wake of uncertain and unpredictable environments. To fill this gap, this study attempts to find answers to the following research questions (RQs).

This study makes four significant contributions to the literature on entrepreneurship education and CIT. First, it extends the CIT by explaining how various dimensions of cultural competence determine entrepreneurial thinking and mindset. Second, this study underscores the importance of LCO and MLE as an antecedent to entrepreneurial mindset. Third, this research explains how ICS interacts with LCO to significantly influence MLE. This study provides empirical support for the combined influence of both local cultural identities and global thinking. Fourth, the conceptual model developed and tested provides useful insights for academicians and actionable recommendations for administrators of educational institutions to develop culturally responsive entrepreneurial programs in their curricula. This study documents that balanced cultural competencies, in addition to multicultural exposure, enhance the entrepreneurial mindset to meet changing global needs.

The CIT (Earley and Ang, 2003) explains how people learn, develop and perform in culturally diverse settings. Cultural intelligence, as a measure of intercultural competence, has been advocated by several scholars (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008; Yari et al., 2020) and is defined as an individual's ability to function effectively in diverse cultural contexts. Learning about different cultures and understanding different cultural environments help individuals to succeed in culturally diverse environments (Pidduck and Zhang, 2022; Yari et al., 2020). Most importantly, individuals adapt their behavior to meet cross-cultural contexts (Berraies, 2020; Solomon and Steyn, 2017). According to Ang et al. (2020), cultural intelligence has four dimensions: (1) metacognitive (planning, awareness and checking other cultures, (2) cognitive (general knowledge about different cultures), (3) motivational (interest in adjusting to different cultures and (4) behavioral (showing verbal and non-verbal behavior). In the context of higher education, students' cultural intelligence helps them understand the various cultural backgrounds of other students and exhibit behaviors accordingly. Thus, three important indicators of cultural intelligence are knowledge, mindfulness and behavior (Thomas and Inkson, 2017). Knowledge relates to the extent to which individuals are aware of other cultures and to how culture affects behavior. Mindfulness refers to the degree to which individuals are open-minded in understanding and accepting other cultures. Finally, behavior is related to the extent to which individuals exhibit appropriate behavior without hurting other cultures.

In the context of this study, LCO is related to the cognitive dimension of cultural intelligence and explains the internally sustained cultural schemas by which judgment is determined and stability is ensured (Bayraklı, 2026; Jang et al., 2025). MLE is a behavioral dimension of cultural intelligence that summarizes the multicultural interactions and experiences in which cultural learning takes place (Rajiah, 2025). GTO is a metacognitive dimension of cultural intelligence that defines how individuals globally frame, compare and interpret different cultural cues. ICS represents the affective-motivational dimension of cultural intelligence, encompassing emotional openness, empathy and cultural difference sensitivity. Collectively, these constructs form a holistic system that affects students' entrepreneurial mindset. In sum, CIT explains why cultural cues, cultural openness, cultural meta-cognition and culturally diverse environments shape entrepreneurial cognition. In fact, “cross-cultural experience is a catalyst for nascent entrepreneurship” (Pidduck and Zhang, 2022, p. 204). Cross-cultural experiences enable individuals to know new customs, people and ideas (Caligiuri et al., 2019).

In academic settings with culturally diverse student populations, students' capacity to process aspects of cultural differences determines whether multicultural experiences enhance or hinder entrepreneurial thinking (Cieślak et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2025a, b). In this way, cultural intelligence provides a sufficient conceptual framework to describe the interactions between cultural orientations and competencies that stimulate an entrepreneurial mindset. In essence, cultural intelligence affects how people perceive cultural cues, manage their reactions and incorporate cultural knowledge into decision-making processes (Ma et al., 2025). In the context of entrepreneurship, an individual's cultural orientation and intercultural competence play a vital role in the formation of entrepreneurial attitudes and behavior amongst students. The dependent variable in this study is entrepreneurial mindset, which represents a culturally instilled cognitive-affective state determined by how individuals perceive diversity, respond to new cues and synthesize cultural experiences. With cultural intelligence as the theoretical underpinning, the conceptual model built around these constructs – LCO, MLE, ICS, GTO and entrepreneurial mindset – is shown in Figure 1.

LCO means people identify with local cultural values and traditions. Good cultural rootedness promotes psychological stability, moral foundation and clarity of motivation, which are advantages for entrepreneurial behavior. Extant research reports that cultural identity increases resilience, confidence in situations of uncertainty and opportunity recognition when it is community-based (Bodolica and Spraggon, 2021; Lazarte-Aguirre, 2025; Liu and Huang, 2020). Based on the above empirical evidence and underlying mechanism, LCO represents the cognitive-motivational force that affects the entrepreneurial mindset and, as such, we offer the following hypothesis.

When people have a sense of safe cultural identity, their anxiety is usually lower and they are more open to cultural differences. It has been found that consistent cultural identification increases the likelihood of agreeing to work with another culture and of interacting in different learning environments (Ng and Yong, 2021; Park and Ramirez, 2021; Thomassen and Munthe, 2020). LCO thus increases students' preparedness to attend multicultural classrooms, group discussions and culturally diverse learning settings. Further signs suggest that people who are defined by their cultural identity are curious about intercultural interactions, not threat-filled (Kamerer and Guimond, 2025; Katıtaş et al., 2024). Based on the above reasons, we offer the following hypothesis.

MLEs present students with a variety of viewpoints, collaborative endeavors and worldwide discussion of cases. These conditions facilitate cognitive flexibility, broaden the worldview and increase innovative problem-solving, which are the main elements of the entrepreneurial mindset. The reviews reveal that multicultural exposure enhances innovation orientation, divergent thinking and opportunity recognition (Abdelfattah et al., 2023; Rodgers et al., 2022; Tekic and Tsyrenova, 2024). MLE provides opportunities for individuals to understand heterogeneous cultures, which facilitates creativity (Maddux et al., 2010). Further, individuals will be able to compare alternative perspectives, and cultural metacognition is more likely to increase affect-based trust (Chua et al., 2012). In a meta-analysis of 108 studies on 10,632 teams, Stahl et al. (2010) found that cultural diversity may have process losses (increased task conflict and decreased social integration), and process gains (increased creativity and satisfaction). Thus, on the positive side, MLE is more likely to enable the students to integrate diverse information, recognize opportunities across cultural contexts and positively influence entrepreneurial mindset. Research demonstrates that cultural orientations affect both the level of innovation and the intention to start a business through exposure to diverse experiences (Kamerer and Guimond, 2025; Katıtaş et al., 2024). Further data show that engagement with multicultural forms can be viewed as a learning process that connects beliefs about culture to psychological outcomes (Ng and Yong, 2021). Thus, we offer the following hypothesis.

ICS encompasses receptiveness to cultural differences, empathy and readiness to express emotions. Individuals who are high on ICS tend to feel more comfortable and are positively related to MLE, which allows them to engage more. Empirical evidence indicates that interculturally sensitive learners exhibit greater creativity, ideation and learning advantages across a variety of settings (Hang and Zhang, 2023; Vromans et al., 2023). Further, students with strong local cultural orientation are likely to have psychological stability and are more likely to be selective, cautious and ambivalent toward MLEs. In other words, the relationship between LCO and MLE largely depends on how students integrate the local and global cultural schemes. Several scholars provide evidence that in culturally diverse teams, cultural intelligence plays a vital role in establishing global identity (Erez et al., 2013) and the contribution of team members depends on how they integrate different perspectives and react accordingly (Fitzsimmons, 2013; Lee et al., 2018). Thus, LCOs with greater ICS are more likely to strengthen the relationship between LCOs and MLEs. Since none of the prior studies investigated the moderating effect of ICS in the relationship between LCO and MLE, we offer the following exploratory moderation hypothesis.

GTO defines the capability of people to decode information about culture worldwide and to reflect various interpretations in their strategies. High GTO helps develop learners' ability to convert multicultural inputs into valuable entrepreneurial concepts. Some recent studies reported that international learning has been reinforced by a global cognitive orientation to enhance innovation and opportunity recognition (Fauzi et al., 2025; Tan et al., 2024). LCOs interacting with GTOs are more likely to positively influence the entrepreneurial mindset towards globalization. Although studies are scarce that investigate the moderating role of GTO in the relationship between LCO and entrepreneurial mindset, we offer the following exploratory hypothesis.

As CIT underlines that cultural capabilities do not work independently but in a synergetic way, GTO is more likely to offer metacognitive integration. Earlier scholars have established that people who experience the integration of affective openness and global cognitive framing achieve better learning and creative performance after exposure to MLE (Goren and Yemini, 2017; Hagqvist et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2024). This implies that GTO reinforces the positive effect of MLE on entrepreneurial mindset. Therefore, we offer the following moderating hypothesis.

Emotionally open students (high ICS) and globally reflective students (high GTO) are better equipped to transform LCO-induced engagement into decent multicultural learning and entrepreneurial cognition. Empirical studies demonstrate that cultural competencies enable individuals to translate GTO into actions leading to psychological outcomes (Goren and Yemini, 2017; Somaskandan et al., 2022). Thus, based on the above discussion, we offer the following hypothesis.

Before starting the survey, we informed participants about the aims/objectives of this study. We also gave participants the right to refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time. We also confirm that this study adheres to the relevant protocols and ethical guidelines for the conduct of human subjects' research. We also assured the respondents about the anonymity and confidentiality of the information provided. Four faculty members approved the survey, and the Head of the department approved it before starting.

The study adopted a cross-sectional quantitative research design to explore the extent to which cultural orientations, multicultural learning experiences and intercultural competencies influence the entrepreneurial mindset among university students. The students were selected through a purposive sampling strategy focused on those enrolled in programs that included multicultural exposure, such as culturally diverse classrooms, international-based case studies, cross-cultural teamwork, or global learning modules. This provided sufficient differences in MLE, ICS and GTO.

Data collection was done through Google Forms. The survey instrument was sent to the students after obtaining the email addresses from the institutions. Data collection started in February 2025 and was completed by the end of April 2025. In all, we obtained 624 responses. Since Google Forms do not allow respondents to skip questions, all surveys were completed. The sample size [N = 624] exceeds the minimum required sample size of 384 suggested by Krejcie and Morgan (1970). We tested non-response bias by comparing the first 100 responses with the last 100 responses; we found no statistical differences between the two groups (Armstrong and Overton, 1977).

The demographics of the respondents are presented in Table 1.

As can be seen from Table 1, students come from diverse classrooms, online/collaborative platforms, coursework/media exposure, exchange/international collaborations, cultural events/global sessions and webinars/media lectures.

All constructs were measured on a Likert-type five-point scale [“5” = strongly agree; “1” = strongly disagree]. The indicators of these constructs were adapted and modified from established sources in the literature. Since the purpose of this study is to unravel the relationship between LCO and entrepreneurial mindset with a particular focus on students pursuing HEIs, the measures are adapted to suit the context of students in HEIs. All the constructs and the indicators are mentioned in Table 2.

As suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we checked the measurement model by conducting confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with PLS-SEM and presented the results in Table 2.

As can be seen from Table 2, the factor loadings of all five constructs were above the acceptable level of 0.70 [ranging between 0.721 and 0.866]. The reliability coefficients [Cronbach's alpha] for all the constructs ranged between 0.847 and 0.932; average variance extracted (AVE) estimates were well over the acceptable level of 0.50 and ranged between 0.564 and 0.711. Further, the composite reliabilities for all the constructs ranged between 0.848 and 0.932. All these statistics vouch for the convergent validity and reliability of measures used in this study (Hair et al., 2019).

The correlation between the variables presented in Table 3 reveals that the square root of AVE estimates (AVEs) were greater than the correlation between the variables, thus vouching for discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). For example, the correlation between entrepreneurial mindset and GTO is 0.510 and square root of AVEs were 0.824 and 0.787 respectively. Similarly, the square roots of AVEs of ICS and LCO were 0.843 and 0.751, whereas the correlations between these variables was − 0.311. Further, discriminant validity following the HTMT criterion (see Table 4) shows that HTMT ratios were less than 0.85, vouching for discriminant validity between the constructs (Henseler et al., 2015).

We checked the variance inflation factor (VIF) values to test multicollinearity and found that these values were less than 5 [see Table 2], suggesting that data is free from multicollinearity issues (Hair et al., 2019).

As Podsakoff et al. (2024) mentioned, CMB is an inherent problem in any survey-based research, and this study is not an exception. However, to test CMB, we employed three statistical measures. One is the traditional Harman's single-factor test, which yielded 32.60% of variance (less than 50%), suggesting CMB is not a problem with the data. To check for CMB, we first performed the traditional single-factor test and found that a single factor accounted for 32.60% of the variance (less than 50%), suggesting CMB is not a serious problem with the data. Second, as Howard et al. (2024) documented that Harman's single-factor test is not a reliable one, we performed a latent-variable method by subjecting all the indicators to a single factor and rotated this process for all the variables. This latent variable (LV) test revealed that the inner VIF values were less than 3.3, indicating that the data are not infected by CMB (Kock, 2015). Further, we utilized a counterbalancing design and presented questions in varying orders to ensure that participants do not get influenced and exhibit social desirability bias. We also informed the participants about the importance of providing honest answers and assured them of the privacy of information. All these steps are expected to reduce CMB and social desirability bias.

To test the structural model, we employed PLS-SEM [using Smart PLS version 4.1.1.7] for three reasons. In studies exploring complex relationships and predicting outcomes, PLS-SEM is appropriate when compared to covariance-based SEM (Akter et al., 2017; Hair et al., 2019). Second, PLS-SEM is better suited when indicators are both formative and reflective (Hair et al., 2019). Third, PLS-SEM relaxes assumptions about multivariate normality (Baquero, 2025; Le et al., 2024). We presented the results of hypothesis testing in Table 5.

Since endogeneity may stem from omitted variables, we did a preliminary analysis [using hierarchical regression] and found that the demographic variables [age and gender] did not significantly influence entrepreneurial mindset and multicultural learning orientation. Further, the lack of theoretical justification that demographics influence LCO, MLE and entrepreneurial mindset prompted us to exclude demographic variables in the main analysis.

Path diagram (structural model) with “path coefficients” was mentioned in Figure 2, and “path coefficients and “t” values” were mentioned in Figure 3.

The path analysis reveals that the path coefficient of LCO on entrepreneurial mindset was positive and significant (H1: β = 0.773; p < 0.001), thus supporting H1.

Hypothesis 2 posits that LCO is positively associated with MLE, and the path coefficient was not significant (H2: β = −0.002; p = 0.946), thus not supporting H2.

The path coefficient of MLE on entrepreneurial mindset was positive and significant (H3: β = 0.101; p < 0.001), thus supporting H3.

Hypothesis 4 predicts that LCO interacts with ICS to influence MLE, and the path coefficient of the interaction term was significant (H4: β _{LCO x intercultural sensitivity} = 0.138; p < 0.001), thus supporting H4. The interaction graph is presented in Figure 4.

As can be seen in Figure 4, at low levels of ICS [Mean – 1 s d ], lower levels of LCO result in higher levels of MLE. However, when LCO increases, higher levels of ICS result in higher MLE. But the interaction curve representing higher levels [Mean + 1 s d ] is showing a positive slope. The difference in the slopes of the curves renders support for the moderation hypothesis (H4).

Post-hoc analysis revealed that the mediation of MLE between LCO and entrepreneurial mindset (β = 0.001; bias-corrected LLCI = −0.008; ULCI = 0.008) is not significant. The conditional indirect effect is (LCO x ICS -> MLE -> EM (β = 0.014; p = 0.000; LLCI = 0.004; ULCI = 0.031). These results indicate that the mediation of MLE between LCO and entrepreneurial mindset largely depends on ICS.

Post-hoc analysis: From a methodological standpoint, we also conducted post-hoc analysis and found that the results of PLS-SEM are not significantly different from covariance-based SEM.

Hypothesis 5 predicts that GTO moderates the relationship between LCO and entrepreneurial mindset, and the path coefficient interaction term is positive and significant (H5: β _{LCO x GTO} = 0.247; p < 0.001), thus supporting H5. The interaction graph is presented in Figure 5.

As can be seen in Figure 5, the entrepreneurial mindset will be slightly higher when lower levels of LCO interact with low levels of GTO. However, the interaction curve with GTO is high [Mean + 1 s d] becomes steeper when compared to the curve representing GTO is low [Mean – 1 s d]. At extremely high levels of LCO, the moderating effect of GTO is more visible. The change in the slopes of the curves render support for H5.

Hypothesis 6 predicts that GTO moderates the relationship between MLE and entrepreneurial mindset. The path coefficient of the interaction term was significant (H6: β _{MLE x GTO} = −0.127; p < 0.05), thus supporting H6. The interaction plot is presented in Figure 6.

As can be seen from Figure 6, the interaction between MLE and higher levels of GTO [Mean + 1 s d], entrepreneurial mind set is higher when compared to GTO at low levels [Mean – 1 s d]. However, with an increase in MLE from “low” to “high”, the moderating effect will gradually fade away, which can be seen in a decreasing slope representing high [Mean + 1 s d] and an increasing slope representing low [Mean – 1 s d]. The negative sign of the interaction term vouches for the differences in slopes [decreasing versus increasing], thereby indicating that interaction was significant at lower levels than at higher levels. The path coefficient of the interaction term and the graph shown in Figure 6 support H6.

The goodness of fit statistics reveal best fit of the data to the model (SRMR = 0.039; Squared Euclidean Distance (d_ULS) = 0.706; geodesic distance (d_G) = 0.228; and χ²/df = 2.12; Normed Fit Index = 0.920).

We assessed the predictive accuracy of the model by observing the R² values [R² > 0.75 = good; 0.50 < R² < 0.75 = moderate; R² < 0.25 = weak] (Hair et al., 2019). The R² values of LCO (0.104) were weak, whereas R² values of entrepreneurial mindset (0.570) were considered to be good. These statistics signify robust explanatory power of the empirical model.

We also assessed the predictive relevance of the sample by using PLS predict and calculating the Q² values [Q² > 0.35 = large effect; 0.15 < Q² < 0.35 = medium effect; and Q² < 0.15 = small effect]. In this study, the Q² value of multicultural learning orientation (0.097) shows a small effect, and Q² values of entrepreneurial mindset (0.532) reflect large effect size. Table 6 presents the R², Q² and effect size values.

We also calculated the effect size by using the following formula (Hair et al., 2019).

The suggested values are 0.02 (small effect size), 0.15 (medium effect size) and 0.35 (large effect size). The f² values are presented in Table 7. As can be seen in Table 7, the f² values of LCO→entrepreneurial mindset (0.708) showed a large effect size, whereas LCO x GTO→ entrepreneurial mindset (0.138) showed small effect sizes. The cross-validated predictive ability test (CVPAT) for the specific LV summary (PLS SEM versus Indicator average (4)) was mentioned in Table 8, which shows the predictive ability of the model.

The importance-performance map, which depicts the importance of the variables, is presented in Figure 7.

The objective of this research is to explore the effects of multicultural exposure, cultural orientations and cultural competencies on university students' entrepreneurial mindset. Riding on CIT, a conceptual model is developed and tested by collecting data from 624 students from southern India. Path analysis supported the model, except for the effect of LOC on MLE.

The findings indicate that LCO is an antecedent to the entrepreneurial mindset (Hypothesis 1), aligning with the literature (Bodolica and Spraggon, 2021; Lazarte-Aguirre, 2025; Liu and Huang, 2020). It has been observed that students who identify strongly with their cultural values and traditions are those who have high opportunity recognition, resilience and long-term thinking, thus shaping the entrepreneurial mindset. In a recent study, Zixin et al. (2026) found that cultural identity shapes cognitive focus, motivational consistency and moral foundations, thereby contributing to entrepreneurial decision-making. The beneficial role of LCO in the development of entrepreneurs is especially evident in emerging economies such as India, where cultural practices have strongly favored perseverance, community upliftment and ethical propriety. Second, the findings did not support the positive association of LCO with MLE (Hypothesis 2). This finding is contrary to the scant studies in the literature (Kamerer and Guimond, 2025; Katıtaş et al., 2024; Ng and Yong, 2021; Park and Ramirez, 2021; Thomassen and Munthe, 2020). Although LCO may, in theory, motivate students to engage fearlessly in such multicultural settings, the evidence indicates that cultural rootedness is by no means a certain predictor of engagement with multicultural learning opportunities (Cunha, 2005; Ramsey et al., 2025). Nearly 2 decades ago, Cunha (2005) interviewed 71 managers in Portugal and reported that it becomes difficult to balance an international mindset with respect for local cultures unless innovative strategies are employed, and the present study echoes this notion.

The non-significant finding of LCO-MLE suggests that local cultural rootedness does not automatically result in engagement with MLE, which poses an interesting challenge to the complementarity view of local orientation with MLEs. The relationship may depend on the intercultural capabilities of students.

Third, the results from this study supported the positive impact of MLE on entrepreneurial mindset (Hypothesis 3), aligning with previous findings in literature (Abdelfattah et al., 2023; Kamerer and Guimond, 2025; Katıtaş et al., 2024; Rodgers et al., 2022; Tekic and Tsyrenova, 2024) It means that the exposure to multiculture, properly understood, may lead to a more flexible and creative thinking, ambiguity tolerance and allow learners to produce new ideas and recognize a variety of opportunities (Kromidha et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022).

The fourth key finding is the moderating effect of ICS in the relationship between LCO and MLE (Hypothesis 4). Though previous scholars did not investigate the interaction of ICS with LCO, the direct relationship of ICS on MLE can be vouched as a support (Hang and Zhang, 2023; Vromans et al., 2023). Although we did not find a direct association between LCO and MLE, ICS strengthens the relationship between them [as shown in Figure 4].

Fifth, the findings supported the moderating effect of GTO in the relationship between LCO and entrepreneurial mindset (Hypothesis 5). While LCO has a direct effect on entrepreneurial mindset, students with a high level of GTO are more likely to shift their mindset towards internalization. This assertion is supported by some recent findings (Fauzi et al., 2025; Tan et al., 2024). Sixth, this study found that GTO moderated the relationship between MLE and entrepreneurial mindset (Hypothesis 6), aligning with previous researchers who found a positive effect of GTO on entrepreneurial mindset (Goren and Yemini, 2017; Hagqvist et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2024). In summary, this research supported the conceptual model grounded in the CIT theoretical framework.

We predicted that MLEs may act as a double-edged sword in that students can gain the learning benefits in these environments and, at the same time they may face some challenges. This is evidenced by the effect sizes of the relationships. For example, our findings reveal that MLE has a small effect on entrepreneurial mindset, whereas LCO has a much larger effect. Further, the evidence indicates that multicultural exposure alone is not adequate, and what is more important is local cultural rootedness. The interaction effects indicate that though LCO does not have a direct effect on MLE, when LCO is paired with ICS, the effect is more pronounced. Similarly, the effect of LCO on entrepreneurial mindset is strengthened by pairing with global thinking. Finally, when global thinking is paired with MCE, the effect is more significant on entrepreneurial mindset. These results underscore the importance of the moderating effects of ICS and GTO.

The findings from this study make several contributions to both entrepreneurship theory and practice. First, this study expands the CIT by applying it to the entrepreneurial mindset of students pursuing courses in higher education institutions. Following CIT, this research underscored the importance of LCO and MLE in steering the entrepreneurial mindset. The findings indicate that the elements of cultural intelligence, such as cognitive, metacognitive, motivational and behavioral, cannot be considered in isolation; rather, they interact in complex, conditional ways (Sousa, 2025). Second, this study found that ICS plays a vital role in strengthening the relationship between LCOs and MLEs. From a theoretical standpoint, when students exhibit high levels of ICS, they are more likely to contribute to the MLE in higher education institutions. Third, this research highlights the importance of GTO of students in strengthening the positive influence of LCO on entrepreneurial mindset. Further, the benefits of GTO can also be seen when students in MLE shift their mindset towards globalization. Thus, the entrepreneurial benefits of multicultural learning, multiplied through GTO, make a radical shift in students' attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Fourth, this study expands the cultural intelligence literature by emphasizing that, in addition to linear relationships, the interaction effects of ICS and GTO play a vital role in changing the entrepreneurial mindset.

In summary, LCO and MLE have been found to influence entrepreneurial mindset along separate avenues. Even though LCO directly improves entrepreneurial thinking, the influence of MLE depends on the availability of sufficient cultural competencies. This corroborates the belief that multicultural exposure has an inherent positive influence on entrepreneurial development and emphasizes the necessity of cultural rootedness and cross-cultural competence (Kromidha et al., 2022; Sousa, 2025). In summary, the importance of affective and metacognitive aspects of cultural intelligence in the development of an entrepreneurial mindset. The robust impact of LCO and MLE on the entrepreneurial mindset demonstrates that cultural identity, ethics, traditions and community orientation influence entrepreneurial motivation and opportunity perception in distinctive ways, and these factors are especially relevant in a collectivistic setting such as India. This study aligns with other empirical studies that demonstrated that the cultural intelligence-based models assume the presence of several cultural competencies to be active at the same time so that the learning effects could be manifested in entrepreneurial mindset (Goren and Yemini, 2017; Hagqvist et al., 2020; Somaskandan et al., 2022). This study is conducted in the context of higher educational institutes in India. With an increased number of international students, multicultural learning in India includes international exposure to the students in addition to the existing diversity across different regions, languages, religions and social groups. This research adds value to the literature on entrepreneurship. The pivotal contribution of this study is bringing together local cultural orientation, multicultural learning environment, ICS and GTO in one model of entrepreneurial mindset among students in Southern India.

These findings have significant implications for universities, policymakers and educators. There is a need for multicultural exposure. Learning institutions need to introduce systematic cultural intelligence-building courses to develop balanced ICS and GTO abilities. This may include workshops, intercultural communication training, intercultural communication simulations and reflective global projects. Since too much cultural complexity may overwhelm students, universities must organize MLEs through facilitation procedures, guided reflection sessions, culturally inclusive pedagogy and organized teamwork to reduce cognitive load. The subjects in entrepreneurial education, including cultural case discussions, cross-cultural negotiation exercises and cross-cultural entrepreneurship simulations, need to be incorporated. This renders entrepreneurial learning inherently multicultural. Considering the personal differences in ICS and GTO, universities are expected to offer individualized cultural competency measurement and development opportunities. This enables learners to develop cultural intelligence capabilities that maximize their readiness to be entrepreneurial. Intercultural and global exposure to local culture can be incorporated into government programs aimed at promoting youth entrepreneurship as a solution to students' cultural strengths. Balanced exposure has the potential to improve entrepreneurial capacity in developing economies.

Despite being a comprehensive study, it has several limitations that future studies should consider. First, cross-sectional data at a single point in time have inherent limitations for establishing causal relationships between variables. In general, LCO, MLE and the entrepreneurial mindset are dynamic in nature; it would be ideal to use two-wave data collection or longitudinal designs to test the hypothesized relationships. Therefore, we suggest that future researchers engage in two-wave data collection from students. Second, self-reports have inherent limitations in CMB (Podsakoff et al., 2024). Though we conducted necessary statistical tests to address the problems of CMB, we acknowledge that it is difficult to eliminate CMB. Third, social desirability bias is another problem in cross-sectional data collection. However, to address social desirability, we ensured anonymity of responses and assured respondents of the privacy of their information. Fourth, though the sample size is relatively large, focusing on one region of the country may lead to generalization issues. We suggest that future researchers collect data from all regions of India.

This study provides various avenues for future research. First, researchers may focus on cross-cultural comparisons across regions or countries. Second, to understand the influence of other dimensions of cultural intelligence, including behavioral cultural intelligence, cultural empathy and digital intercultural competence, as they affect entrepreneurial learning, future research could be conducted. Third, future studies may see if there exist any non-linear (or curvilinear) relationships between LCO and entrepreneurial mindset. Exploration of curvilinear relationships may be further explained by using more sophisticated modeling, such as latent profile analysis or polynomial regression. Fourth, future studies may investigate the effects of the Big Five personality traits on the entrepreneurial mindset. Further, researchers may also study the impact of EO (Kabir et al., 2023, 2024a, b) on entrepreneurial mindset.

This paper investigated the interaction between cultural orientations and multicultural learning experiences and their influence on entrepreneurial mindset among university students in southern India. Based on the CIT, the results indicate that cultural identity (LCO) and MLE play a vital role in increasing the entrepreneurial mindset. The findings contribute to theoretical knowledge by showing that cultural intelligence is a configuration-based platform rather than a linear ability. They also make it clear that the entrepreneurial mind is culturally ingrained, rooted in cultural identity and multicultural competencies. In practice, the research points to the necessity for educational institutions to develop culturally responsive entrepreneurship courses that can foster and cultivate learners' cultural intelligence in balanced ways. To conclude, the study provided insights into the impact of globalized learning environments on the growth of entrepreneurship. As higher education becomes increasingly multicultural, the optimal mix of cultural competencies must be nurtured to foster the development of entrepreneurial attitudes capable of operating effectively in both heterogeneous and heterotrophic environments.