Exploring the entrepreneurial passion-behavior relationship through

implementation intentions: the moderating roles of entrepreneurial self-efficacy

and risk-taking propensity

M. COLSON
P. VANDEKERKHOF
W. MARNEFFE
J. SCHEPERS

Abtract:
This study explores the entrepreneurial passion-behavior association as both scholars and policy makers
recognize the importance of this distinct motivational construct in stimulating new venture creation. Concretely,
since this relationship has remained underexplored, this paper studies how and when individuals with a passion
for founding effectively engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior. Our underpinnings draw on the identity-
based framework of entrepreneurial passion to operationalize a robust moderated mediation model. Empirically,
we exploit a unique sample of 493 Belgian nascent entrepreneurs. This study’s results provide new insights that
individuals who are passionate about founding a new venture will devise action plans that specify where, when
and how to engage in gestation activities as this reduces the uncertainty and challenges to reach the envisioned
goal of launching a new venture. This means that implementation intentions function as a mediator in the passion-
behavior relationship. Next to this, the results show that this mediation model is contingent on individuals’
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and willingness to take risks. On the one hand, when individuals with a passion for
founding believe that they possess the required knowledge and skills to start a new business, they will significantly
develop more implementation intentions to engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior. On the other hand, when
individuals have a higher risk-taking propensity, these implementation intentions will be converted significantly
more into actual entrepreneurial start-up behavior. This study makes two contributions by adding new insights to
the discussion on the factors that predict and stimulate actual engagement in new venture creation behavior. We
discuss these implications for theory and for practice.
1. Introduction

New venture creation constitutes a key topic in entrepreneurship research because new firms are an engine for
economic growth (Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2021). But new ventures are not a one-shot game (Bennett &
Chatterji, 2019). They are the result of nascent entrepreneurs’ (i.e. individuals actively involved in new venture
creation) undertaking of entrepreneurial behavior which relates to successfully performing a multitude of arduous
and uncertain gestation activities (Gieure et al., 2020; McMullen & Dimov, 2013; McMullen & Shepherd, 2006;
Shepherd et al., 2021). Scholars are especially interested in explaining and predicting entrepreneurial start-up
behavior as it is a direct antecedent of organizational emergence. However, studying such start-up behavior is a
well-known challenging undertaking due to new firm formation’s complex nature. An important tradition of prior
works is therefore rooted in the entrepreneurial intentions literature 1 as intentions to start a new business are
suggested to directly determine entrepreneurial start-up behavior (Donaldson et al., 2021; Kolvereid, 1996;
Krueger et al., 2000 ; Liñán & Fayolle, 2015, Lortie & Castogiovanni, 2015). Although such studies have
immensely contributed to the new venture creation literature, recent insights have shown that this association may
be weaker than scholars have theorized hitherto (Esfandiar et al., 2019; Gieure et al., 2020; Neneh, 2019; van
Gelderen et al., 2015). Empirical evidence has not only revealed that intentions only explain approximately one
third of the variance in entrepreneurial start-up behavior, scholars particularly emphasize more and more the lack
of knowledge about why some nascent entrepreneurs effectively undertake such start-up activities while others do
not or even completely abandon these challenging start-up endeavors (Bogatyreva et al., 2019; IVANOVA &
TORNIKOSKI, 2022; Müller et al., 2022; Shepherd, 2015; Shepherd et al., 2021). Therefore, it can be inferred
that there are other important explanatory factors at play as we still have limited understanding of the factors that
can enable or impede actual engagement in entrepreneurial start-up behavior (Gieure et al., 2020).

In this debate, to fill this void in the knowledge base, scholars increasingly theorize individuals’
entrepreneurial passion (EP) as a fundamental factor that can foster new venture creation (Newman et al., 2021).
This is because EP is a distinct motivational construct that has been considered as the fire that can fuel the pursuit
of different entrepreneurial outcomes (Cardon et al., 2009). Indeed, EP has been suggested to enable entrepreneurs
to overcome complex entrepreneurial challenges and to stimulate them to remain engaged in entrepreneurial
endeavors (Murnieks et al., 2020). But the nomological network of outcomes to which EP is related is broad and
ranges from firm performance or access to funding, to a wide variety of entrepreneurial behaviors such as
persistence among others (Drnovsek et al., 2016; Li et al., 2017; Mueller et al., 2017, Cardon & Kirk, 2015). Extant
works on entrepreneurial behaviors are thus atomized, however, with regard to new venture creation, only a
scarcity of studies has effectively focused on examining the relation between EP and actual entrepreneurial start-
up behavior (Li et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2021). Taken together, they employ sterile student samples from very
specific geographical contexts, do not conceptually differentiate between the different passion domains that are
germane for start-up behavior as recommended by passion scholars, and implicitly adopt a rationale that EP
univocally leads to entrepreneurial start-up behavior. Especially the latter neglects the complexity of new venture
creation as an uncertain process that is fraught with even passionate individuals who abandon their start-up
endeavors (Cardon et al., 2013). As such, this limits our understanding of the entrepreneurial passion-behavior

1. Dominant theoretical lenses in this stream are among others the theory of planned behavior (Kautonen et al., 2015), the
entrepreneurial event model (Krueger et al., 2000), social cognitive (career) theory (Liguori et al., 2018) or the Rubicon model of
action phases (van Gelderen et al., 2015).
association, and contributes to the current paucity of insights on why some nascent entrepreneurs engage in
challenging start-up activities while others do not. This particularly signals two critical gaps in the literature,
namely, that the underlying processes through which EP leads to entrepreneurial start-up behavior have been
underexplored, together with the contingencies that may affect this relationship.

Therefore, this paper explores the entrepreneurial passion-behavior relationship by unravelling how and
when entrepreneurial passion for founding leads to effective engagement in entrepreneurial start-up behavior. To
do so, we draw on Cardon et al’s (2009; 2013) tenets of identity-based EP and do not base our conceptual
framework on the other competing dualistic model of passion of Vallerand et al. (2003) which is conceptually
more general. The rationale for this is that, in accordance with Cardon et al. (2013), we focus on a domain-specific
notion of the identity-based model of EP, namely entrepreneurial passion for founding. This is because the other
components of EP (inventing and developing) reflect and empirically probe different phases of the entrepreneurial
process. Besides this, focusing on passion for founding is essential to do so because the motivational effect of EP
is target-specific with regard to particular entrepreneurial endeavors such as engaging in gestation activities
(Cardon et al., 2009). What this means is that individuals with a passion for founding a new venture have a desire
to start a business and are passionate about assembling the required and necessary resources to pursue discovered
opportunities. But since engaging in start-up behavior by performing a series of start-up activities is complex and
uncertain, even individuals with a passion for founding a new venture frequently do not follow up on their
envisioned start-up behavior or even completely drop out (Cardon et al., 2013). Hence, to examine how
entrepreneurial passion for founding can effectively lead to start-up behavior, we introduce the mediating role of
implementation intentions (i.e. action planning) in this relationship. Actions such as engaging in gestation activities
need to be planned in order to be effective (Gollwitzer, 1996; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). By making concrete
action plans to perform desired behavior, implementation intentions can facilitate individuals to deal with the
uncertainties of new venture creation (van Gelderen et al., 2018). As such, implementation intentions may be an
important indirect mechanism underlying the passion-behavior relationship as they can stimulate that a motivation,
like a passion for founding, will effectively lead to entrepreneurial start-up behavior. Next to this, we take a
contingent approach and explore when individuals with a passion for founding a new business effectively engage
in gestation activities. We do this by taking the moderating roles of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and risk-taking
propensity into account as these contingencies have been suggested to critically influence when individuals engage
in new venture creation behavior.

We exploit a unique sample of 493 Belgian nascent entrepreneurs to operationalize a robust moderated
mediation model. This study’s main results reveal that implementation intentions function as an important
underlying process in the entrepreneurial passion-behavior relationship. With this, we provide novel insights that
entrepreneurial passion for founding can drive the formation of implementation intentions, which explains how
individuals with a passion for founding effectively engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior. This implicates
that the more individuals with a passion for founding make concrete action plans, the more they effectively engage
in gestation activities to create a new venture. In addition, we find that this mediation model is contingent on
nascent entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy and risk-taking propensity as this study’s results provide new
evidence that these factors are vital conditional influences that explain when nascent entrepreneurs with a passion
for founding engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior. Indeed, the findings indicate that, on the one hand, when
individuals with a passion for founding believe that they possess the required knowledge and skills to start a new
firm, they will significantly develop more implementation intentions to engage in new venture creation behavior.
Besides this, this study’s results show that, in contrast to more risk-averse individuals, when individuals have a
higher willingness to take risks, these implementation intentions will be converted significantly more into actual
entrepreneurial start-up behavior. In sum, this study provides new understanding on how and when nascent
entrepreneurs effectively engage in start-up activities. Concretely, while some nascent entrepreneurs abandon their
start-up endeavors, this work adds novel insights to the discussion on the factors that explain, predict and stimulate
actual engagement in start-up behavior (Müller et al., 2022; Shepherd, 2015; Shepherd et al., 2021). In so doing,
our findings shed new light on how and when new venture creation can be stimulated. We discuss these
implications for theory and for practice and address limitations that can provide new avenues for future research.

2. Theory and hypotheses

2.1. Theoretical background

There remains a lack of knowledge in the debate about why some nascent entrepreneurs engage in start-up
activities while others do not or even complete abandon their start-up endeavors (Shepherd, 2015; Shepherd et al.,
2021). To advance this discussion, scholars posit that new explanations may lie in further exploring the
entrepreneurial passion-behavior association as theorization and insights on this remain underdeveloped (Newman
et al., 2021; Obschonka et al., 2019). Indeed, individuals’ EP has been suggested to be a fundamental motivational
driver to engage (and to remain engaged) in entrepreneurial behavior as it can provide individuals the necessary
fire to overcome the tribulations of new venture creation (Cardon et al., 2009; Murnieks et al., 2014; Murnieks et
al., 2020). Yet, whereas EP is conceptually distinct from other related affect, motivational or cognition constructs
in entrepreneurship, it is important to note that passion transcends what the vernacular calls the experience of
strong emotions (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011). From a theoretical perspective, scholars have drawn from two
prevailing frameworks to explore EP. While the more general dualistic model of passion from Vallerand et al.
(2003) focuses on how obsessive and harmonious passion with regard to an entrepreneurial identity influence firm
outcomes, Cardon et al.’s (2009; 2013) identity-based model is more specific as it centers on how entrepreneur’s
passion for various entrepreneurial activities affects behavioral outcomes (Murnieks et al., 2020). Three key
assertions stand central in this identity-based rationale. According to Cardon et al. (2013), EP2 entails consciously
accessible intense positive feelings one experiences by engaging in entrepreneurial activities that are meaningful
and salient to an individuals’ self-identity with regard to entrepreneurship. Lastly, these intense positive feelings
and identity centrality aspects are directed towards three specific domains (i.e. inventing, founding, developing)
that mirror the entrepreneurial process.

Since the aim of this study is to contribute to the discussion on why some nascent entrepreneurs undertake
start-up activities by exploring how and when entrepreneurial passion (for founding) influences individuals to
engage in new venture creation behavior, we draw from Cardon et al.’s (2009, 2013) theorization of EP. Adopting
these tenets instead of the dualistic model from Vallerand et al. (2003), which offers a more general formulation
of passion, provides us a lens that allows us to focus on a more domain-specific notion of EP (with their
corresponding dimensions intense positive feelings and identity centrality) in function of the new venture creation

2
. EP is conceived as an affective phenomenon and not as a personality trait. In addition, the intense positive feelings component
of passion is aimed at a particular target, which further distinguishes entrepreneurial passion from other affective concepts like
mood for example.
process. This is vital to do so as the motivational aspect of EP is target-specific towards certain activities (e.g.
entrepreneurial start-up behavior) that invoke an intensity of positive feelings that are associated with roles of these
activities that are meaningful and central to individuals’ self-identity (Chen et al., 2009, Murnieks et al., 2014). As
such, in this framework, EP entails profound intense feelings as well as a strong identity connection to the object
of those experienced feelings (Cardon et al., 2009). In the next section, we discuss the domains of EP that are
germane for our work as each form of passion has been suggested to be associated with specific outcomes,
mediators and moderators that are at play (Cardon et al., 2009).

2.2. Entrepreneurial passion for founding and entrepreneurial start-up behavior

The first domain in the identity-based model of EP concerns passion for inventing. Individuals with an inventor
identity are passionate about activities that are related to inventing, prototyping and identifying new opportunities
(Cardon et al., 2013). Following this, while passion for developing corresponds to the growth and expansion of a
venture after founding, passion for founding relates to activities that concern assembling the required resources
(e.g. financial, human, material and non-material) needed to start a new venture (Adomako & Ahsan, 2022). This
means that individuals with a founder role identity experience a motivational desire to start their own venture
(Zollo et al., 2020). Their passion thus lies in engaging in activities that center on bringing the necessary resources
together to exploit a discovered entrepreneurial opportunity in order to establish a new firm. Therefore, as we will
argue further below, we concentrate on passion for founding as this is the most relevant form of passion to focus
on in this study as the manifestation of this role identity might be crucial for engaging in entrepreneurial behavior
(Collewaert et al., 2016). Indeed, for nascent entrepreneurs who want to actually transform a discovered
opportunity into a new venture, passion for founding might be an important target-specific motivational driver to
successfully perform gestation activities. This does not implicitly assume that individuals’ EP resonates through
all of these role identities. In other words, individuals’ role identities can vary, meaning that some may be
passionate about all three role identities, whereas some may only possess passion for one of them (Neneh, 2020).
Taken together, this is why our emphasis on studying how and when passion for founding can lead to actual new
venture creation behavior is warranted. In addition, this aligns with Cardon et al.’s (2013) recommendation to
explore EP for inventing, founding and developing separately in function of specific entrepreneurial outcomes
because lumping all domains together into an overall passion construct would obscure important dynamics related
to the complexity and different phases of the entrepreneurial process.
Consequently, next to performance outcomes (e.g. Adomako & Ahsan, 2022; Adomako et al., 2022;
Drnovsek et al., 2016; Hatak et al., 2021; Mueller et al., 2017; Stenholm & Renko, 2016), scholars have started to
examine the association between the different domains of EP and entrepreneurial behaviors such as persistence
(Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Kiani et al., 2021), effort (Gielnik et al., 2015), or innovation (Kang et al, 2016). Notably,
studies on entrepreneurial behaviors are diverse and have primarily been conducted among existing entrepreneurs
and organizations. While they have greatly advanced our understanding of EP in entrepreneurship, these works’
findings have revealed inconsistent results between the domains of EP and entrepreneurial behaviors (Newman et
al., 2021). Particularly, only a handful of studies have explicitly addressed EP in relation to entrepreneurial start-
up behavior (i.e. Qian et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020). Although positive effects on new venture creation behavior are
generally reported, these works suffer from several important limitations that limit our current understanding of
EP in the new venture creation process. Specifically, these few existing works have all employed student samples
(relatively modest in size) from China and North-America to estimate the entrepreneurial passion-behavior
relationship. Such sterile samples have been commonly used in entrepreneurship research. But because of sample
biases, generalizability problems and other inherent limitations, scholars are increasingly calling to move away
from student data and to utilize large heterogeneous general population samples of nascent entrepreneurs
(Kautonen et al., 2015; Lortie & Castogiovanni, 2015). Moreover, these prior works’ limited and specific
geographical contexts not only challenge the generalizability of earlier findings, but also question whether they
can hold in other more mainstream settings of developed economies as EP with its intense positive feelings and
identity centrality are fundamentally culturally determined (Tsai et al., 2006). This means that individuals’ intense
positive feelings and identity centrality are experienced entirely different in Asian, American or European cultures,
which may lead to different results (Neneh, 2020). Lastly, as a result of this scholarly paucity, we currently have
limited knowledge of the underlying processes through which EP can lead to entrepreneurial start-up behavior and
under which conditions. In other words, the mediators and moderators at play in the passion-behavior relationship
have been underexplored (Qian et al., 2021).
However, what the above works highlight is that EP can be a major motivational factor impelling
entrepreneurial behavior. In the context of performing entrepreneurial start-up behavior, especially passion for
founding has been suggested to deliver the necessary fuel to persistently engage in entrepreneurial behavior and
not to abandon start-up endeavors (Murnieks et al., 2014). This is because this passion domain is likely to mobilize
the required energy for nascent entrepreneurs to overcome demanding situations as it stimulates individuals to
continue to deal with uncertainties and obstacles in the gathering of the necessary resources to start a new venture
(Biraglia et al., 2017). As such, passion for founding can lead to a narrow focus to actually engage in
entrepreneurial behavior as the desire to actually found an organization can be an essential motivator for nascent
entrepreneurs in the light of uncertainty (Neneh, 2020). Indeed, the dynamic behind this is that individuals’ passion
for founding motivates them to pursue and to participate in gestation activities as this provides them intense
positive feelings that are associated with their identity centrality of being the founder of a new venture (Cardon et
al., 2013). What this means is that individuals with a passion for founding have a strong motivational drive to act
on those experienced intense positive feelings as engagement in such founding activities bolsters one’s
entrepreneurial identity (Murnieks et al, 2014). Accordingly, this can induce repeated engagement in
entrepreneurial start-up behavior. Therefore, based on the above rationale, we hypothesize and examine to what
extent:

H1: Entrepreneurial passion for founding has a positive effect on entrepreneurial start-up behavior.

2.3. The mediating role of implementation intentions

Extant passion studies often implicitly assume that entrepreneurial passion will uniformly translate into a variety
of favorable or desired outcomes (Adomako et al., 2022). However, this implicit assumption certainly does not
hold for passion for founding and entrepreneurial start-up behavior as the path towards new venture creation is
complex, long, subject to a plethora of individual as well as contextual inhibiting factors, and involves a wide
variety of challenging gestation activities that need to be performed in different sequences (Arenius et al., 2017;
Lichtenstein et al., 2007; Bogatyreva et al., 2019; Shirakova et al., 2016). As such, even nascent entrepreneurs
who are passionate about founding a new venture frequently do not take entrepreneurial action to start a new
business or even completely abandon their start-up endeavors as undertaking new venture creation behavior is full
of uncertainty which is a decision input that will typically impede entrepreneurial start-up behavior (Cardon et al.,
2013; van Gelderen et al., 2015). Thus, this notion that not all individuals, even those with a passion for founding,
do not follow up on their intended behavior to engage in gestation activities, highlights that different indirect
factors can influence how individuals effectively engage in new venture creation behavior (Pham et al., 2021). In
this sense, implementation intentions have been suggested to stimulate taking entrepreneurial action as they can
be effective in creating commitment to individuals’ intended new venture creation behavior (Adam & Fayolle,
2016; Ajzen et al., 2009; Fayolle & Liñán, 2014). Therefore, in this section we introduce implementation intentions
as an important mediating mechanism in the passion-behavior relationship. We will argue here that implementation
intentions function as an underlying mechanism through which passion for founding can lead to entrepreneurial
start-up behavior.

The lion’s share of research on implementation intentions has been conducted by Gollwitzer and
colleagues who posit that before individuals effectively engage in behavior, they cogitate and decide on the when,
where and how (long) to act on that behavior (Gollwitzer, 1996; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). In his seminal work,
Gollwitzer (1993) positions implementation intentions as a means that can ensure that a motivation, such as one’s
passion for founding a venture, will be translated into actual behavior. Implementation intentions thus refer to the
process of plan-making as actions need to be planned (Martijn et al., 2008). Specifically, implementation intentions
concern so called if-then plans that stipulate in advance when, where and how the desired behavior will be
performed (Gollwitzer, 1999; Fayolle & Liñán, 2014). Thus, in the context of new venture creation,
implementation intentions relate to creating concrete plans for engaging in entrepreneurial behavior. This means
that they may spur individuals to take entrepreneurial action to start a new venture as implementation intentions
aide individuals to deal with the challenges and uncertainties of new venture creation by specifying what, where
when and how individuals will perform behavior to reach an ultimate goal such as launching a new venture 3 (van
Gelderen et al., 2018). The formation of implementation intentions thus not only encompasses being specific about
the behavior one needs to perform including in which situations it will be initiated, but also the performance of the
behavior that needs to be undertaken has to be made conditional upon when encountering such situations (Martijn
et al., 2008). In other words, implementation intentions commit individuals to perform certain intended
entrepreneurial start-up behaviors once specified situations that can be full of uncertainty are encountered
(Gollwitzer, 1993). For example, when a nascent entrepreneur with a passion for founding has to obtain funding,
the implementation intention can be formulated as follows: “I will attend the upcoming network event X to
specifically approach VC’s Y and Z. As soon as they are alone, I will approach them, introduce myself and pitch
my new venture to try to obtain the required resources for it to start-up”. Taken together, implementation intentions
refer to specific action plans that foster the initiation of intended entrepreneurial behavior (van Gelderen et al.,
2018).

Concerning the emergence of implementation intentions, the majority of research on this has been
conducted in other domains than entrepreneurship (e.g. Adriaanse et al., 2011; Bélanger-Gravel et al., 2013;

3
. In this sense, implementation intentions fundamentally differ from entrepreneurial intentions which merely indicate what one
wishes to achieve (e.g. “I have very seriously thought of starting a firm”, or “I have the firm intention to start a firm someday”)
(Liñán & Chen, 2009).
McWilliams et al., 2019) and generally involves methodological approaches where implementation intentions are
induced through interventions (van Gelderen et al., 2018). An example of this applicable to entrepreneurship would
entail an entrepreneurship course in which participants are trained to develop a financial plan and are then explicitly
instructed to form implementation intentions. The behavioral actions that are undertaken by this group are then
compared to a control group. Accordingly, less research has been conducted on the spontaneous or natural
formation of implementation intentions (Brickell et al., 2006; Churchill & Jessop, 2010; Van Hooft et al., 2005).
Consequently, particularly in the field of entrepreneurship there is a paucity of knowledge on what drives
individuals’ implementation intentions next to goal intention strength which traditionally has been considered as
a key determinant (van Gelderen et al., 2018). However, Carraro and Gaudreau’s (2013) meta-analysis on health
behaviors is insightful and relevant to new venture creation behavior as it demonstrates that individuals who want
to pursue a goal, such as starting a new business, may spontaneously develop action plans4 to attain a desired
outcome as it helps them to shield their intended behavior against obstacles and distraction. This highlights that a
desired outcome such as launching a new venture can activate suitable means to pursue intended behavior,
especially when an individual is passionate about the target activity and thus has a particular motivational desire
about it (van Gelderen et al., 2018). What this means is that we believe that passion for founding can drive the
natural formation of implementation intentions. This is because individuals who are passionate about founding a
new venture experience a motivational desire to start a business and can become narrowly focused on this (Zollo
et al., 2020). In this process they experience intense positive feelings associated with their entrepreneurial identity
of being a nascent founder (Cardon et al., 2013). As such, to sustain these feelings, we expect that individuals with
a passion for founding will develop implementation intentions to attain their own new venture as these action plans
on when, where and how to act on the intended entrepreneurial behavior can reduce the uncertainty and obstacles
associated with the many challenging activities of new venture creation.

This in turn can have important implications for entrepreneurial start-up behavior. However, while in
other social sciences there is a rich evidence base concerning the stimulating effects of implementation intentions
on behavioral actions (Orbell & Sheeran, 2000; Brandstätter et al., 2003, Malaguti et al., 2020), empirical evidence
on how implementation intentions can be critical for nascent entrepreneurs to take entrepreneurial action by
engaging in gestation activities remains scarce (van Gelderen et al., 2018). Yet, these insights from other domains
can be relevant to the context of new venture creation. In this regard, Van Hooft et al. (2005) demonstrate that
implementation intentions robustly predict highly complex and multifaceted behaviors such as job seeking. On the
other hand, meta-analytical insights from Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) show that, because of the deliberate
planning of when, where and how to undertake actions, implementation intentions facilitate to overcome obstacles
that are relevant to the context of new venture creation such as losing sight of desired outcomes, not acting on
opportunities and failing to disengage from a course of action when superior alternatives are at hand. Taken
together, as the list of gestation activities that need to be undertaken to start a new business is long, complex and
uncertain, based on the above, we may therefore expect that implementation intentions positively influence new
venture creation behavior. Therefore, based on the above reasoning, we hypothesize the following:

4
. The terms implementation intentions and action plans are used interchangeably by many scholars.
H2: The relationship between entrepreneurial passion for founding and entrepreneurial start-up behavior is
positively mediated by implementation intentions.

2.4. The moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy emanates from the broader construct of self-efficacy which stands central in different
disciplines of management studies or even labor economics among others (Bandura, 2012). It has been widely
suggested that entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which refers to an individual’s belief that he or she possesses the
necessary knowledge and skills – and thus feels capable – to execute tasks related to entrepreneurial outcomes
successfully, can function as a crucial factor that enables individuals to pursue entrepreneurial careers and to
engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior (Chen et al., 1998; Newman et al., 2019). It is important to note that,
whereas some scholars have explored general self-efficacy (i.e. global beliefs about one’s skills to perform tasks
in the future of any kind), the scholarly consensus holds that self-efficacy needs to be domain-specific (McGee et
al., 2009). This means that, in order to be effective, it needs to be targeted towards particular behaviors or outcomes
such as engaging in intended entrepreneurial start-up behavior. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy therefore has been
considered as a useful construct to explore new venture creation as research has demonstrated that individuals with
high levels of self-efficacy have a higher likelihood to pursue intended behavior and to persist in the related tasks
because next to fostering entrepreneurial motivation it may stimulate individuals to overcome the uncertainty of
entrepreneurship (Drnovšek et al., 2010; Miao et al., 2017).

In this regard, a number of studies increasingly conceptualize entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a moderator

(Newman et al., 2019; Ahlin et al., 2014; Prabhu et al., 2012). Such works have suggested that entrepreneurial
self-efficacy can be a crucial contextual factor in the new venture creation process as it may influence among
others how individuals plan their actions (Newman et al., 2019). As such, we expect that entrepreneurial self-
efficacy may interact with entrepreneurial passion and, accordingly, may stimulate the way individuals with a
passion for founding form implementation intentions. This is because individuals with a passion for founding a
business face a multitude of challenges to mobilize the required resources to create a new venture which may
inhibit individuals to plan actions to engage in their intended gestation activities (Cardon et al., 2013). Thus, when
one’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy is higher, individuals who are passionate about founding will feel more
confident and knowledgeable to plan when, where and how they need to assemble the necessary resources to start-
up since they believe they have the knowledge and skills to perform entrepreneurial tasks successfully. Hence,
individuals with a passion for founding may be more likely to be emboldened by the context of their increased
sense of capabilities to form plans to act on their intended start-up behavior (Cardon et al., 2009). Therefore, we
hypothesize the following:

H3: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy moderates the effect of entrepreneurial passion for founding on implementation
intentions, such that the positive relationship is stronger when individuals’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy is higher.

2.5. The moderating role of risk-taking propensity

Risk and uncertainty are root constructs that play a role in all economic decisions (Block et al., 2015). This explains
the long interdisciplinary scholarly interest in studying individuals’ attitudes towards risk as they predict economic
behaviors (Dohmen et al., 2011). Consequently, individuals’ risk-taking propensity has traditionally been linked
to entrepreneurship since new venture creation is a complex process which involves, next to a desire to start a
business, individuals’ evaluation of risks associated with the uncertainty of founding a firm (Caliendo et al., 2014).
This aligns with what Knight (1921) has highlighted in his seminal work that entrepreneurs, unlike employees,
need to make business decisions under uncertainty, thereby risking losing considerable resources. This Knightian
notion of entrepreneurs as risk-takers thus underscores that one’s willingness to take risks has been suggested to
be a crucial factor in the entrepreneurial process (Ahn, 2010; Brown et al., 2011; Verheul et al., 2015). Indeed, the
canonical argument in entrepreneurship holds that individuals generally are risk averse and that the uncertain
context of starting a new venture inhibits individuals’ likelihood to engage in entrepreneurship (Arenius & Minniti,
2005; Skriabikova et al., 2014).

Although some existing insights have somewhat challenged this (e.g. Barsky et al., 1997; Brockhaus,
1980, Cramer et al., 2002), researchers have particularly suggested that the conditional effect of risk-taking
propensity can exert a powerful influence on a wide variety of key factors in entrepreneurship that are related to
effectively taking entrepreneurial action (Caliendo et al., 2009; Nieß & Biemann, 2014; Zhao et al., 2010).
However, with regard to the entrepreneurial passion-behavior association, insights about the dynamics of
individuals’ risk-taking propensity in this relationship are highly scarce as passion and risk primarily have been
linked to entrepreneurial orientation of which risk-taking is a specific component (Kang et al., 2016; Santos et al.,
2020; Zollo et al. 2020). Based on the above reasoning, we therefore expect that when individuals have a higher
risk-taking propensity, this willingness to take risks will be most salient and crucial to convert implementation
intentions of individuals with a passion for founding into actual engagement in entrepreneurial behavior. In other
words, when individuals have a propensity to take risks, it may be suggested that this will particularly influence to
what extent action plans, which stipulate when, where and how to engage in entrepreneurial behavior, will
effectively lead to these envisioned gestation activities. This is because, effectively performing a variety of needed
gestation activities such as assembling and acquiring an abundance of financial and non-financial resources is rife
with uncertainty which typically prevents actual entrepreneurial action (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006). Indeed,
uncertainty impedes individuals with a passion for founding who have developed implementation intentions to
effectively engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior as uncertainty contributes to doubt, which not only produces
an acute hesitance to act, but also increases procrastination which can ultimately lead to abandoning challenging
start-up activities (Roundy et al., 2018). Thus, when passionate individuals who have developed implementation
intentions have a higher propensity to take risks, they will be more willing to effectively engage in entrepreneurial
start-up behavior as it helps them to bear and overcome the uncertainty associated with new venture creation. As
such, this condition of a greater propensity to take more risks may stimulate individuals with a passion for founding
to effectively convert their implementation intentions into actual start-up behavior as they will be more willing to
bear uncertainty than their more risk-averse counterparts who can, as a result of this, be impeded to engage in such
challenging start-up behavior. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

H4: Risk-taking propensity moderates the effect of implementation intentions on entrepreneurial start-
up behavior, such that the positive relationship is stronger when individuals’ risk-taking propensity is higher.

Figure 1 illustrates the research model.

Fig 1. Full research model to explore the passion-behavior relationship

3. Methods
3.1. Sample

We collected data from Belgian nascent entrepreneurs, defined as individuals actively involved in trying to start a
new business, and whose endeavors cannot have already led to the creation of the envisioned firm (Reynolds,
2009). Detecting and studying these individuals from the general population holds vast challenges for
entrepreneurship scholars. For this reason, we cooperated with a reputable Belgian news media outlet. Concretely,
we invited the Belgian working age population 5 through a respected newspaper and its associated social media
channels to voluntarily participate in a general study about entrepreneurship, powered by Qualtrics, which was
deliberately framed so to avoid disclosure of the main objective of probing individuals’ start-up behavior. We used
the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) filters as this methodology allows us to identify nascent entrepreneurs
in accordance with the dominant definition which we follow, and to filter out respondents who are not eligible for
the purpose of studying entrepreneurial start-up behavior such as existing entrepreneurs (Reynolds, 2009). After
eliminating incomplete data, drop-outs, participants that did not meet attention checks, our sample criteria
produced a final data set of 493 nascent entrepreneurs to study (Kung et al., 2018). Exploiting such a sample of
individuals who are involved in starting a new venture allows us to answer the calls to move away from the well-
documented methodological limitations of employing already existing (young) founders or student samples which
are still predominantly used to explore entrepreneurial start-up behavior (Bogatyreva et al., 2019; Lortie &
Castogiovanni, 2015; Shirokova et al., 2016).

3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Entrepreneurial passion for founding

We follow the recommendations of Cardon et al. (2013) to measure entrepreneurial passion. Thus, congruent with
previous works (e.g. Collewaert et al., 2016), and in accordance with the focus and conceptualization of passion
in this study, we only operationalize the founding dimension of entrepreneurial passion and do not lump all the
items of the Cardon et al. (2013) measurement instrument together into an overall passion construct (Newman et
al., 2021). The rationale for this is that the scope of this study is on predicting entrepreneurial start-up behavior
and, whereas passion for inventing plays a role in developing entrepreneurial intentions, the founding domain of
entrepreneurial passion captures the process of effectively creating a new venture (Newman et al., 2021).

5
. We primarily focused on respondents from the Flemish and not the Walloon region as the survey was disseminated in Dutch.
Respondents were asked to express their degree of agreement with the following four items on a seven-point Likert
scale: “(1) Establishing a new company excites me; (2) Owing my own company energizes me; (3) Nurturing a
new business through its emerging success is enjoyable; (4) Being the founder of a business is an important part
of who I am”. The fourth item gauges the identity centrality dimension, while the intense positive feelings
dimension of passion for founding consists of the remaining three items. Concretely, to arrive at a final score for
passion for founding, we follow one of the dominant approaches suggested by Cardon et al. (2013) and multiply
the intense positive feelings dimension of passion for founding with the identity centrality item related to the
founding domain of passion (see Newman et al., (2021) for the debate on measuring EP). Cronbach’s alpha for the
three intense positive feelings items of passion for founding (α=0.888) shows high internal consistency.

3.2.2. Implementation intentions

We measure implementation intentions in the context of new venture creation by adopting the scale used by van
Gelderen et al. (2018) and anchor it on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven
(strongly agree). The items comprise: “(1) I have already planned precisely what I will do as my next step to start
a business and how to engage in it; (2) I have already planned precisely when to engage in my next step to starting
a business; (3) I have already planned precisely where to engage in my next step to starting a business”. Cronbach’s
alpha (α=0.892) demonstrates high reliability.

3.2.3. Entrepreneurial start-up behavior

A common definition of entrepreneurial behavior is missing in the literature. Yet, scholarly consensus holds that
the emergence of a new venture is a process that is made up of various start-up activities (Gieure et al., 2020).
While researchers still use single-item measures to probe entrepreneurial start-up behavior (e.g. Bogatyreva et al.,
2019), we follow the approach of scholars such as Kautonen et al. (2015), Neneh (2019), Shirokova et al. (2016),
or Stappers and Andries (2022) by using a list of nine gestation activities adapted from the GEM and PSED (Panel
Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics). The nine items represent milestones in new venture creation and measure
whether respondents had (coded one if yes, zero otherwise): “Discussed a concrete product/service with potential
customers”, “Collected information about markets and competitors”, “Developed a product or service”,
“Developed a written business plan”, “Developed a financial plan”, “Started marketing or promotion efforts”,
“Formally attempted to obtain external funding”, “Acquired/purchased material, equipment, infrastructure or
machinery for the business”, “Started the administrative requirements to register the company”. These discrete
responses were then utilized to create a summated index ranging from zero to nine to operationalize entrepreneurial
start-up behavior (Kautonen et al., 2015). A maximum value indicates that individuals have completed all nine
start-up activities and zero indicates that individuals did not engage in any of the start-up activities. This is
congruent with the notion that the more start-up activities an individual engages in, the closer one is towards
effectively creating a new venture (Koumbarakis & Volery, 2022). Lastly, since these items reflect independent
gestation activities that together constitute entrepreneurial start-up behavior, calculating Cronbach’s alpha as an
inter-item reliability test is not relevant here (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006).

3.2.4. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy

We follow the approach of scholars such as Boudreaux et al. (2019), Shahriar and Shepherd (2019), Wennberg et
al. (2013) and Yang et al. (2020) and employ a dichotomous variable from the GEM (Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor) to measure entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which is coded one if respondents report that they have the
knowledge and skills required to start a new business. We are aware that different measures of entrepreneurial
self-efficacy exist. Scholars have used either long multiple-item scales (e.g. Chen et al., (1998); McGee et al.,
(2009); Zhao et al., (2005)) or binary instruments to operationalize entrepreneurial self-efficacy. We opted for the
latter out of practical considerations as lengthy survey instruments can fatigue respondents, can increase dropout
rates and sampling bias. Since nascent entrepreneurs are hard to reach, we had to made a trade-off between the
number of items in the survey and the reach of it into our desired population. Therefore, we subscribe to this
tradition of probing entrepreneurial self-efficacy dichotomously as this has proven to be a robust approach that
does not compromise measurement quality and because it has been methodologically well-accepted in the
entrepreneurship literature (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007; Newman et al., 2019).

3.2.5. Risk-taking propensity

The risk literature presently debates on the nature of risk-taking and its encompassing measurement instruments,
but generally measures for probing individuals’ risk-taking propensity (i.e. one’s willingness to take risks) can be
largely categorized into lab-based tasks and self-report measures (Zhang et al., 2019). A classic example of the
former concerns so called conventional hypothetical lottery scenarios in which individuals are asked to indicate
how much money that was won from a lottery they would place in a risky asset (Caliendo et al., 2009). Self-report
questionnaires on the other hand can be broadly divided into domain specific risk-taking measures such as the
DOSPERT or general risk-taking instruments (Blais & Weber, 2006; De Groot & Thurik, 2018). We follow the
latter approach and adopt a widely accepted experimentally validated single-item instrument in entrepreneurship
studies that has been employed by scholars such as Brachert et al. (2020), Caliendo et al. (2009), Dohmen et al.
(2011) and Verheul et al. (2015). This measurement which among others stands central in the well-respected
German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) requires individuals to indicate their agreement with the following
statement: “How do you see yourself: Are you generally a person who is fully prepared to take risks or do you try
to avoid taking risks?”. We registered respondents’ answers to this question also on a seven-point Likert scale with
one and seven reflecting very low and high levels of risk-taking propensity.

3.2.6. Control variables

We include four control variables that are suggested to affect entrepreneurial start-up behavior. First, we add
sociodemographic variables such as gender (coded 1 if male), age (continuous), and educational attainment
(1=none, 2=primary education, 3=secondary education, 4=professional bachelor’s degree, 5=academic
bachelor’s/master’s degree, 6=advanced master’s degree/PhD). Next, to account for whether individuals are driven
by necessity to start a new business, the variable “Necessity” measures on a seven-point Likert scale to what extent
individuals expect that their financial situation will deteriorate (coded one if it will strongly deteriorate), will
improve (coded seven if will strongly improve) or will remain unchanged (coded 4) in the next twelve months.
We do this as the evidence base has shown that declines in individuals’ personal resources, particularly during
crises, can lead to a growth in necessity entrepreneurship (Simón-Moya et al., 2016; Wennekers et al., 2005).

3.2.7. Common method variance

We used several ex ante procedural remedies in this study’s research design to reduce common method variance
concerns (CMV) because our predictor and criterion variables stem from a single source (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
In short, next to separating this study’s measures in the survey, prior to launching, we conducted a pilot test in
which several actual nascent entrepreneurs filled out the survey. This ensured unambiguous understanding of all
measurement items and confirmed that the purpose and constructs of this study were well camouflaged. Next to
this, since our research model can be considered to be complex, this suggests that our hypothesized relationships
are unlikely to be part of respondents’ cognitive systems. However, to assess and alleviate concerns about common
method bias, we performed several ex post common method variance tests. We first conducted a Harman one-
factor test which shows that a single factor accounts for 34,59 percent of the total variance, which is under the
recommended threshold value of fifty percent. Next, we ran an unmeasured latent method factor model in AMOS
28. The results reveal a common factor value of 0.17 which represents a common method variance of 2.89%
(0.17)2. These post hoc estimates thus indicate that common method bias does not threaten this study’s findings.

3.2.8. Confirmatory factor analyses

We conducted several confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to test the construct validity of the variables (passion
for founding, implementation intentions and risk-taking propensity) of our proposed research model. First, we
perform a CFA for the baseline three-factor model. The model fit indices reveal that the baseline three-factor
model fits the data well with χ2 = 1.443, p = 0.111; CFI = 0.987; RMSEA = 0.030; RMR = 0.050; TLI = 0.985
and GFI = 0.979. Then, we compared our baseline model with a two-factor and one-factor model. The two-factor
model (passion for founding and implementation intentions combined) shows the following goodness-of-fit values:
χ2 = 16.978, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.823; RMSEA = 0.180; RMR = 0.242; TLI = 0.753 and GFI = 0.808. The fit values
for the one-factor model are: χ2 = 34.331, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.739; RMSEA = 0.260; RMR = 0.530; TLI = 0.634
and GFI = 0.714. Taken together, the three-factor model fits the data better than the alternate models. This provides
evidence of construct distinctiveness for entrepreneurial passion for founding, implementation intentions and risk-
taking propensity, and confirms the discriminant validity of the constructs.

4. Results

Before testing the hypotheses through regression models, descriptive statistics and pairwise correlations are
summarized in Table 1. Bivariate analysis indicates that there exist significant (univariate) relationships between
our hypothesized focal constructs. Multicollinearity does not pose a problem in this study as all correlations are
below 0.8 and the variation inflation factors (VIF) off all variables (highest VIF value = 1.75) are well below the
recommended cut-off of 10.

*** insert Table 1 about here *** (descriptives + corrs)

For robustness, we perform the regression analyses in a three-step procedure. We first estimate a direct
effect model (R2=0.256, p<0.001) in which we add four controls variables to examine hypothesis one before we
can test the moderated mediation model. Table 2 gives support to hypothesis one by showing that passion for
founding is positively related to entrepreneurial start-up behavior.

*** Insert Table 2 about here *** (direct effect model EPF->EB)

Next, we operationalize a mediation model to analyze hypothesis two, which is then followed by
estimating our full moderated mediation to test hypotheses three and four. This procedure is required as the focus
of this study is on how and when entrepreneurial passion for founding has an effect on entrepreneurial start-up
behavior. For these final sequential steps, we employ Hayes’ PROCESS codes and use Huber-White robust
standard errors with 10,000 bias-corrected bootstrap samples (Hayes et al., 2017; Hayes & Rockwood, 2020).
Table 3 shows the findings of the mediation effect analysis (R2=0.464, p<0.001) to examine hypothesis two which
theorizes that implementation intentions mediate the passion for founding and entrepreneurial start-up behavior
relationship. The results reveal that individuals’ passion for founding (β=0.070, p<0.001) is significantly
associated with developing variations in implementation intentions which function as an underlying mechanism
that stimulates individuals to engage in gestation activities. Concretely, the presence of the indirect effect of
implementation intentions is confirmed as the bootstrapped ninety-five per cent confidence interval of the
mediation analysis does not contain zero (β=0.050, LLCI=0.038, ULCI=0.062). The results thus highlight that
implementation intentions are an important indirect explanatory factor which significantly contributes to
entrepreneurial start-up behavior. Indeed, while our direct effect model (R2=0.256, p<0.001) affirms existence of
an entrepreneurial passion-behavior association, our mediation analysis (R2=0.464, p<0.001) explains more
variation in start-up behavior and highlights that implementation intentions play a significant role to engage in
entrepreneurial start-up activities. The results thus demonstrate the importance of this underlying mechanism as it
significantly explains how individuals with a passion for founding engage in start-up behavior. Next to this, the
finding that implementation intentions partially mediate the passion-behavior relationship is congruent with recent
debates on mediation analyses which argue that mediating effects are bound to be partial. This is because a full
mediation would imply that the entire process by which entrepreneurial passion leads to entrepreneurial start-up
behavior would be fully explained and understood (Tolstoy et al., 2021). This not only would deny the complexity
of entrepreneurship, but foremost this would imply that all indirect influences that would affect the passion-
behavior relationship would have been identified and that no further inquiry is needed to explore other facilitating
or impeding mechanisms.

*** Insert Table 3 about here *** (mediation model)

Following this, we now add the moderating variables entrepreneurial self-efficacy and risk-taking
propensity to gauge the complete hypothesized conditional effect model. Table 4 presents the regression results of
the full moderated mediation to test hypotheses three and four. First, the findings reveal that that interaction effect
of entrepreneurial self-efficacy is significant (β=0.031, LLCI=0.003, ULCI=0.059), meaning that the effect of
passion for founding on implementation intentions is indeed contingent on one’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This
corroborates the moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy which supports hypothesis three. As such, this
means that entrepreneurial passion for founding leads to implementation intentions significantly more when
individuals believe that they possess the knowledge and skills required to start a new business. Then, with regard
to the moderating role of risk-taking propensity, also here we find evidence for the contingent effect of risk-taking
propensity (β=0.090, LLCI=0.018, ULCI=0.163) which confirms hypothesis four. What this means is that
implementation intentions lead to entrepreneurial behavior significantly more when individuals have a higher
willingness to take risk. Taken together, these factors are important to explain and predict when individuals with
a passion for founding engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior through implementation intentions as our results
reveal that our hypothesized mediation model is contingent on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and risk-taking
propensity. Thus, on the one hand, when individuals with a passion for founding believe that they possess the
knowledge and skills to start a new business, they will significantly develop more implementation intentions to
engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior. On the other hand, the results show that when individuals have a
higher willingness to take risk, these implementation intentions will lead to significantly more entrepreneurial
start-up behavior.

*** Insert Table 4 about here *** (moderated mediation)

4.1. Sensitivity analysis

Our results thus correspond with the dominant theoretical assumption that entrepreneurial passion can drive
behavioral outcomes (Newman et al., 2021). Concretely, our findings are in line with the identity-based rationale
of EP which emphasizes its motivational function to engage in entrepreneurial start-up activities, and that
entrepreneurial passion manifests itself through making entrepreneurial efforts (Cardon et al., 2013). In this study,
we have particularly revealed the importance of the mediating role of implementation intentions. However, we are
aware that there exists a stream which hypothesizes the reverse effect, meaning that making entrepreneurial efforts
or performing entrepreneurial behaviors may lead to entrepreneurial passion (Gielnik et al., 2015). Therefore, to
ensure the robustness of our results, we perform a sensitivity analysis to alleviate reverse causality concerns. First,
since sequential ignorability (no omitted variable bias, exogeneity or unconfoundedness) is an essential assumption
in causal mediation analysis, we therefore executed a sensitivity analysis by using the medsens routine and
moremata module in STATA (Hicks & Tingley, 2011). This allows us to examine how sensitive our results are to
a potential violation of this assumption. The results of this sensitivity analysis reveal that our mediation results are
robust to confounding (Imai et al., 2011). Indeed, the point estimate of the average causal mediation effect (ACME)
is ensured as long as an unobserved confounder explains less than 23.42% of the remaining variance in the
mediator as well as in the dependent variable. Thus, this implies that the omitted confounding variable needs to
explain 23.42% of the remaining variance in the mediator and at the same time 23.42% of the remaining variance
in the dependent variable. As such, only under these conditions the ACME will become insignificant. Concerning
this level of sensitivity, these results are in line with findings of recent existing empirical studies (Bammens &
Hünermund, 2020; Bloemen-Bekx et al., 2019). Taken together, this analysis affirms the robustness of our findings
against the existence of an unobserved confounder (omitted variable and endogeneity/reversed causality).

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study explores the relationship between entrepreneurial passion for founding and entrepreneurial start-up
behavior by drawing on the tenets of Cardon et al’s. (2013) identity-based conceptualization of EP. We have aimed
to do so to contribute to the current lack of knowledge and theorization on why some nascent entrepreneurs engage
in start-up activities while others do not or even completely abandon their start-up endeavors (IVANOVA &
TORNIKOSKI, 2022; Müller et al., 2022; Shepherd, 2015; Shepherd et al., 2021). Indeed, there still is a paucity
of understanding of the factors that can effectively stimulate actual engagement in new venture creation behavior
(Gieure et al., 2020). Traditionally, works rooted in the entrepreneurial intentions literature have sought to examine
and advance this debate (Bogatyreva et al., 2019; Shirokova et al., 2016). But it has become more clear that this
lens explains less than one third of the variance in entrepreneurial start-up behavior (Meoli et al., 2020). In this
light, researchers increasingly consider EP as a fundamental explanatory factors to advance this key discussion on
why some nascent entrepreneurs undertake start-up activities while others, even those who are passionate for
founding a new venture, do not. Yet, insights on this, together with knowledge on the dynamics underlying this
entrepreneurial passion-behavior association, have remained highly limited to date (Newman et al., 2021).
Therefore, this work studies how and when entrepreneurial passion for founding effectively leads to
entrepreneurial start-up behavior. To this end, by exploiting a dataset of 493 nascent entrepreneurs, this study
provides robust empirical evidence for the mediating role of implementation intentions (i.e. action planning) and
the contingent effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and risk-taking propensity that are at play in the passion-
behavior relationship.

Taken together, the overarching results of this work empirically corroborate and validate the importance
of entrepreneurial passion for explaining new venture creation behavior. For the entrepreneurship literature, this
validation is important since the scarce evidence on this relationship had some limitations (i.e. student samples,
specific geographical contexts) which empirically challenged the predictive power of EP on new venture creation
behavior. However, what is new, is that this study makes two novel contributions to the passion and new venture
creation literature by providing new insights to the vivid debate on why some nascent entrepreneurs effectively
undertake gestation activities while others – even those who are passionate for founding – do not. In doing so, we
shed new light on how and when new venture creation behavior can be facilitated. As such, our first contribution
is that our results provide a new explanation on how entrepreneurial passion can lead to new venture creation
(Newman et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2021). Concretely, this work robustly demonstrates that implementation
intentions function as an essential indirect mechanism in the entrepreneurial passion-behavior relationship. This
novel insight aligns with the central argument in the Cardon et al. (2013) identity-based framework of
entrepreneurial passion which we have adopted that states that passion for founding can influence how nascent
entrepreneurs allocate their attention and effort toward different complex and challenging founding activities
(Adomako & Ahsan, 2022). Moreover, this corresponds with entrepreneurial passion’s cardinal conceptualization
as a motivational construct that can stimulate early-stage entrepreneurs to overcome the uncertainty of new venture
creation in order to engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior (Cardon et al., 2009). As the underlying processes
related to this passion-behavior association have remained highly underexplored, and since there is little
knowledge on the antecedent discussion regarding implementation intentions in entrepreneurship, we provide new
empirical evidence that passion for founding can drive the natural formation of implementation intentions (van
Gelderen et al., 2018). This is because individuals with a passion for founding will experience intense positive
feelings associated with their entrepreneurial identity of being a nascent founder. In order to sustain these feelings
and to attain their own new venture, our results demonstrate that individuals who are passionate about founding a
new venture will devise action plans (i.e. implementation intentions) that specify where, when and how to engage
in gestation activities as this reduces the uncertainty and challenges to reach the ultimate goal of launching a new
venture. Indeed, this is congruent with what van Gelderen et al. (2018) argue that if nascent entrepreneurs do not
thoroughly prepare for undertaking complex gestation actions through implementation intentions, they will less
likely succeed in creation a new venture.

Second, this study provides a new understanding on when individuals with a passion for founding
effectively engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior as our results have evidenced that nascent entrepreneurs’
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and risk-taking propensity function as critical contingent factors in the passion-
behavior relationship. Concretely, our moderated mediation model reveals that the effect of passion for founding
on implementation intentions is contingent on nascent entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy. What this
means is that when individuals with a passion for founding believe that they have the necessary knowledge and
skills to start a new business, such nascent entrepreneurs will significantly plan their actions more concretely in
terms of when, where and how they will act on their intended start-up behavior. While scholars have demonstrated
that the link between passion and entrepreneurial self-efficacy is rather complex, our results provide new evidence
that entrepreneurial self-efficacy functions as an important contingency that influences when nascent entrepreneurs
with a passion for founding form action plans to effectively engage in intended new venture creation behavior
(Lex et al., 2022; Newman et al., 2019). Next to this, while risk is a fundamental concept in entrepreneurship,
knowledge about the dynamics of individuals’ risk-taking propensity in passion research are surprisingly scarce
(Kang et al., 2016; Santos et al., 2020; Zollo et al. 2020). Our results reveal that the context of a higher risk-taking
propensity is a vital factor to convert implementation intentions of nascent entrepreneurs with a passion for
founding into actual engagement in entrepreneurial start-up behavior. Thus, when nascent entrepreneurs have a
higher propensity to take risks, this will significantly increase the conversion of action plans, which stipulate when,
where and how to engage in entrepreneurial behavior, into effectively performing these envisioned gestation
activities. This is because when passionate individuals who have developed implementation intentions have a
higher propensity to take risks, they will be more willing to effectively engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior
because this condition stimulates them to bear and overcome the uncertainty associated with actually performing
gestation activities. Indeed, the uncertainty of engaging into start-up behavior otherwise typically impedes
individuals, even those with a passion for founding, to actually engage in such challenging gestation activities
(McMullen & Shepherd, 2006). This evidence is important as the more individuals effectively engage in gestation
activities, the more likely it is that a new venture will be created (Kautonen et al., 2015). As such, this resonates
with insights from risk scholars who have suggested that the condition of a greater willingness to take risk is
associated with a higher probability to start a new venture (Caliendo et al., 2009; Dohmen et al., 2011; Verheul et
al., 2015).

5.1. Practical implications

Based on our results, policy makers can facilitate entrepreneurial start-up behavior by focusing on the important
contingent factors that are at play in the passion-behavior association. Concretely, concerning risk-taking
propensity, this study’s findings substantiate the need to further focus on taking policy measures that stimulate
conducive institutional conditions as individuals’ willingness to take entrepreneurial risks is influenced by a
country’s institutional environment (Urbano et al., 2019). Since new venture creation is characterized by taking
risky decisions under uncertainty, next to enabling informal institutions, especially high-quality regulatory
environments reduce uncertainty and lower the transaction and opportunity costs of creating a new business
(Boudreaux et al., 2019). Indeed, countries such as Belgium for example have been repeatedly criticized by the
OECD, the GEM or the World Bank for being below-average performers with regard to their institutional
environment for entrepreneurship. Thus, for this fundamental undertaking, policy measures should keep centering
on easing regulatory burdens and accelerating designing more business-friendly regulations. Particularly, by
implementing more conducive labor, tax, international trade or start-up regulations, strengthening property and
contract rights or by reducing the burdens to obtain the necessary licenses and permits to do business, nascent
entrepreneurs will be more willing to take entrepreneurial risks as this lowers the opportunity costs of new venture
creation. In countries such as Belgium, such measures will stimulate individuals with a passion for founding who
have developed implementation intentions, to convert these action plans significantly more into actual
entrepreneurial start-up behavior. Zooming in on the specificities of the design of such enabling entrepreneurship
measures would be out of this paper’s scope. But as the effectiveness of entrepreneurship policy increasingly has
been questioned, we suggest that policy makers follow the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach and particularly
conduct rigorous ex-ante policy evaluations by experimentally testing new regulations before effectively
implementing them (Wurth et al., 2021).

Finally, this study’s results highlight the importance of the moderating role of entrepreneurial self-
efficacy. In the antecedent discussion of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, particularly entrepreneurship education and
training take a central place (Newman et al., 2019). So, this paper’s results are important for the organizational
architecture of universities that emphasize entrepreneurship education (Cunningham et al., 2022). This is because
our findings stress the importance of entrepreneurship courses for new venture creation as we have demonstrated
that the context of feeling knowledgeable and capable to start a business significantly affects when individuals
with a passion for founding effectively engage in entrepreneurial start-up behavior trough implementation
intentions. This affirms the need to further design high-impact entrepreneurship courses and programs in
accordance with the latest insights from the entrepreneurship education literature (Morland et al., 2021; Nabi et
al., 2017).

5.2. Limitations and future research

Like any other study, this work has some limitations that provide future research avenues. We are confident that
the widely used risk-taking propensity and entrepreneurial self-efficacy measures in this study are robust
approaches as scholars have shown. They may thus be expected to yield the same effects as other more extensive
competing scales. However, future studies can further disentangle the role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy with
regard to entrepreneurial start-up behavior by using multi-dimensional scales as they could further shed light on
which specific aspects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy contribute to the passion-behavior relationship. This could
provide interesting additional insights concerning stimulating new venture creation or how entrepreneurship
education could target such particular aspects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. In the same vein, future works could
further study the contingent effect of risk-taking propensity by using more comprehensive measurement
instruments that may give new important insights into the dynamics of nascent entrepreneurs’ willingness to take
risks. Next to this, our summated index to probe engagement into entrepreneurial start-up behavior does not
consider the quality of such entrepreneurial behavior. An interesting avenue for future scholars therefore may be
to study whether entrepreneurial passion for founding may lead to better entrepreneurial behavior through
implementation intentions (i.e. developing a more qualitative product/service, or business plan for example).

Lastly, although our sensitivity analysis has shown that our results are robust to reversed causality, we are
aware that scholars are calling to employ longitudinal designs to study entrepreneurial start-up behavior (Kautonen
et al., 2015). As such, we stimulate future studies to embark on this notoriously challenging endeavor to
longitudinally explore the passion-behavior relationship as this may reveal other underlying mechanisms or
contingent factors that are important to stimulate new venture creation. However, as our CMV, CFA and sensitivity
analyses have shown, we are confident that this study’s cross-sectional design, based on actual nascent
entrepreneurs instead of a student sample, does not threaten this work’s results. Indeed, our design aligns with a
variety of seminal recent studies on entrepreneurial behavior which still generally all are cross-sectional in nature,
and which mostly even use student samples (Bogatyreva et al., 2019; Shirokova et al., 2016; Stappers & Andries,
2022).
6. References

Adam, A., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Can implementation intention help to bridge the intention–behaviour gap in the entrepreneurial
process? An experimental approach. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 17(2), 80-88.
Adomako, S., & Ahsan, M. (2022). Entrepreneurial passion and SMEs’ performance: Moderating effects of financial resource
availability and resource flexibility. Journal of business research, 144, 122-135.
Adomako, S., Mole, K., Franklin, R., & Murnieks, C. (2022). Entrepreneurial passion and venture profit: Examining the
moderating effects of political connections and environmental dynamism in an emerging market. International Small
Business Journal, 02662426221085182.
Adriaanse, M., Vinkers, C., De Ridder, D., Hox, J., & De Wit, J. (2011). Do implementation intentions help to eat a healthy
diet? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Appetite, 56(1), 183-193.
Ahlin, B., Drnovšek, M., & Hisrich, R. (2014). Entrepreneurs’ creativity and firm innovation: the moderating role of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 101-117.
Ahn, T. (2010). Attitudes toward risk and self-employment of young workers. Labour economics, 17(2), 434-442.
Ajzen, I., Czasch, C., & Flood, M. (2009). From intentions to behavior: Implementation intention, commitment, and
conscientiousness 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(6), 1356-1372.
Arenius, P., Engel, Y., & Klyver, K. (2017). No particular action needed? A necessary condition analysis of gestation activities
and firm emergence. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8, 87-92.
Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual Variables and Nascent Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 233-
247.
Bammens, Y., & Hünermund, P. (2020). Nonfinancial considerations in eco‐innovation decisions: The role of family ownership
and reputation concerns. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(5), 431-453.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44.
Barsky, R., Juster, F., Kimball, M., & Shapiro, M. (1997). Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: An
experimental approach in the health and retirement study. the quarterly journal of economics, 112(2), 537-579.
Bélanger-Gravel, A., Godin, G., & Amireault, S. (2013). A meta-analytic review of the effect of implementation intentions on
physical activity. Health psychology review, 7(1), 23-54.
Bennett, V. M., & Chatterji, A. K. (2019). The entrepreneurial process: Evidence from a nationally representative survey.
Strategic management journal.
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs.
Journal of marketing research, 44(2), 175-184.
Biraglia, A., & Kadile, V. (2017). The role of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions:
Insights from American homebrewers. Journal of small business management, 55(1), 170-188.
Blais, A., & Weber, E. (2006). A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision
making, 1(1).
Block, J., Sandner, P., & Spiegel, F. (2015). How do risk attitudes differ within the group of entrepreneurs? The role of
motivation and procedural utility. Journal of small business management, 53(1), 183-206.
Bloemen-Bekx, M., Voordeckers, W., Remery, C., & Schippers, J. (2019). Following in parental footsteps? The influence of
gender and learning experiences on entrepreneurial intentions. International Small Business Journal, 37(6), 642-663.
Bogatyreva, K., Edelman, L., Manolova, T., Osiyevskyy, O., & Shirokova, G. (2019). When do entrepreneurial intentions lead
to actions? The role of national culture. Journal of business research, 96, 309-321.
Boudreaux, C., Nikolaev, B., & Klein, P. (2019). Socio-Cognitive Traits and Entrepreneurship: The Moderating Role of
Economic Institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(1), 178-196.
Brachert, M., Hyll, W., & Sadrieh, A. (2020). Entry into self-employment and individuals’ risk-taking propensities. Small
Business Economics, 55(4), 1057-1074.
Brandstätter, V., Heimbeck, D., Malzacher, J., & Frese, M. (2003). Goals need implementation intentions: The model of action
phases tested in the applied setting of continuing education. European Journal of work and organizational
psychology, 12(1), 37-59.
Brickell, T., Chatzisarantis, N., & Pretty, G. (2006). Using past behaviour and spontaneous implementation intentions to
enhance the utility of the theory of planned behaviour in predicting exercise. British Journal of Health Psychology,
11(2), 249-262.
Brockhaus, R. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520.
Brown, S., Dietrich, M., Ortiz-Nuñez, A., & Taylor, K. (2011). Self-employment and attitudes towards risk: Timing and
unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(3), 425-433.
Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. (2009). Risk attitudes of nascent entrepreneurs–new evidence from an experimentally
validated survey. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 153-167.
Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. (2014). Personality characteristics and the decisions to become and stay self-employed.
Small Business Economics, 42(4), 787-814.
Cardon, M., Gregoire, D., Stevens, C., & Patel, P. (2013). Measuring entrepreneurial passion: Conceptual foundations and
scale validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3), 373-396.
Cardon, M., & Kirk, C. (2015). Entrepreneurial passion as mediator of the self–efficacy to persistence relationship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1027-1050.
Cardon, M., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of
Management Review, 34(3), 511-532.
Carraro, N., & Gaudreau, P. (2013). Spontaneous and experimentally induced action planning and coping planning for physical
activity: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(2), 228-248.
Chen, C., Greene, P., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal
of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295-316.
Chen, X., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: a persuasion
analysis of venture capitalists' funding decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 199-214.
Churchill, S., & Jessop, D. (2010). Spontaneous implementation intentions and impulsivity: Can impulsivity moderate the
effectiveness of planning strategies? British Journal of Health Psychology, 15(3), 529-541.
Collewaert, V., Anseel, F., Crommelinck, M., De Beuckelaer, A., & Vermeire, J. (2016). When passion fades: Disentangling
the temporal dynamics of entrepreneurial passion for founding. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 966-995.
Cramer, J., Hartog, J., Jonker, N., & Van Praag, C. (2002). Low risk aversion encourages the choice for entrepreneurship: an
empirical test of a truism. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48(1), 29-36.
Cunningham, J., Lehmann, E., & Menter, M. (2022). The organizational architecture of entrepreneurial universities across the
stages of entrepreneurship: a conceptual framework. Small Business Economics, 1-17.
Davidsson, P., & Gruenhagen, J. (2021). Fulfilling the process promise: A review and agenda for new venture creation process
research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042258720930991.
De Groot, K., & Thurik, R. (2018). Disentangling risk and uncertainty: When risk-taking measures are not about risk. Frontiers
in Psychology, 2194.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A
comparison and empirical illustration. British journal of management, 17(4), 263-282.
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement,
determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522-550.
Donaldson, C., Liñán, F., & Alegre, J. (2021). Entrepreneurial Intentions: Moving the Field Forwards. The Journal of
Entrepreneurship, 30(1), 30-55.
Drnovsek, M., Cardon, M., & Patel, P. (2016). Direct and indirect effects of passion on growing technology ventures. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(2), 194-213.
Drnovšek, M., Wincent, J., & Cardon, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial self‐efficacy and business start‐up: developing a multi‐
dimensional definition. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.
Esfandiar, K., Sharifi-Tehrani, M., Pratt, S., & Altinay, L. (2019). Understanding entrepreneurial intentions: A developed
integrated structural model approach. Journal of business research, 94, 172-182.
Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in
entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935-957.
Fayolle, A., & Liñán, F. (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of business research, 67(5), 663-
666.
Gielnik, M., Spitzmuller, M., Schmitt, A., Klemann, D., & Frese, M. (2015). “I put in effort, therefore I am passionate”:
Investigating the path from effort to passion in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1012-
1031.
Gieure, C., del Mar Benavides-Espinosa, M., & Roig-Dobón, S. (2020). The entrepreneurial process: The link between
intentions and behavior. Journal of business research, 112, 541-548.
Gollwitzer, P. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. European review of social psychology, 4(1), 141-185.
Gollwitzer, P. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to
behavior, 13, 287-312.
Gollwitzer, P. (1999). Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American psychologist, 54(7), 493.
Gollwitzer, P., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta‐analysis of effects and
processes. Advances in experimental social psychology, 38, 69-119.
Hatak, I., Chang, M., Harms, R., & Wiklund, J. (2021). ADHD symptoms, entrepreneurial passion, and entrepreneurial
performance. Small Business Economics, 57(4), 1693-1713.
Hicks, R., & Tingley, D. (2011). Causal mediation analysis. The Stata Journal, 11(4), 605-619.
Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal
mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765-789.
Kang, J., Matusik, J., Kim, T., & Phillips, J. (2016). Interactive effects of multiple organizational climates on employee
innovative behavior in entrepreneurial firms: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6), 628-
642.
Kautonen, T., van Gelderen, M., & Fink, M. (2015). Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial
intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 655-674.
Kiani, A., Ali, A., Biraglia, A., & Wang, D. (2021). Why I persist while others leave? Investigating the path from passion to
persistence in entrepreneurship. Journal of small business management, 1-31.
Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit (Vol. 31): Houghton Mifflin.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47-58.
Koumbarakis, P., & Volery, T. (2021). Predicting new venture gestation outcomes with machine learning methods. Journal of
Small Business Mangement.
Krueger, N., Reilly, M., & Carsrud, A. (2000a). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.
Krueger, N., Reilly, M., & Carsrud, A. (2000b). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.
Lex, M., Gielnik, M., Spitzmuller, M., Jacob, G., & Frese, M. (2022). How passion in entrepreneurship develops over time: A
self-regulation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(4), 985-1018.
Li, C., Murad, M., Shahzad, F., Khan, M., Ashraf, S., & Dogbe, C. (2020). Entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial behavior:
Role of entrepreneurial alertness, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and proactive personality. Frontiers in Psychology,
11, 1611.
Li, J., Chen, X., Kotha, S., & Fisher, G. (2017). Catching fire and spreading it: A glimpse into displayed entrepreneurial passion
in crowdfunding campaigns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(7), 1075.
Lichtenstein, B., Carter, N., Dooley, K., & Gartner, W. (2007). Complexity dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 22(2), 236-261.
Liguori, E., Bendickson, J., & McDowell, W. (2018). Revisiting entrepreneurial intentions: a social cognitive career theory
approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(1), 67-78.
Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and
research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907-933.
Lortie, J., & Castogiovanni, G. (2015). The theory of planned behavior in entrepreneurship research: what we know and future
directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 935-957.
Malaguti, A., Ciocanel, O., Sani, F., Dillon, J., Eriksen, A., & Power, K. (2020). Effectiveness of the use of implementation
intentions on reduction of substance use: A meta-analysis. Drug and alcohol dependence, 214, 108120.
Martijn, C., Alberts, H., Sheeran, P., Peters, G., Mikolajczak, J., & de Vries, N. (2008). Blocked goals, persistent action:
Implementation intentions engender tenacious goal striving. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1137-
1143.
McGee, J., Peterson, M., Mueller, S., & Sequeira, J. (2009). Entrepreneurial self–efficacy: Refining the measure.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 965-988.
McMullen, J., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying
entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481-1512.
McMullen, J., & Shepherd, D. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur.
Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132-152.
McWilliams, L., Bellhouse, S., Yorke, J., Lloyd, K., & Armitage, C. (2019). Beyond “planning”: A meta-analysis of
implementation intentions to support smoking cessation. Health Psychology, 38(12), 1059.
Miao, C., Qian, S., & Ma, D. (2017). The relationship between entrepreneurial self‐efficacy and firm performance: a meta‐
analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of small business management, 55(1), 87-107.
Morland, L., Scott, J., & Thompson, J. (2021). Experiential entrepreneurship education and the student-focused entrepreneurial
university. Education + Training.
Mueller, B., Wolfe, M., & Syed, I. (2017). Passion and grit: An exploration of the pathways leading to venture success. Journal
of Business Venturing, 32(3), 260-279.
Müller, S., Kirst, A., Bergmann, H., & Bird, B. (2022). Entrepreneurs’ actions and venture success: a structured literature
review and suggestions for future research. Small Business Economics, 1-28.
Murnieks, C., Klotz, A., & Shepherd, D. (2020). Entrepreneurial motivation: A review of the literature and an agenda for future
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(2), 115-143.
Murnieks, C., Mosakowski, E., & Cardon, M. (2014). Pathways of passion: Identity centrality, passion, and behavior among
entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1583-1606.
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher
education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-
299.
Neneh, B. (2019). From entrepreneurial alertness to entrepreneurial behavior: The role of trait competitiveness and proactive
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 273-279.
Neneh, B. (2020). Entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention: the role of social support and entrepreneurial self-
efficacy. Studies in Higher Education, 1-17.
Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Moeller, J., & Chandan, G. (2021). Entrepreneurial Passion: A Review, Synthesis, and Agenda
for Future Research. Applied Psychology.
Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., & Nielsen, I. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review
of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future
research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 403-419.
Nieß, C., & Biemann, T. (2014). The role of risk propensity in predicting self-employment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
99(5), 1000.
Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (2000). Motivational and volitional processes in action initiation: A field study of the role of
implementation intentions 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 780-797.
Pham, D., Jones, P., Dobson, S., Liñán, F., & Viala, C. (2021). Entrepreneurial implementation intention as a tool to moderate
the stability of entrepreneurial goal intention: A sensemaking approach. Journal of business research, 123, 97-105.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review
of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Prabhu, V., McGuire, S., Drost, E., & Kwong, K. (2012). Proactive personality and entrepreneurial intent: is entrepreneurial
self‐efficacy a mediator or moderator? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.
Qian, S., Brannon, D., & Tabak, F. (2021). Exploring Mechanisms in the Entrepreneurial Passion–Entrepreneurial Behavior
Relationship: Mediating Role of Growth-Oriented Intentions. Journal of Career Development, 08948453211005848.
Reynolds, P. (2009). Screening item effects in estimating the prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics,
33(2), 151-163.
Roundy, P., Harrison, D., Khavul, S., Pérez-Nordtvedt, L., & McGee, J. (2018). Entrepreneurial alertness as a pathway to
strategic decisions and organizational performance. Strategic Organization, 16(2), 192-226.
Santos, G., Marques, C., & Ferreira, J. (2020). Passion and perseverance as two new dimensions of an Individual
Entrepreneurial Orientation scale. Journal of business research, 112, 190-199.
Shahriar, A., & Shepherd, D. (2019). Violence against women and new venture initiation with microcredit: Self-efficacy, fear
of failure, and disaster experiences. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(6), 105945.
Shepherd, D. (2015). Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based, cognitively hot,
compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 489-507.
Shepherd, D., Souitaris, V., & Gruber, M. (2021). Creating new ventures: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 47(1), 11-42.
Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., & Bogatyreva, K. (2016). Exploring the intention–behavior link in student entrepreneurship:
Moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics. European Management Journal, 34(4), 386-399.
Simón-Moya, V., Revuelto-Taboada, L., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016). Influence of economic crisis on new SME survival:
reality or fiction? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1-2), 157-176.
Skriabikova, O., Dohmen, T., & Kriechel, B. (2014). New evidence on the relationship between risk attitudes and self-
employment. Labour economics, 30, 176-184.
Stappers, J., & Andries, P. (2022). The role of distinct ADHD symptoms for pre-entry entrepreneurial behavior: when intentions
do not translate into action. Small Business Economics, 58(3), 1441-1457.
Stenholm, P., & Renko, M. (2016). Passionate bricoleurs and new venture survival. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(5), 595-
611.
Tolstoy, D., Nordman, E., & Vu, U. (2021). The indirect effect of online marketing capabilities on the international performance
of e-commerce SMEs. International Business Review, 101946.
Tsai, J., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of personality and social psychology,
90(2), 288.
Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Audretsch, D. (2019). Twenty-five Years of Research on Institutions, Entrepreneurship, and
Economic Growth: What Has Been Learned? Small Business Economics, 53(1), 21-49.
Vallerand, R., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Léonard, M., . . . Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de
l'ame: on obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(4), 756.
van Gelderen, M., Kautonen, T., & Fink, M. (2015). From entrepreneurial intentions to actions: Self-control and action-related
doubt, fear, and aversion. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 655-673.
van Gelderen, M., Kautonen, T., Wincent, J., & Biniari, M. (2018). Implementation Intentions in the Entrepreneurial Process:
Concept, Empirical Findings, and Research Agenda. Small Business Economics, 51(4), 923-941.
Van Hooft, E., Born, M., Taris, T., van der Flier, H., & Blonk, R. (2005). Bridging the gap between intentions and behavior:
Implementation intentions, action control, and procrastination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 238-256.
Verheul, I., Block, J., Burmeister-Lamp, K., Thurik, R., Tiemeier, H., & Turturea, R. (2015). ADHD-like behavior and
entrepreneurial intentions. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 85-101.
Wennberg, K., Pathak, S., & Autio, E. (2013). How culture moulds the effects of self-efficacy and fear of failure on
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9-10), 756-780.
Wennekers, S., van Stel, A., Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent Entrepreneurship and the Level of Economic
Development. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 293-309.
Wurth, B., Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2021). Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem research program. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 1-50.
Yang, M., Li, T., & Wang, Y. (2020). What explains the degree of internationalization of early-stage entrepreneurial firms? A
multilevel study on the joint effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship, and
home-country institutions. Journal of World Business, 55(6), 101114.
Zhang, D., Highhouse, S., & Nye, C. (2019). Development and validation of the general risk propensity scale (GRiPS). Journal
of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(2), 152-167.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S., & Hills, G. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-1272.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S., & Lumpkin, G. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(2), 381-404.
Zollo, L., Rialti, R., Tron, A., & Ciappei, C. (2020). Entrepreneurial passion, orientation and behavior: the moderating role of
linear and nonlinear thinking styles. Management Decision.