Culture refers to a set of common values, beliefs, and expected behaviors that influence the dominant personality characteristics of a population (Hofstede, 1980), including how decisions are made and communicated, emotions are expressed, implicit interpersonal relationships and rules, and views about what is right, important, or desirable. These are socially (not genetically) transmitted and homogeneous within societies but heterogeneous between them. Nonetheless, culture is neither unique since other societies can be similar nor is it unimodal since not everyone in a society has the same characteristics and values. Finally, culture can be strong or weak, and it can be dominant or have numerous sub-cultures. Hofstede and Bond (1988) subsequently added traditional Confucian values in explaining entrepreneurial success and economic growth. These factors (similar to the Western Protestant Ethic) include delaying self-gratification for the sake of future benefits; self-discipline, hard work, persistence, and thriftiness; having a sense of shame; supporting interrelatedness through sensitivity to social contacts; and considering education to be very important.

“Face” is a dominant Confucian culture (Zhang et al., 2011) that refers to the positive social value people effectively claim for themselves (Goffman, 1967), reflecting one’s need for recognition and group inclusion (Hwang et al., 2003) that determines the self-image one maintains in the pursuit of acceptance (Huang et al., 2011). Face can be gained, saved, and lost during these social interactions (Wan et al., 2016). While gaining face is not necessary, losing face is a serious matter (Ho, 1976). Face is lost when an individual fails to meet essential requirements expected by virtue of the occupied social position. By connecting people in a specific social structure, face directs their behavior to conform to the local culture as they strive to enhance this positive social value and protect it from being lost (Bao et al., 2003). This belief is like self-efficacy in that it helps to determine one’s choice of activities and environments.

China offers a unique context to study entrepreneurship (He et al., 2019). “Mianzi” represents the prestige, honor, and respect brought about by success, higher social status, and ostentatious behaviors before others (Hu, 1944; Zhang et al., 2011). For Chinese rural dwellers, “Mianzi” means reciprocity, social appraisal, good reputation, and high social status. Social appraisal arises from personal capability, interactions with local villagers, and performance in rural community affairs (Dong and Guo, 2017). For historical and institutional reasons, rural dwellers do not have industrial jobs and access to (at least basic) social welfare and full citizenship that urban people do (Chan, 2010). They live in rural communities, which are comparatively less open compared with urban areas but preserve a more traditional Confucian culture. This is partially related to their affiliation to farmland for generations. However, the large-scale migration of rural dwellers to urban areas since the 1980s freed them from their attachment to farmland and created a desire to fend for themselves. Since more money or wealth is widely viewed as having more “Mianzi” (Dong and Guo, 2017), entrepreneurs gain “Mianzi” (e.g., reputation, social status, high social appraisal, honor, prestige, respect) as they return home, and their strong personal capability to earn more money contributes to rural community prosperity.

East Asian culture accepts the paradox of “yin” and “yang” where opposites comfortably co-exist. Similarly, there is a duality to “face consciousness”: the simultaneous desire to gain face and fear of losing face (Zhang et al., 2011). In the present study, we propose that each dimension of face consciousness is simultaneously present and has a different influence on entrepreneurial intentions. On the one hand, the desire to gain face (reward) will drive some to be an entrepreneur. China’s recent economic policies intending to facilitate mass entrepreneurship and innovation should motivate individuals to choose a socially encouraged entrepreneurial career path that will secure social legitimacy and gain face. For instance, Lau and Busenitz (2001) found that Chinese entrepreneurs’ need for achievement determined their growth intentions. Additionally, entrepreneurship can be a feasible way to raise one’s earnings potential (Murnieks et al., 2020). Compared with “working for others,” “being a boss” means certain power, which is a career choice that can improve social status for those who otherwise have limited employment opportunities. In this respect, the desire to gain face may create outcome expectations (e.g., higher income, self-esteem, and self-actualization) that lead to career goals (e.g., trigger entrepreneurial intention) in China.

On the other hand, the fear of losing face (risk) will hinder the intention to choose entrepreneurship as a career. Empirical studies suggest that individuals who are afraid of being embarrassed or do not want to lose face tend to avoid risky events. For instance, a study in the Chinese cultural context found that individuals tend to decrease help-seeking behaviors to avoid being rejected by others (Lei and Tang, 2015). Due to the high uncertainty of entrepreneurship success (Wennberg et al., 2013), those choosing an entrepreneurial career are vulnerable to business failure. The more people are afraid of failure, the less they are willing to start a business (Kong et al., 2020). In a shame-based society like China, failure is a serious threat to saving face (Begley and Tan, 2001). In this regard, a person who has a deep fear of losing face would anticipate such undesirable results as lost earnings, ridicule, and family conflicts. These potential outcomes would make them hesitant or even fearful of starting a new business. Taken together, we propose the following hypotheses:

Individual differences regarding a flexible personality or willingness to change denote those who are more likely to adapt (Savickas and Porfeli, 2012; Guan et al., 2017). Face consciousness is considered as a relatively stable personality that influences Chinese cognitive and affective reactions when they interact with others (Chou, 1996; Cheung et al., 2008). Career adaptability is defined as “self-regulation strengths or capacities that a person may draw upon to solve the unfamiliar, complex, and ill-defined problems presented by developmental vocational tasks, occupational transitions, and work traumas” (Savickas and Porfeli, 2012, p. 663). It is measured by concern (such as for one’s future), control (making one’s own decisions), curiosity (exploring opportunities while developing possible selves), and confidence (overcoming obstacles) (Savickas and Porfeli, 2012). In view of the different behavioral implications of “desire to gain face” and “fear of losing face,” we argue that these two distinct face needs have different effects on career adaptability. Individuals with a need for face would be motivated to consider their future, expect positive outcomes, make their own decisions, and take actions that will manage and disseminate positive images, display their strengths, and behave in line with social norms so as to attain social acclaim (Huang et al., 2011). Hence, those concerned with gaining face have a high need for achievement, are willing to take risks to achieve their goals, and may appear assertive and confident (Chou, 1996). For them, a dynamic environment is not always a threat but offers good business opportunities. Therefore, we can conclude that those who are having a high face-gaining orientation tend to actively engage the changing environment, set challenging goals, engage in self-promoting behaviors to be recognized by others, and solve occupational transition problems. In sum, the “desire to gain face” is a motivational factor that facilitates adaptability.

Yet not everyone is eager to gain face. When Chinese people cannot gain face during social interactions, at least they protect its damage (Ho, 1976) since losing face may induce such negative emotions as shame and depression (Begley and Tan, 2001; Huang et al., 2011). Because individuals who are afraid to lose face are sensitive to the potential threat of being looked down upon by others, they tend to exhibit cautious and withdrawal behaviors (Chou, 1996). Those who fear losing face will avoid sharing information and knowledge, thereby hindering career adaptability (Gong and Li, 2019). For example, empirical studies have shown conscious face saving to be negatively related to knowledge sharing intentions (Huang et al., 2011). Students have been reluctant to seek feedback in class because of their fear of losing face (Hwang et al., 2003). As the 21st century experiences more rapid changes than ever, uncertainty is undoubtedly higher than before. The advancement of information technology accelerates the transfer of negative stories further and faster than before. Fear of losing face causes people to be concerned about their future, lack courage and confidence to explore business opportunities, incapable of making their own decisions, unable to take risks, and hinder exchanges of information and knowledge; all of which make people unwilling to adapt to the changing environment. Therefore, we propose that:

During the urbanization process, rural dwellers encounter a series of challenges such as losing their farming lands, integrating into urban life, and career transitions. These changes require them to adapt to their surroundings. Given that China has increasingly emphasized rural entrepreneurship (Yu et al., 2013) as an important and effective way to reduce poverty and increase well-being (Markussen et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2020), this study focuses on entrepreneurship as an indicator of rural dwellers adapting to a vital career pathway and benefiting from China’s economic growth.

Career adaptability refers to psychosocial resources that enable people to cope with current and anticipated challenges, transitions, or trauma in changing contexts (Savickas, 1997, 2005, 2013; Savickas et al., 2009). It is vital for individuals to develop and determine the optimal strategy to guide their adaptive behaviors (Rudolph et al., 2017; Johnston, 2018; Peng et al., 2021). Indeed, recent studies have argued that career adaptability might be a significant predictor of entrepreneurial intentions because highly adaptable individuals possess self-regulation strengths that enable them to better identify business opportunities, mobilize resources, and fit into uncertain circumstances (Tolentino et al., 2014). In their research from student samples, Tolentino et al. (2014) demonstrated that entrepreneurship is a vocational strategy that can be driven by individuals’ career adaptabilities. Moreover, the four types of adaptability resources (i.e., concern, control, curiosity, and confidence) reflect self-efficacy and a tendency to make the effort to prepare for and explore a satisfactory career path (Savickas and Porfeli, 2012). In this respect, it is plausible that those who are better able to adapt will more proactively explore and prepare for entrepreneurship than those with lower career adaptability. We believe that career adaptability will facilitate entrepreneurial intention and, therefore, hypothesize the following:

Career adaptation involves a sequential process through which adaptive personality traits impact career adaptability resources, in turn promoting responses and beliefs, enabling individuals to cope with changing environments (Hirschi et al., 2015; Pajic et al., 2018). Combined with our arguments above for the link between face consciousness and career adaptability (Hypothesis 1) and the link between career adaptability and entrepreneurial intention (Hypothesis 2), we further propose the following hypothesis concerning the mediating role of career adaptability:

Indecisiveness is a trait that refers to the pervasive and chronic difficulties in making decisions, regardless of its significance, when individuals are in a mix of good and bad situations (Crites, 1969). Indecisiveness is correlated with certain personality characteristics, such as low self-confidence, low self-esteem, helplessness, and a sense of contradiction and frustration (Salomone, 1982; Germeijs and De Boeck, 2002; Öztemel, 2014; Lo Cascio et al., 2016). This premise implies that indecisive individuals often feel anxious and fearful when facing opportunities and choices, so they are typically labeled as undecided in making all sorts of life decisions (Gati et al., 2011), and indecisiveness may impede effective actions (Appel et al., 2021).

In the present study, we argue that indecisiveness will interact with face consciousness to impact the development of career adaptability. Specifically, indecisiveness could harm one’s adaptation results, thereby diminishing the quality of life (Taillefer et al., 2016). When individuals have a strong desire to gain face, the hesitancy caused by indecisiveness will deepen one’s feeling of contradiction, in turn frustrating and lowering their self-esteem, which is not conducive to career adaptability (Cai et al., 2015). In contrast, a decisive person is more likely to be proactive and confident in making career choices (Germeijs and De Boeck, 2002) so that those with a face-gaining orientation might take active actions and make high-quality decisions (Gati et al., 2011; Kokkoris et al., 2019). We thus propose the following:

Indecisiveness can also impact the relationship between fear of losing face and career adaptability. Specifically, indecisive individuals are considered to be vulnerable to adaptive psychological problems like anxiety (Germeijs and Verschueren, 2011), neuroticism (Jackson et al., 1999) and non-clinical depression (Di Schiena et al., 2013). These individuals are more likely to interpret uncertainty as a threat, thus delaying or even avoiding making decisions in complex and ambiguous situations (Rassin and Muris, 2005). Such fear of uncertainty will be magnified when a person is simultaneously afraid of losing face and is indecisive, resulting in unwillingness to change the status quo and hesitance in making decisions (Sautua, 2017). Such a person is less likely to show initiative, hindering career adaptability. Therefore, we propose:

Elston and Weidinger (2019) argue for analyzing rural regions in large diverse markets such as China. In fact, they conclude that the relatively higher levels of necessity-based entrepreneurship in the countryside may explain some of the regional differences in entrepreneurial activity. To test our hypotheses, we recruited the participants in Sichuan Province in southwest China. With 83.75 million regular inhabitants, Sichuan is China’s fourth most populous province. Although from a specific context, Sichuan is a representative province for conducting research about the career development process rural dwellers face since this sample reflects rural entrepreneurship. Historically known as China’s breadbasket, it is one of the leading Chinese provinces in terms of agricultural production and, hence, dominated by farm workers. In recent years, rapid urbanization and industrialization have brought tremendous changes to its rural areas. Until 2017, the urbanization rate was 50.79%, passing 50% for the first time (Hou and Fan, 2019).

Our research sample targets rural dwellers in Sichuan who have lost their farmland and have recently moved to urban areas and have not created their business yet. This study instrument was approved by the academic ethics committee of the Southwestern University of Finance and Economics. Thanks to the help of the local government demolition bureau, we obtained living addresses of rural dwellers, randomly selected one of the living communities (Yucheng District in Ya’an, which is located in the west of Sichuan Basin and reachable by public transportation), and then made a one-on-one household survey, with each family selecting either one male host, one female host, or both to participate in the early stages of the investigation on January 06, 2020. However, the door-to-door survey was interrupted due to the outbreak of COVID-19. Because only 56 valid surveys out of 100 were returned, we shifted on January 20, 2020 from the on-site survey to an online survey through a widely used platform in China called “Wen Juan Zhi Xing.” We employed a snowball sampling technique through referrals among the people who had completed the questionnaire in January. The criteria for the participants are they must be Chinese rural dwellers; understand Mandarin; have access to the Internet; and are not entrepreneurs at the survey moment. Those who did not meet these criteria were excluded from participation. For assuring the participants were able to answer the digital survey, we left a contact cellphone number in the survey so they could inquire if needed. The referrals familiar with the online survey also agreed to help these participants answer an E-VERSION survey. The participation was voluntary, with all the participants being informed about the purpose of the study and that the data would remain anonymous. To motivate participation, those who were completing the questionnaire received a modest incentive (i.e., a small gift or minor cash payments) after submitting the survey. As of August 31, 2020, 408 valid questionnaires in total were included in the final analysis (a response rate of 92.1%), excluding those with missing information, same answers, or completed in too short a time. We believe the high rate of response is due to the easy-to-understand survey content, our participation incentive, and the high voluntary participation of rural dwellers.

Because we collected data from a single source and used self-reported questionnaires, we employed Harman’s one-factor test to ensure that common method bias (CMB) did not pose a serious threat to this study. Loading all items into a principal component factor analysis, the first emerging unrotated factor accounted for 29% of the total variance, much lower than the 50% threshold. This indicates no major sign of common method bias in this study.

We used SPSS 25.0 for the descriptive statistical analysis among variables. Of the 408 valid questionnaires, 41.9% were farm workers and 58.1% were unemployed. Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations between study variables are reported in Table 1. Nearly half were male, and most participants were married. In terms of age, the largest sub-group had one-third in their late twenties. Regarding education, one-third had at least some college education and 17.4% indicated that they had participated in entrepreneurship training programs and courses. In addition, over half of the participants had family members who started a new business, and over half had previous entrepreneurial experience.

The correlations among the five focal variables were basically in the expected direction. The two face-conscious independent variables are significantly correlated. The desire to gain face is positively correlated with career adaptability, whereas fear of losing face is negatively correlated with career adaptability and entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, fear of losing face is highly correlated with indecisiveness. Career adaptability is positively correlated with entrepreneurial intention, but the relation between desire to gain face and entrepreneurial intention is not significant. Among the control variables, only entrepreneurial education participation, prior entrepreneurial experience, and family business exposure are all positively correlated with entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurial education participation and prior entrepreneurial experience are also highly correlated with each other but not with family business exposure. Career adaptability is positively correlated with increasing education and decisiveness. Finally, career adaptability and entrepreneurial intensions are highly correlated.

Before testing the hypotheses, we used AMOS21.0 to conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the discriminant validity of the core (non-control) variables. The CFA results indicate that the hypothesized five-factor model in Figure 1 (desire to gain face, fear of losing face, indecisiveness, career adaptability, and entrepreneurial intention) shows an acceptable fit to the data. We compared the hypothesized five-factor model with alternative models, including a single-factor model that grouped all variables into one factor; a two-factor model in which face consciousness and indecisiveness were grouped as one factor, and career adaptability and entrepreneurial intention were grouped as another factor; a three-factor model in which face consciousness and indecisiveness were grouped as one factor; and a four-factor model in which the two dimensions of face consciousness were grouped as one factor. The results in Table 2 show that the five-factor model is better than the other four models.

We examined the direct effect of face consciousness on entrepreneurial intention. (Hypotheses 1a and 1b). The results of Model 6 in Table 3 show that the effect of desire to gain face is not significant in explaining entrepreneurial intentions (β = 0.003, ns.). Hence, H1a is not supported. In stark contrast, the results of Model 8 reveal a significantly negative effect that fear of losing face has on entrepreneurial intention (β = −0.182, p < 0.001), supporting H1b.

To examine the mediation model, we employed hierarchical regression analysis to test the relationship of face consciousness with career adaptability and the relationship of career adaptability with entrepreneurial intention as well as bootstrapping analysis of the significance of indirect effects. The results of Model 1 indicate that the desire to gain face on its own has a positive and significant effect on career adaptability (β = 0.212, p < 0.001), supporting H2a. When we regressed entrepreneurial intention on the control variables and career adaptability in Model 5, the results showed that career adaptability had a significant and positive effect on entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.308, p < 0.001). Thus, H3 was supported. When we regressed entrepreneurial intention on the control variables, desire to gain face, and career adaptability, the results in Model 7 suggest that career adaptability plays a mediating role between desire to gain face and entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.325, p < 0.001). Further examining the mediating effect by the PROCESS procedure (Model 4), the bootstrapping results confirm the indirect effect of career adaptability in linking the desire to gain face with entrepreneurial intention (see Table 4). Overall, H4a is supported.

We next examined the mediating role of career adaptability between fear of losing face and entrepreneurial intention. As shown in Model 2, fear of losing face is negatively related to career adaptability (β = −0.197, p < 0.001), supporting H2b. When we regressed entrepreneurial intention on the control variables, fear of losing face, and career adaptability, the results in Model 9 suggest that career adaptability plays a mediating role between fear of losing face and entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.267, p < 0.001). Further examining the mediating effect by the PROCESS procedure (Model 4), the bootstrapping results confirm the indirect effect of career adaptability in linking the desire to gain face with entrepreneurial intention (see Table 4). Hence, H4b was supported.

Hypotheses 5a and 5b predicted the moderating role of indecisiveness on the relationship between face consciousness and career adaptability. We followed the widely used three-step procedure (e.g., Jiang, 2017) to test for these effects. All focal predictors were mean centered before the analysis (Aiken and West, 1991). The results of Model 3 display a significant and negative interaction of desire to gain face and indecisiveness in predicting career adaptability (β = −0.166, p < 0.01), suggesting that indecisiveness lessened the positive effect of desire to gain face on career adaptability. Figure 2 depicts the simple slopes for the interaction effect between desire to gain face and career adaptability, which is significant when decisive (b = 0.253, SE = 0.045, p < 0.001) but not when indecisive (b = 0.035, SE = 0.055, ns). This is consistent with H5a.

Likewise, the results in Model 4 show that the interactive effect of fear of losing face and indecisiveness on career adaptability is negative and significant (β = −0.107, p < 0.05). As indicated in Figure 3, the relationship between fear of losing face and career adaptability is more negative when indecisiveness is high (b = 0.225, SE = 0.052, p < 0.001) than when indecisiveness is low (b = −0.072, SE = 0.054, ns). Hence, H5b was supported. The regression results are summarized in Figure 4.

The major plausible relationships of these results are as follows: (1) Risk of losing face has a significant negative influence on entrepreneurial intention, but the reward of gaining face by itself, while positive, is not significant; (2) Face consciousness has a significant impact on career adaptability, with risk of losing face being negative and reward of gaining face being positive; (3) This influence of face consciousness on career adaptability is reduced when an individual is indecisive regardless of fear of risk or desire of reward; and (4) Career adaptability has a highly significant influence on entrepreneurial intention.

Our research extends entrepreneurial intention and career construction theory in several important ways. First, by investigating the effect of face consciousness (i.e., desire to gain face and fear of losing face) on entrepreneurial intention, we add to the existing knowledge of the antecedents of entrepreneurial intent. Although prior research has provided valuable insights into its drivers (e.g., Tolentino et al., 2014; Pfeifer et al., 2016; Pérez-López et al., 2019), relatively little attention has been focused on the influence of specific cultural constructs. Culture contributes to shaping an entrepreneurial mindset and influences regional rates of entrepreneurship (Hayton et al., 2002; Schlaegel et al., 2013; Karimi et al., 2021). Our survey results found that distinct face needs will affect entrepreneurial intentions in different ways. Specifically, fear of losing face will significantly hinder entrepreneurial intention, whereas the desire to gain face, while positive, is not significant in explaining entrepreneurial intention. This suggests that at least for Chinese rural dwellers’ entrepreneurial career construction, fear of failure outweighs the possibility of success. This finding is consistent with prior literature, positing that face-gaining consciousness would be less primary and less important than face-saving consciousness in an Asian culture (Chou, 1996; Kim and Nam, 1998) and enriches the existing career construction theory.

We also contribute to the entrepreneurial intention literature by identifying career adaptability as a mediating mechanism that links face consciousness with entrepreneurial intention. Although career adaptability is important in shaping one’s entrepreneurial intention (e.g., Tolentino et al., 2014), empirical studies that directly apply a career construction perspective to examine the relationship between career adaptability and entrepreneurial intention remain scarce. Our work reinforces evidence from prior studies that there is a positive relationship between career adaptability and entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, our study confirms the mediating role of career adaptability in translating face consciousness into entrepreneurial intention. This is meaningful because this study shows how a career perspective offers additional insights for understanding the entrepreneurial process.

Finally, this study examined indecisiveness as a moderator to explain when face consciousness influences career adaptability and the entrepreneurial process. While prior research has discussed the significantly negative role of indecisiveness in general career decisions (e.g., Öztemel, 2014; Lo Cascio et al., 2016), there has been rare attention paid to how individuals’ indecisiveness can exert a negative effect on entrepreneurial decisions and processes. We extend this line of research and demonstrate that indecisiveness amplifies the negative effect that fear of losing face has on entrepreneurial intention and lessens the positive effect that desire to gain face has on entrepreneurial intention. This finding further attests to the important role of individuals’ adaptive personality in forming entrepreneurial intention.

The results of our study offer several meaningful implications. Serial entrepreneurs in the West are willing to take risks to achieve success, hoping that the one big hit compensates for the many small misses. Moreover, bankruptcy laws minimize the stigma of failure. Either way, they accept risk and manage to mitigate losses in pursuing abnormal returns. On the other hand, we show that China’s rural dwellers are more concerned about “losing face,” especially when indecisive in forming entrepreneurial intentions. Therefore, entrepreneurship education courses should be connected to a specific cultural context for those Chinese regions seeking to stimulate the growth of new businesses. For example, role-model exposure that allows prospective entrepreneurs to learn from other failure experiences can mitigate the fear and embarrassment of losing face. Showing the universality and even benefits of entrepreneurial failure (Lee and Miesing, 2017) would signal that, while risk trumps return, failure need not be a disgrace. Furthermore, entrepreneurship education should be designed to improve rural dwellers’ self-efficacy beliefs, guide them to have rational outcome expectations, set appropriate goals, and strengthen their career adaptability.

Our research also found that indecisiveness can hinder individual entrepreneurial intention. Since those with limited knowledge and information sources are more likely to be indecisive in their career decision-making process, trainers and educators, as well as policy makers, who aim to strengthen entrepreneurship, should offer supportive information to help better cope with environmental uncertainty and establish self-efficacious beliefs, which can stimulate entrepreneurial intentions (Pérez-López et al., 2019).

Especially for career counselors who expect to develop entrepreneurial careers for their clients, our focus on the mechanisms underlying entrepreneurial intention may provide important angles for an entrepreneurship career. For instance, entrepreneurship training programs should cultivate career adaptability, considering its importance in facilitating entrepreneurial intentions. Courses that focus on self- and environment explorations could be introduced to help entrepreneurs better understand their professional ability and match to potential career opportunities, which are beneficial to developing their career adaptability.

Despite this study’s strengths, we recognize the limitations of its external validity. Obviously, our sample is from a very specific context, and Western countries may have different levels of sensitivity to face consciousness than do East Asians (Begley and Tan, 2001). Bruton et al. (2018) argue that scholars are myopic by relying on Western perspectives of entrepreneurship and should instead examine the variety and diversity of “indigenous entrepreneurship activities” found elsewhere. While we did that, it is equally important that our theoretical perspective be verified in Western cultures. In addition to non-Confucius societies, future studies can also be conducted in urban regions or different political-economic environments. While we proposed and tested the moderating role of indecisiveness on the relationship between face consciousness and career adaptability, there may be other critical variables influencing the career construction processes. For example, social support and barriers may promote or hinder career adaptability (Han and Rojewski, 2014; Pajic et al., 2018). Because the participants self-reported our study variables at one time, we encourage replications to collect multisource and longitudinal data. Having adopted a Chinese version of the existing and widely used scales that are suitable in the Chinese context to measure our variables, we are happy to offer without reservation the data used in our study to readers requesting them for replication.

Finally, previous research has argued that entrepreneurial intention is a critical predictor of entrepreneurial activities (e.g., Krueger et al., 2000; Tsai et al., 2016) but rarely report actual actions taken and measure performance that would better understand the determinants of success. In our study, we used the scale of entrepreneurial intention, which measured some potential entrepreneurial actions of the participants. However, future research should use scales that better reflect actual entrepreneurial behaviors.