Effect of Social Power, Cultural Intelligence, and Socioeconomic Status on Students’ International Entrepreneurial Intention

Figures & data

Figure 1 Conceptual model and hypothesis.

Table 1 Measurement Model (Mean, Convergent Validity, Reliability, and Discriminant Validity)

Construct, Item, Source	Mean	Factor Loading	t-value	CR	CA	AVE	VIF
Motivational CQ (Van Dyne, L., S. Ang, and C. Koh., 2008)	2.71			0.87	0.81	0.58
Item 1		0.792	25.03				1.689
Item 2		0.802	27.18				1.965
Item 3		0.815	32.97				1.774
Item 4		0.684	17.04				1.353
Item 5		–	–				–
Behavioral CQ (Van Dyne, L., S. Ang, and C. Koh., 2008)	2.67			0.89	0.85	0.62
Item 1		0.780	26.05				1.636
Item 2		0.795	28.03				1.887
Item 3		0.791	26.66				1.869
Item 4		0.828	39.35				1.725
Item 5		–	–				–
Social power (Dubois et al, 2015)	3.07			0.83	0.72	0.55
Item 1		0.799	35.37				1.280
Item 2		0.754	24.65				1.438
Item 3		0.678	13.70				1.350
Item 4		–	–				–
International entrepreneurial intention (Coviello, N., 2010).	2.58			0.94	0.92	0.72
Item 1		0.853	50.55				2.704
Item 2		0.856	43.71				2.785
Item 3		0.854	48.71				2.778
Item 4		0.874	55.30				2.987
Item 5		0.855	46.56				2.783
Item 6		0.809	34.05				2.145
SES	3.92			0.82	0.79	0.74
Parents’ income		0.909	35.19				1.324
Parents’ social class		0.812	16.15				1.333

Note: – problematic indicator that was removed from the final analysis.

Abbreviations: CA, Cronbach’s alpha; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted; VIF, Variance inflation factor.

Table 2 Correlations and Discriminant Validity Between the Fornell–Larcker Criterion and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratios

Construct	1	2	3	4	5
1. Motivational CQ	0.763	0.757	0.212	0.427	0.680
2. Behavioral CQ	0.638	0.792	0.097	0.156	0.624
3. SES	0.191	0.069	1.000	0.404	0.312
4. IE intention	0.373	0.132	0.388	0.850	0.352
5. Social power	0.531	0.503	0.257	0.279	0.742

Notes: Diagonal elements (bold) are the square roots of AVEs. Below the diagonal elements are the correlations between the constructs. Above the diagonal elements are the heterotrait-monotrait ratios.

Table 3 Path Coefficient and Hypothesis Testing

Structural Path	Path Coefficient	t-value	95% BC Confidence Interval	Hypothesis Result
Structural model results
Direct effect
Social power→IE intention	0.139**	2.158	(0.011, 0.266)	H1, supported
Mediation effects
Social power→motivational CQ→IE intention	0.165***	4.924	(0.103, 0.230)	H2a, supported
Social power→behavioral CQ→IE intention	−0.064**	2.134	(−0.121, −0.008)	H2b, supported
Goodness of model fit SRMR composite model = 0.07
Structural model fit R^2; determination of coefficients R^2 (motivational CQ) = 0.48; R^2 (behavioral CQ) = 0.46; R^2 (IE intention) = 0.29 Threshold for R^2 value ≥ 0.25 (weak); ≥0.50 (moderate); ≥0.75 (substantial)
Predictive relevance of model fit Q^2; predictive relevance of endogenous (omission distance = 7) Q^2 (motivational CQ) = 0.27; Q^2 (behavioral CQ) = 0.27; Q^2 (IE intention) = 0.20 Threshold for Q^2 value > 0 indicate predictive relevance

Note: ⁎⁎t (0.01, 4999) = 2.327; ⁎⁎⁎t (0.001, 4999) = 3.092.

Abbreviations: BCCI, Bootstrapping based on n = 5000 subsamples; SRMR, standardized root-mean square residual.

Table 4 Conditional Indirect Effect Process Analysis

Conditional Effect	Level	Effect	Boot S.E.	95% BC Confidence Interval
Sense of power on IE intention through motivational CQ at levels of SES	Low	0.018	0.009	(0.0037, 0.0408)
	High	0.030	0.012	(0.0091, 0.0563)
	Index of moderated mediation	0.005	0.002	(0.0011, 0.0119)
Sense of power on IE intention through behavioral CQ at levels of SES	Low	−0.037	0.058	(−.1646, 0.0591)
	High	0.022	0.059	(−.0880, 0.1466)
	Index of moderated mediation	0.020	0.026	(−.0275, 0.0774)

Figure 2 Johnson-Neyman regions of significance for the H4a moderated mediation. The solid line depicts the trajectory of the conditional indirect effect, and the dashed lines depict the upper and lower limits of the 95% CIs.