Purpose This study aims to examine the determinants of digital entrepreneurial intention (DEI) among Korean university students in the context of digital transformation. By integrating the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and social cognitive theory (SCT), the research investigates how subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) and technological self-efficacy (TSE) shape DEI. It also explores the moderating roles of entrepreneurship education (EE) and business incubators (BI). The purpose is to deepen theoretical understanding of DEI formation and provide evidence-based insights for universities and policymakers seeking to strengthen digital entrepreneurship ecosystems. Design/methodology/approach A quantitative survey was conducted among 200 undergraduate and graduate students in Seoul, South Korea. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability testing ensured construct validity, while multiple regression and moderated regression analyses tested the proposed hypotheses. Variables included subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, ESE, TSE, EE and BI, with DEI as the dependent variable. The study used established scales from entrepreneurial intention literature and applied hierarchical regression to examine both direct and moderating effects, offering robust empirical validation of the theoretical framework. Findings The results show that subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and ESE significantly influence DEI, whereas TSE does not. EE strengthens the positive effect of subjective norms on DEI, confirming its role as a moderator. Contrary to expectations, BI exerts a partially negative moderating effect, weakening the relationship between ESE and DEI. These findings suggest that while educational interventions enhance social and motivational drivers of DEI, incubator experiences may expose students to practical constraints that reduce entrepreneurial confidence. Research limitations/implications The study’s limitations include its reliance on a cross-sectional student sample in Seoul, which restricts generalizability and prevents causal inference. Self-reported survey data may also introduce social desirability bias. In addition, the model excludes other potential predictors, such as prior entrepreneurial experience or access to capital. Future research should expand the scope to more diverse samples, adopt longitudinal designs and incorporate qualitative or experimental methods. Despite these limitations, the findings enrich theoretical models of entrepreneurial intention by integrating TPB and SCT, highlighting the complex role of external support systems in shaping DEI. Practical implications The results stress the need for practice-oriented EE. Universities should provide experiential programs, mentoring and project-based learning that strengthen students’ social networks and self-confidence. Policymakers should reconsider the design of incubator programs, simplifying procedures and focusing on resilience training to mitigate negative effects on self-efficacy. Effective policies must go beyond technical training, emphasizing networks, market access and funding mechanisms that sustain entrepreneurial drive. Together, these measures can enhance the readiness of students to pursue digital ventures and create a supportive ecosystem for entrepreneurial growth. Social implications Digital entrepreneurship among youth has broad societal relevance as it fosters job creation, innovation and competitiveness in the digital economy. By identifying how education and support systems shape students’ intentions, this study provides insights into building inclusive ecosystems that empower young people to pursue entrepreneurial careers. Strengthening DEI also supports social mobility, technological adoption and sustainable economic development. Furthermore, recognizing the potential negative effects of incubator environments prompts a rethinking of how to better align institutional support with the psychological needs of aspiring entrepreneurs. Originality/value This study contributes originality by empirically revealing the dual role of external supports: EE enhances DEI through subjective norms, while BI may weaken ESE. Unlike prior research that assumed uniformly positive effects of incubators, this study demonstrates their potential unintended consequences. The integration of TPB and SCT provides a more comprehensive framework for understanding digital entrepreneurship in higher education. The findings advance scholarly debate on intention formation in digital contexts and offer actionable insights for designing policies and educational programs tailored to the realities of the digital entrepreneurial landscape.
Choi et al. (Tue,) studied this question.