Next Article in Journal
The Science of Organisational Resilience: Decoding Its Intellectual Structure to Understand Foundations and Future
Previous Article in Journal
Artificial Intelligence: Implications and Impacts on Black Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/admsci15100403
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cryptocurrencies and the Entrepreneurial Mindset: The Role of Financial Literacy in Driving Adoption

by
Alexandru Ursu
1,
Petru L. Curșeu
1,2,*,
Sabina R. Trif
1 and
Alina Maria Cociș (Fleștea)
1
1
Department of Psychology, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400015 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Department of Organization, Open Universiteit, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2025, 15(10), 403; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15100403
Submission received: 31 July 2025 / Revised: 14 October 2025 / Accepted: 15 October 2025 / Published: 20 October 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Cryptocurrencies are rapidly transforming digital finance and entrepreneurship, yet their adoption by entrepreneurs remains rather poorly understood. Drawing on the Threat-Rigidity Model (TRM) and the opportunity recognition literature, this study examines how entrepreneurial experience, financial literacy, perceived opportunities, and perceived threats influence entrepreneurial intention to use cryptocurrencies. We tested a moderated mediation model in which the association between financial literacy and experience, on the one hand, and intention to use cryptocurrencies, on the other, was mediated by perceived opportunities. In this model, perceived threats served as a moderator on the relationship between financial literacy and intention, as well as between perceived opportunities and adoption intention. Data were collected from a sample of 133 Romanian entrepreneurs across diverse industries. The results supported the mediating role of perceived opportunities in the relationship between financial literacy and intention to use cryptocurrencies in business and showed that the positive association between financial literacy and intention was attenuated by perceived threats. Entrepreneurial experience did not significantly influence perceived opportunities, while women entrepreneurs reported lower intention to adopt cryptocurrencies in business. This study is among the first to use the TRM to explore how the interplay of perceived opportunities and threats shapes cryptocurrency adoption in entrepreneurship. Other implications, limitations, and directions for future research are also discussed.

1. Introduction

Digital entrepreneurship, defined as the pursuit of new venture opportunities made possible through new media and internet technologies (Davidson & Vaast, 2010, p. 8), and digital finance, which encompasses financial services delivered through mobile phones, personal computers, the internet, mobile banking, e-wallets, and credit or debit cards (Risman et al., 2021, p. 2), have become a modern reality (Phillips et al., 2023; Rawhouser et al., 2023; Saiedi et al., 2021). The use of cryptocurrency in entrepreneurship is a key component of digital entrepreneurial finance (Martino et al., 2020) and social media plays an important role in disseminating information related to the technologies backing cryptocurrencies and their potential use (Bogusz et al., 2020). As novel transaction technologies in a well-established global financial market, cryptocurrencies bring forth both opportunities as well as threats to economic actors (Arsi et al., 2022; Demertzis & Wolff, 2018; Rawhouser et al., 2023). The most influential theoretical framework that has tackled the adoption of cryptocurrencies in entrepreneurship builds on the Institutional Theory (Zucker, 1987), explaining intention to use cryptocurrency as a result of the institutional legitimation processes that emerge through rhetorical strategies (Phillips et al., 2023). The literature to date has explored information exchange via social media (Bogusz et al., 2020) and theorized the institutional legitimation processes that drive cryptocurrency adoption (Phillips et al., 2023).
We extend this literature by exploring individual differences and attitudinal factors as antecedents of the intention to adopt cryptocurrencies in entrepreneurship. We build on the financial literacy literature (Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014; Lusardi, 2019) and argue that entrepreneurial differences in their capacity to understand financial matters and effectively deploy various financial skills predict their intention to adopt cryptocurrencies. Moreover, we build on the Threat Rigidity Model (TRM, Staw et al., 1981) to argue that the way in which entrepreneurs perceive the opportunities and threats associated with cryptocurrencies are key attitudinal contingencies for the intention to use cryptocurrencies. On the one hand, we argue that perceived opportunities in terms of transparency, access to global market, and potential for new business models (Matanovič, 2017; Gomber et al., 2017; Schär, 2021) increase entrepreneurs’ intention to use cryptocurrencies in their business. On the other hand, we argue that perceived threats related to price volatility, legal discrepancies, and cybersecurity risks (Baur et al., 2018; Arsi et al., 2022; Afzal & Asif, 2019) are factors that reduce the likelihood of using cryptocurrency in business.
Moreover, we answer the call for employing the TRM in novel, modern contexts such as cryptocurrencies (Mazzei et al., 2024), and we intend to explore the interplay of perceived threats and opportunities as predictors of cryptocurrency adoption in business. In line with the core tenets of the TRM (Mazzei et al., 2024), we argue that entrepreneurs’ intention to use cryptocurrencies in business reflects a decision-making process in which they weigh up, in light of their financial knowledge and expertise, the opportunities and threats related to cryptocurrencies. Prior research on technology adoption (Folkinshteyn & Lennon, 2016; Jena, 2022) has focused on institutional legitimation (Zucker, 1987) or individual-level models such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003), and entrepreneurial intention frameworks (N. F. Krueger et al., 2000). While UTAUT and TAM explain much about technology adoption by emphasizing factors such as perceived usefulness, ease of use, social influence, and facilitating conditions (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003), they give limited attention to cognitive factors like financial literacy and do not fully account for the entrepreneurial behavioral responses to perceived threats and opportunities in relation to cryptocurrencies. In contrast, the Threat Rigidity Model (TRM, Staw et al., 1981) brings a novel perspective by explaining how entrepreneurs could respond to the simultaneous presence of opportunities and threats—a situation particularly relevant for cryptocurrencies, which are characterized by high volatility, regulatory uncertainty, and technological complexity.
By integrating financial literacy with the TRM, our study captures both the cognitive evaluation of new financial instruments and the behavioral dynamics triggered by perceived opportunities and threats, providing a more complete understanding of cryptocurrency adoption in entrepreneurship. Therefore, our study reports one of the first empirical attempts to test the interplay between financial literacy and perceptions of opportunities and threats tied to cryptocurrencies as they influence the intention to use cryptocurrency in small businesses.

2. Hypotheses Development

2.1. Experience, Financial Literacy, and the Perception of Opportunities

Prior knowledge, experience, and expertise are among the most important factors that explain why some entrepreneurs recognize opportunities, initiate businesses, or adopt novel business practices, while others do not (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Curșeu, 2008; Curșeu & Louwers, 2008; Mary George et al., 2016; Shane, 2000; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Cognitive models provide theoretical accounts of how prior knowledge shapes the recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities (Curșeu, 2008). According to Baron (2006), the recognition of opportunities depends partly on the mental frameworks developed based on previous experience and stored in the long-term memory. These frameworks, which may take the form of cognitive schemas, prototypes, or exemplars, allow individuals to connect apparently unrelated information into patterns suggestive of new business opportunities (Baron, 2006). The content of these mental frameworks depends on previous life experiences (such as work or educational experiences) and knowledge accumulated over time, which helps entrepreneurs form richer prototypes and store a greater number of examples of “successful opportunities” (Baron & Ensley, 2006). Empirical research shows that experienced entrepreneurs have a higher cognitive complexity, that fosters the quality of their strategic choices and innovativeness (Curșeu & Louwers, 2008). A different but related explanation is that of “structural alignment”, which explains the recognition of opportunities through comparison processes between newly encountered information and what is already known (Grégoire et al., 2010). When the similarity between the new information and the one stored in the long-term memory is high and when the comparison is made at the level of structural relationships, the recognition of new opportunities is more likely to occur. Experts and those with extensive prior knowledge make comparisons especially at the level of structural relationships which helps them recognize more opportunities (Grégoire et al., 2010). Therefore, it is plausible that experienced entrepreneurs have higher cognitive complexity (Curșeu, 2008; Curșeu & Louwers, 2008) and perceive more opportunities related to the adoption of new technologies, particularly if they have observed the evolution and integration of other prior technologies into businesses. In line with the structural alignment argument, we posit that the evolution and adoption of cryptocurrencies share important similarities with the (successful) integration of prior technologies into business. Entrepreneurs with greater experience are likely to have witnessed or actively contributed to the adoption of earlier innovations—such as the Internet, mobile payment systems (such as PayPal) or social media —and observed how these technologies created new business opportunities. As a result, they are better equipped to recognize patterns, assess potential benefits, and anticipate challenges associated with emerging technologies, making them more likely to perceive cryptocurrencies as a promising opportunity for business innovation. Based on these cognitive models of opportunity recognition in entrepreneurship we argue that entrepreneurial experience has a positive association with the perceived opportunities related to the use of cryptocurrencies.
Hypothesis 1.
Entrepreneurial experience has a positive association with the perceived opportunities related to the use of cryptocurrencies in business.
A particular type of knowledge that can be useful to entrepreneurs is financial and economic knowledge, also known in the literature as “financial literacy”. Financial literacy can be defined “as knowledge of basic economic and financial concepts, as well as the ability to use this knowledge and other financial skills to manage financial resources effectively for a lifetime of financial well-being” (Hung et al., 2009, p. 12). Thus, financial literacy can be seen primarily as expertise and (technical) knowledge related to the fields of finance and economics. Previous work has highlighted the importance and benefits of financial literacy at the individual, business, and society levels (Abad-Segura & González-Zamar, 2019; Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014; Lusardi, 2019; Rieger, 2020). Because financial literacy is reflected in the broad span of knowledge and skills necessary to make informed financial decisions, including understanding investment risks, financial instruments, and market dynamics (Lusardi, 2019; Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014) we expect that financial literacy is a key antecedent for identifying opportunities in relation to the use of innovative digital financial tools.
In line with arguments presented by Baron (2006) and Grégoire et al. (2010), we can expect that more financially literate entrepreneurs have richer and more diverse cognitive representations regarding the financial dimension of businesses (Curșeu, 2008), enabling them to connect the dots between seemingly unrelated events and facilitating the comparisons between the new and existing information. In turn, these processes will lead to the perception of new business opportunities regarding financial issues. In general, such rich representations related to financial issues could act as a catalyst for technological adoption in entrepreneurship, including the use of cryptocurrencies. Financial knowledge and expertise empower entrepreneurs to explore innovative financial tools such as cryptocurrencies and integrate them into their business practices. Moreover, financially literate entrepreneurs could recognize the benefits of using cryptocurrencies in expanding the scope of their business and reach out to additional potential clients. In line with previous research showing that financial literacy fosters the recognition of opportunities (Anwar et al., 2020; Kang & Park, 2024), we expect the more financially literate entrepreneurs to recognize more opportunities related to innovative financial instruments such as cryptocurrencies.
Hypothesis 2.
Financial literacy has a positive association with perceived opportunities associated with using cryptocurrency in business
Previous work, both theoretical (N. F. Krueger et al., 2000) and empirical (Hassan et al., 2020; Hou et al., 2022), supports the idea that opportunity recognition is an important antecedent for the intention to create or develop businesses. Moreover, students scoring high on recognition of opportunities trait, report stronger intentions to become entrepreneurs (Lim et al., 2023). Even though the recognition of opportunities is fundamental to entrepreneurship, it is not enough (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), as in order to be successful, entrepreneurs have to act and capitalize on such opportunities. Therefore, opportunities are constantly evaluated to decide whether they are worth exploiting (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Mary George et al., 2016; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) and many perceived opportunities will ultimately not be exploited. We see, therefore, that the recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities in innovative financial instruments such as cryptocurrencies as the starting point of an evaluation process that ultimately leads to adoption.
Entrepreneurs scoring high on financial literacy are more aware of the broad range of benefits linked to using cryptocurrencies in entrepreneurial activities, ranging from making financial transactions more efficient by reducing transaction costs (Matanovič, 2017), elevating security when contemplating global markets expansion (Gomber et al., 2017), to access to smart contracts and novel financing models such as crowdfunding (Schär, 2021). These perceived opportunities, tied to elevated financial knowledge and skills, make entrepreneurs more likely to consider cryptocurrencies as a valuable financial tool while seeking to differentiate their businesses, reduce costs, and leverage innovative financial technology. Thus, we expect the perception of opportunities to mediate the positive relationship between financial literacy and experience, on the one hand, and the intention to use cryptocurrencies in business, on the other hand.
Hypothesis 3.
Perceptions of opportunities related to cryptocurrencies mediate the positive association between (a) entrepreneurial experiences and (b) financial literacy on the one hand and the intention to use cryptocurrency in business on the other hand.

2.2. Moderation Hypotheses

While the perception of opportunities in relation to cryptocurrency is positively associated with entrepreneurial intention to use this financial innovation, perceived threats have the opposite effect. We build on the conceptualization of external organizational threats discussed in Connelly and Shi (2022) across the PESTLE dimensions (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental external factors), to argue that cryptocurrencies can also harm entrepreneurial activities as they present significant economic risks (stemming from market volatility), raise legal challenges (regulatory discrepancies and uncertainty) and bring technological (cybersecurity risks) and social threats (limited consumer protection) (Baur et al., 2018; Arsi et al., 2022; Afzal & Asif, 2019). According to the TRM (Staw et al., 1981), individuals, groups, and organizations show a restriction in information processing and a centralization of power and control when encountering threats, which often leads them to fall back on familiar routines and adopt rigid responses (Mazzei et al., 2024). Typical threat responses are grounded in dominant and well-learned behaviors that emerge from two primary mechanisms: restriction in information processing and constriction of control, observable at individual, group, and organizational levels (Chattopadhyay et al., 2001; W. C. Ocasio, 1995). At the individual level, people define problems based on prior experience and under stress tend to simplify information processing, narrow the scope of decision-making, and rely on fast, automatic (System 1) thinking, which can result in judgment biases and suboptimal performance (Kahneman, 2011). At the organizational level, threats prompt leaders to prioritize prior knowledge, reduce communication complexity, centralize authority, formalize procedures, and conserve resources (Chattopadhyay et al., 2001; Hodgkinson & Wright, 2002; Sutton & D’Aunno, 1989). Importantly, a rigid response is not a lack of action; rather, it reflects the tendency to default to prior practices (Mazzei et al., 2024). Threat rigidity does not result from poor strategic aptitude, inadequate scanning, or “paralysis by analysis,” but instead represents a specific psychological and behavioral response to maintain familiar courses of action under perceived threat (Mazzei et al., 2024). The empirical support for the TRM is relatively robust, with research consistently showing that threats induce rigidity at the firm level (Aarøen & Selart, 2025; Jeong et al., 2023; Kreiser et al., 2020; Mazzei et al., 2024). However, the effect of threats on rigidity appears to depend on multiple factors, the most important being the nature of the threats faced by the firm (Mazzei et al., 2024), the level of perceived control and the positive or negative framing of external situations (König et al., 2021), emotional responses (Aarøen & Selart, 2025) and other individual, contextual and organizational factors (see Mazzei et al., 2024, for a review). Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that threats can positively contribute to the development of entrepreneurial resilience by enhancing the ability to cope with unexpected challenges (Alshebami, 2025).
Threats and opportunities are interpretations of changes emerging in the environment, including financial and economic. Thus, where some entrepreneurs see financial threats, others see opportunities. Yet, in situations where complex changes occur, such as the emergence of complex financial technologies (cryptocurrencies, bitcoin), the same entrepreneur may perceive both opportunities and threats related to these innovative technologies. Previous research on attitude formation shows that the same event or stimulus can be perceived both negatively and positively (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994). Moreover, previous studies show a weak negative correlation between perceived threats and opportunities, which shows that the two perceptions can coexist (Belloni & Curșeu, 2025; N. Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Iederan et al., 2013). Although entrepreneurial behavior is driven by opportunity identification and exploitation, perceived threats may alleviate the positive effect of opportunities. Building on the dual-attitude model (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994) and the co-existence of perceived threats and opportunities (Belloni & Curșeu, 2025; Iederan et al., 2013) we argue that when entrepreneurs simultaneously perceive high levels of opportunity as well as threats in relation to cryptocurrencies, defensive mechanisms may override the opportunity-driven entrepreneurial intentions. Under threat, entrepreneurs tend to engage in loss-avoidance behaviors, narrow their cognitive scope and resort to familiar decision routines (Staw et al., 1981). Consequently, even when opportunities are perceived, simultaneous threat perceptions may trump entrepreneurial intention to use cryptocurrencies in business.
We argue that the intention to use cryptocurrencies also reflects a dynamic interplay between financial literacy and perceived threats in relation to cryptocurrencies. Guided by their financial expertise and experience, entrepreneurs weigh the potential opportunities against the inherent threats tied to using cryptocurrencies before deciding to implement such new financial technologies. If entrepreneurs perceive that cryptocurrencies bring substantial financial, institutional, and social threats, they are more likely to rely on established routines and familiar financial instruments rather than act on newly recognized opportunities. Therefore, based on the arguments presented above we expect that when entrepreneurs perceive substantial threats in relation to cryptocurrencies, the relationship between perceived opportunities and the intention to use cryptocurrencies will be attenuated. We also expect that the relationship between financial literacy and the intention to use cryptocurrencies is likely weakened under perceived threats, as entrepreneurs tend to rely on familiar responses, preventing their financial knowledge from contributing effectively to the intention to adopt cryptocurrencies. The full theoretical model is presented in Figure 1.
Hypothesis 4.
Perceived threats related to cryptocurrencies attenuate the positive association between financial literacy and the intention to use cryptocurrencies in business.
Hypothesis 5.
Perceived threats related to cryptocurrencies attenuate the positive association between perceived opportunities and intention to use cryptocurrency in business

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Sample

The sample was obtained through non-probabilistic convenience and snowball sampling, with graduate students enrolled in an organizational psychology program distributing questionnaires to entrepreneurs within their networks. The sample consists of 133 entrepreneurs of small and medium-sized enterprises in Romania (39 women, with an average age of just above 37 years old) from various industries (tourism, sport, services, ICT, commerce, real estate, etc.) in the Cluj-Napoca region in Romania. Approximately 73% of the sample held a higher education degree (bachelor’s or above), while the remainder had completed only high school. The study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Participation was anonymous and participants could withdraw from the study at any time.

3.2. Scales and Procedure

Participants were asked to fill in a survey in which they reported their gender, age, entrepreneurial experience, and company size (the number of employees). The survey also included several questions regarding the constructs investigated in this study. The scales used to evaluate the key variables and their psychometric qualities are described below.
Perceived opportunities regarding cryptocurrencies were evaluated with a three-item scale developed originally to capture threats associated with institutional change in Iederan et al. (2013) and used in previous research to evaluate perceived career opportunities in relation to AI (Belloni & Curșeu, 2025). We have adapted the content of the items by asking participants to estimate the extent to which cryptocurrencies bring various business opportunities. A sample item is “Cryptocurrencies generate new development opportunities for my company”. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is 0.84. Because we have adapted the item content to capture the cryptocurrency, we have also used the procedure described in Hayes and Coutts (2020) to compute the omega coefficient, based on the results of a factor analysis. For this scale, the omega value is 0.86, indicating good internal reliability of the items.
Perceived threats in relation to cryptocurrencies were evaluated with a three-item scale adapted from Iederan et al. (2013) and used in previous research to evaluate perceived career threats in relation to AI (Belloni & Curșeu, 2025). A sample item is “The use of cryptocurrencies will bring new threats and risks for my company”. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is 0.68 and omega is 0.73, indicating a reasonable internal consistency for this scale.
Financial literacy was evaluated with an objective four-item knowledge test related to inflation, risk diversification, and interest compounding, containing four items developed by Lusardi and Mitchell (2006). A sample item is represented by “A share in a company usually offers a more certain return than an investment fund that only invests in shares”. Participants could offer fours responses—true, not true, I don’t know, I would rather not say. The correct answers for each of the four items were coded as 1, and the other answers as 0. The total score was computed by addition. Cronbach’s alpha for these scores was 0.36, while omega was 0.51. Although the scores are rather low, we will use the items as indicators of financial literacy, as previous literature shows they are valid indicators of financial literacy (Van Rooij et al., 2011, 2012; Ilies et al., 2019).
Intention to use cryptocurrency in business was evaluated with a single item, asking participants to report the likelihood of using cryptocurrency in the future (“Please rate the likelihood of using cryptocurrency in your company in the future”). Answers were recorded on a 1 (not likely at all), to 5 (very likely) Likert scale. This approach is aligned with research on technology acceptance and previous research on cryptocurrency (Arias-Oliva et al., 2019).

4. Results

Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations and correlations for the study variables.
Because we used a cross-sectional design, we performed Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the measurements model (with four factors) as well as a single factor model in which all items loaded into a single factor. For the measurement model with four factors that were allowed to covary, the fit indices showed that the data fitted the measurement model well: χ2 (49) = 68.82, p = 0.03; RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.91, while for a single factor model the fit indices (χ2 (49) = 148.91, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.12; CFI = 0.74; TLI = 0.62) indicated a poor model fit. Moreover, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with a single dominant factor showed that the first factor only accounts for 27.9% of the variance in scores, a value lower than 50% that would be indicative of Common Method Bias (CMB). Given the results of the CFA and EFA analyses we can conclude that our measurement model was supported and there are no significant concerns related to the CMB.
In order to test our hypotheses, we have used the PROCESS macro, version 4.2 for SPSS (Hayes, 2012). The results of the stepwise approach are presented in Table 2 with heteroskedasticity consistent standard errors estimators (Hayes & Cai, 2007). Variables were grand mean centered before computing the cross-product terms in order to reduce multicollinearity. Normality assumptions were checked and confirmed via skewness/kurtosis analyses.
Among the control variables, only gender had a negative association with the expressed intention to use cryptocurrency in business, such that women entrepreneurs report a lower tendency to use cryptocurrency in the future, compared to men entrepreneurs (B = −0.42, SE = 0.19, p = 0.03).
Entrepreneurial experience had a non-significant association with perceived opportunities regarding cryptocurrencies (B = −0.03, SE = 0.02, p = 0.11), therefore Hypothesis 1 was not supported by the data. Financial literacy had a positive association with the perceived opportunities concerning cryptocurrency (B = 0.22, SE = 0.11, p = 0.03), therefore Hypothesis 2 was fully supported by the data. The conditional indirect association between financial literacy and intention to use cryptocurrency was significant irrespective of the level of perceived threats (for low levels of threats indirect effect = 0.17, SE = 0.08, 95%CI [0.01, 0.33]; for average levels of perceived threats indirect effect = 0.17, SE = 0.08, 95%CI [0.01, 0.34]; for high levels of threats indirect effect = 0.17, SE = 0.09, 95%CI [0.01, 0.36]). Therefore, we can conclude that Hypothesis 3b was fully supported by the data. As the association between entrepreneurial experience and perceived opportunities regarding cryptocurrencies was not supported, the mediating role of perceived opportunities in the relation between entrepreneurial experience and intention to use cryptocurrencies, as stated in Hypothesis 3a was not supported. The interaction effect between financial literacy and perceived threats was a significant predictor of intention to use (B = −0.27, SE = 0.10, p = 0.007). This significant interaction effect is presented in Figure 2 and as depicted, perceived threats attenuate the positive association between financial literacy and intention to use cryptocurrency in business, therefore Hypothesis 4 was fully supported. More specifically, the relationship between financial literacy and the intention to use cryptocurrencies is positive when perceived threats are low and becomes negative when perceived threats are high. The interaction effect between perceived threats and perceived opportunities on the intention to use cryptocurrencies was not significant (B = 0.0002, SE = 0.08, p = 0.99), therefore Hypothesis 5 was not supported.
In Table 3 we present the results of hypothesis testing, indicating whether or not they are supported by the data.

5. Discussion

Given that the cryptocurrency market is constantly growing and increasingly influencing businesses, it is important to understand the factors that drive entrepreneurial intention to use such financial instruments. Thus, the main aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which entrepreneurial experience and financial literacy foster the intention to use cryptocurrencies in business. Moreover, we argued that entrepreneurs build on their experience and financial knowledge and expertise to make sense of cryptocurrency as bringing opportunities and threats to their business, factors that ultimately shape their intention to use cryptocurrencies. The results show that financial literacy positively predicts the intention to use cryptocurrencies both directly and indirectly through perceived opportunities. Our study provides initial empirical evidence that perceived opportunities and threats are among the mechanisms through which financial expertise translates into intention to rely on financial innovations and makes a few important contributions to the literature on digital finance in entrepreneurship.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

First, these results extend previous literature showing that prior financial skills, knowledge, and expertise are important antecedents for entrepreneurial opportunity recognition and intention (Alshebami & Al Marri, 2022; Anwar et al., 2020; Curșeu, 2008; Kang & Park, 2024). Our study is also one of the first empirical attempts to investigate the relationship between financial literacy and the intention to use new financial instruments such as cryptocurrencies in businesses. Furthermore, given the diversity of the sample across industries, we consider that the results are broadly generalizable to entrepreneurial contexts, albeit within the national setting of Romania.
Second, our results show that entrepreneurial experience was not positively and significantly associated with perceived opportunities in relation to using cryptocurrency in business. A potential explanation of this result is that although entrepreneurial experience helps individuals identify entrepreneurial opportunities in general, the use of cryptocurrencies is a specific financial innovation that is not yet perceived as bringing substantial changes in terms of entrepreneurial opportunities. As entrepreneurs with significant experience were socialized within more traditional financial frameworks, they may be generally skilled at recognizing business opportunities involving familiar financial instruments and established markets. However, in the context of emerging digital finance, such as cryptocurrencies, general entrepreneurial experience may be less important. Instead, specific financial knowledge and familiarity with digital financial technologies may be more important for identifying and evaluating opportunities related to these novel financial literacy instruments.
Another explanation may be that experience is strongly associated with age, and as individuals grow older, the personality trait of openness to experience tends to decline, thereby reducing cognitive and behavioral flexibility (Allemand et al., 2008). Consequently, more experienced entrepreneurs, who are also older, may be less open to new business opportunities that involve novel financial technologies such as cryptocurrencies.
Third, in line with the predictions of the TRM (Staw et al., 1981), our results show that the perception of threats attenuates the positive relationship between financial literacy and the intention to use cryptocurrencies. Contrary to our expectations, the perception of threats does not moderate the effect of the perceived opportunities on the intention to use cryptocurrency. In other words, these results show that the entrepreneurs who recognize more opportunities have a greater intention to use cryptocurrency, even in the presence of perceived threats, yet the presence of threats reduces the positive impact of literacy on the intention to use cryptocurrencies. One potential explanation for this finding is that perceived opportunities serve as a direct motivational antecedent of intention, making their effect more robust and less vulnerable to attenuation by perceived threats. In contrast, financial literacy constitutes a cognitive resource, which is a more distal antecedent of intention, whose influence is therefore more susceptible to reduction under conditions of heightened threat perception. Our results partially support this interpretation, as the correlation between perceived opportunities and intention is substantially higher than that between financial literacy and intention. A different but related explanation concerns the nature of the threats themselves: only severe, enduring, and difficult-to-reverse threats typically elicit rigidity, whereas minor, anticipated, or temporary threats, such as those assessed in this study, may not (Mazzei et al., 2024). Finally, as emphasized by König et al. (2021), the perceived level of control plays a crucial role: when decision makers perceive moderate control, they are more likely to experience activating feelings and emotions and consequently they are more likely to allocate resources and maintain adaptive responses, even in the presence of heightened perceived threats. This remains a speculation, as the level of perceived control was not evaluated in our study. However, it is plausible that when the level of perceived opportunities is moderate to high, entrepreneurs experience a certain degree of perceived control, which, in turn, may explain why the relationship between opportunity perception and entrepreneurial intention is not moderated by perceived threats.
Unlike previous studies that reported a small negative correlation between perceived opportunities and perceived threats (N. Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Iederan et al., 2013; Belloni & Curșeu, 2025), our results show a moderate positive correlation between them. The positive correlation between perceived opportunities and threats reflects the fact that entrepreneurs in our sample report a certain duality in relation to cryptocurrencies as they perceive that this financial innovation brings chances as well as risks. However, our results are consistent with previous studies on attitude formation that show that the same events can be perceived both positively and negatively at the same time (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994). The positive correlation between threats and opportunities in our sample could also explain the not significant interaction effect between threats and opportunities on intention to use cryptocurrencies.
Finally, an emergent result shows that women entrepreneurs have, on average, a lower intention to use cryptocurrencies in their businesses. This result can be explained by risk aversion, given the fact that the use of cryptocurrencies is generally perceived as risky, and there is solid empirical evidence that women are more risk-averse in many types of decisions (Borghans et al., 2009; Charness & Gneezy, 2012; Eckel & Grossman, 2008). This explanation is supported by the positive and significant correlation between gender and perceived threats in relation to cryptocurrencies, showing that, in general, women entrepreneurs report higher level of threats associated with the use of cryptocurrencies in business than men entrepreneurs do. This result (that men show higher intentions to use cryptocurrencies compared to women) is consistent with previous research (Alonso et al., 2023; Nyhus et al., 2024), a finding that is likely attributable to a mix of cultural, individual, and evolutionary factors (Nyhus et al., 2024). However, it should be mentioned that only about 30% of the participants in our sample are women, which makes the interpretation of the results regarding gender more difficult. Our study calls for more research on the use of cryptocurrencies in entrepreneurial activities, as it creates opportunities for a clear differentiation in the market, developing smart contracts and new business models that can streamline entrepreneurial operations and create substantial economic value (Gomber et al., 2017). However, the use of cryptocurrencies is also tied to illicit and illegal economic transactions (Foley et al., 2019). Therefore, we need more exploration of how entrepreneurs mitigate this dark side of using cryptocurrencies.
Our study was conducted in Romania, an emerging market (Iederan et al., 2011) with a rapidly growing digital economy and evolving cryptocurrency regulations. Studying such a context is advantageous because research on entrepreneurial adoption of cryptocurrencies in emerging economies is still rare, and the business environment differs from Western countries. This allows our findings to offer unique insights into how entrepreneurs navigate opportunities and threats in markets with high uncertainty and developing digital finance infrastructures.

5.2. Practical Implications

The main practical implication of this study is highlighting the positive role of financial literacy in empowering entrepreneurs to explore new financial tools and integrate them into their business models. Entrepreneurs with strong financial knowledge and skills are more inclined to identify opportunities tied to new financial technologies (Gomber et al., 2017). Thus, the results contribute to a growing literature on the positive role of financial literacy on entrepreneurial behavior and intention (Abad-Segura & González-Zamar, 2019; Anwar et al., 2020; Kang & Park, 2024), including entrepreneurial intentions to use fintech innovations. We believe that financial literacy supports entrepreneurs to engage in proper risk management and improves the quality of their financial decision-making processes. At the same time, it could enhance entrepreneurial innovation and capitalize on new financial tools. Enhancing financial literacy can, therefore, lead to a greater propensity to integrate cryptocurrencies in entrepreneurial ventures, given the improved understanding and confidence in utilizing this emerging financial tool. Thus, we highlight the need for financial education not only in educational institutions but also in other broader entrepreneurial contexts.
Our results highlight the importance of threat awareness and risk management. Entrepreneurs often perceive cryptocurrencies as risky due to volatility, regulatory uncertainty, and cybersecurity concerns. By developing tools, guidelines, and practices for assessing and mitigating these risks, entrepreneurs can reduce behavioral rigidity and make more informed adoption decisions. For instance, providing industry-specific case studies, regulatory updates, and cybersecurity best practices can help entrepreneurs act on perceived opportunities despite potential threats. W. Ocasio (2011) argues that a top management attention perspective that is more forward-looking, rather than experience-based, may enhance an organization’s ability to overcome structural inertia and core rigidities.

5.3. Limitations

Next to its contributions, our study also has several limitations. First, the study was cross-sectional and none of our variables were manipulated. Therefore, no causal claims can be derived from our analyses. However, our main predictors, namely financial literacy and entrepreneurial experience, are variables that are less likely to be influenced by the perceived opportunities and threats related to cryptocurrencies. Given that, conceptually, such reversed causation is not plausible, we can conclude that our mediation path is theoretically grounded and empirically robust. Second, since we collected data from a single source, our results are influenced by CMB. However, as we included interaction effects in our analyses, these effects are not likely to be overestimated by common-method bias (Siemsen et al., 2010). Therefore, we can conclude that our moderation results are robust. Third, although we collected data from entrepreneurs operating in a broad range of industries, our sample is embedded in a single national context. Fourth, another limitation of our study concerns the sample size. According to a sensitivity analysis, our study is powered to detect only medium-sized effects ( f 2 = 0.13 ), but not small ones. Lower statistical power especially impacts more complex effects, such as moderation and moderated mediation, as these effects tend to be smaller in size and exhibit higher sampling variability. Therefore, it is possible that a study with higher statistical power could reveal additional effects. Fifth, most entrepreneurs in our sample have relatively limited experience, with an average of around nine years, which may reduce the generalizability of the results. Sixth, intention to use cryptocurrencies was measured using a single item, which may raise concerns regarding validity and reduce the statistical power of the study. However, some researchers argue that single-item measures can be appropriate when the construct being assessed is relatively simple and unidimensional (Allen et al., 2022), as we consider to be the case for this construct. Finally, the financial literacy scale has rather low internal consistency, yet the scale is validated in previous research and has good predictive validity (Van Rooij et al., 2011, 2012; Ilies et al., 2019). Furthermore, previous research suggests that short financial literacy measures generally display low internal consistency, primarily because of their limited number of items and the multidimensional character of the construct (Rieger, 2020).

5.4. Future Research Directions

Future research could extend the current study in several ways. First, longitudinal designs would allow for the examination of how perceptions of opportunities, threats, and financial literacy evolve over time, and how these dynamics influence the intention to adopt cryptocurrencies. Second, replicating the study in other national contexts would help assess the generalizability of the findings beyond Romania, capturing potential cultural and institutional influences on entrepreneurial decision-making. Third, building on the theoretical insights of TRM framework (Staw et al., 1981) and König et al. (2021), future research could explore the role of perceived control in shaping rigidity and flexibility responses to threats and opportunities. Investigating whether moderate levels of perceived control consistently mitigate the constraining effects of threats—or amplify the effect of perceived opportunities—would deepen our understanding of entrepreneurial intention to use cryptocurrencies in business. Fourth, future research could investigate how the interaction between threats and opportunities affects different types of outcomes, both at the individual and firm level. For instance, Chng et al. (2015) argues that threats constrain behavior but not the decision itself. Accordingly, scholars could examine how this interaction between threats and opportunities influences behavior, intention, and the decision-making process, with each of these outcomes potentially being affected in distinct ways. Additionally, researchers could examine other individual and contextual factors that may interact with perceived threats and opportunities, such as risk tolerance, prior experience with digital assets, or industry-level technological dynamism. Finally, while some of the public discourse on cryptocurrency adoption links its use to tax evasion tendencies, there is little empirical evidence on the non-transparent motivations possibly driving entrepreneurs to use cryptocurrency. Future research could explore such “dark motivations” across different regulatory contexts.

6. Conclusions

This study builds on the TRM to explore entrepreneurial adoption of financial innovations, offering novel insights into how financial literacy and the threat–opportunity perceptions of cryptocurrencies influence the adoption intention of entrepreneurs. Our findings underscore that financial literacy plays a pivotal role in shaping entrepreneurial openness to use cryptocurrencies in business, both directly as well as through enhanced perception of opportunities tied to cryptocurrencies. However, perceived threats related to legal, technological and financial risks substantially weaken the positive association between financial literacy and intention to adopt cryptocurrencies in business, highlighting the behavioral rigidity triggered by perceived threats related to cryptocurrencies. Contrary to expectations, entrepreneurial experience did not significantly predict opportunity recognition in the context of cryptocurrency use, suggesting that such digital tools may require distinct knowledge that is less rooted in previous entrepreneurial activities. Additionally, gender differences were observed, with female entrepreneurs reporting a lower intention to use cryptocurrencies in business than males, which point towards social role dynamics that warrant further exploration. By revealing the complex interplay between knowledge, attitudes and intention to use cryptocurrencies in entrepreneurship, this study offers actionable insights for educators, policy makers, and educational programs aiming to promote financial and digital literacy in entrepreneurship. Enhancing financial literacy emerges as a key strategy not only for recognizing the potential of cryptocurrencies in entrepreneurship but also for fostering confidence and informed choices in their application.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.L.C. and A.M.C.; methodology, P.L.C., A.M.C., A.U. and S.R.T., formal analysis, P.L.C. and A.U.; investigation, A.M.C. and A.U.; data curation, A.M.C. and A.U.; writing—original draft preparation, P.L.C., A.M.C., A.U. and S.R.T.; writing—review and editing, P.L.C., A.M.C., A.U. and S.R.T.; supervision, P.L.C.; project administration, A.M.C. and P.L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania (protocol code 18.892 and date of approval: 17 December 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data is available from the corresponding author upon motivated and reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
TRMThreat Rigidity Model
AIArtificial Intelligence
ICTInformation and Communication Technologies
CMBCommon Method Bias
EFAExploratory Factor Analysis
CFAConfirmatory Factor Analysis

References

  1. Aarøen, C., & Selart, M. (2025). Opportunities, threats, and strategic choice: The modifying role of emotion. Administrative Sciences, 15(9), 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abad-Segura, E., & González-Zamar, M. D. (2019). Effects of financial education and financial literacy on creative entrepreneurship: A worldwide research. Education Sciences, 9(3), 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Afzal, A., & Asif, A. (2019). Cryptocurrencies, blockchain and regulation: A review. The Lahore Journal of Economics, 24(1), 103–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Martin, M. (2008). Long-term correlated change in personality traits in old age. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Allen, M. S., Iliescu, D., & Greiff, S. (2022). Single item measures in psychological science. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(1), 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alonso, S. L. N., Jorge-Vázquez, J., Rodríguez, P. A., & Hernández, B. M. S. (2023). Gender gap in the ownership and use of cryptocurrencies: Empirical evidence from Spain. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(3), 100103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Alshebami, A. S. (2025). Purpose-Driven Resilience: A Blueprint for Sustainable Growth in Micro-and Small Enterprises in Turbulent Contexts. Sustainability, 17(5), 2308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alshebami, A. S., & Al Marri, S. H. (2022). The impact of financial literacy on entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of saving behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 911605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Anwar, M., Shuangjie, L., & Ullah, R. (2020). Business experience or Financial Literacy? Which one is better for opportunity recognition and superior performance? Business Strategy & Development, 3(3), 377–387. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Arias-Oliva, M., Pelegrín-Borondo, J., & Matías-Clavero, G. (2019). Variables influencing cryptocurrency use: A technology acceptance model in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Arsi, S., Ben Khelifa, S., Ghabri, Y., & Mzoughi, H. (2022). Cryptocurrencies: Key risks and challenges. In Cryptofinance: A new currency for a new economy (pp. 121–145). World Scientific Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  13. Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs “connect the dots” to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52(9), 1331–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Baur, D. G., Hong, K., & Lee, A. D. (2018). Bitcoin: Medium of exchange or speculative assets? Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 54, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Belloni, G., & Curșeu, P. L. (2025). Anthropomorphic AI: Sociopathic AI Features as Predictors of Career Opportunities and Threats Perceived by Pilots in Commercial Aviation. The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bogusz, C. I., Laurell, C., & Sandström, C. (2020). Tracking the digital evolution of entrepreneurial finance: The interplay between crowdfunding, blockchain technologies, cryptocurrencies, and initial coin offerings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 67(4), 1099–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Borghans, L., Heckman, J. J., Golsteyn, B. H., & Meijers, H. (2009). Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2–3), 649–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (2001). Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 937–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chng, D. H. M., Shih, E., Rodgers, M. S., & Song, X. B. (2015). Managers’ marketing strategy decision making during performance decline and the moderating influence of incentive pay. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(5), 629–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Connelly, B. L., & Shi, W. (2022). Threats and responses in organizational research. Journal of Management, 48(6), 1366–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Curșeu, P. L. (2008). The role of cognitive complexity in entrepreneurial strategic decision making. In P. Vermeulen, & P. L. Curșeu (Eds.), Entrepreneurial strategic decision making: A cognitive perspective (pp. 68–86). Edward Elgar. [Google Scholar]
  25. Curșeu, P. L., & Louwers, D. (2008). Entrepreneurial experience and innovation: The mediating role of cognitive complexity. In P. Vermeulen, & P. L. Curșeu (Eds.), Entrepreneurial strategic decision making: A cognitive perspective (pp. 146–160). Edward Elgar. [Google Scholar]
  26. Davidson, E., & Vaast, E. (2010, January 5–8). Digital entrepreneurship and its sociomaterial enactment. 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10), Kauai, HI, USA. [Google Scholar]
  27. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Demertzis, M., & Wolff, G. B. (2018). The economic potential and risks of crypto assets: Is a regulatory framework needed? (No. 2018/14). Bruegel Policy Contribution. [Google Scholar]
  29. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. In Handbook of experimental economics results (Volume 1, pp. 1061–1073). Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  30. Foley, S., Karlsen, J. R., & Putniņš, T. J. (2019). Sex, drugs, and bitcoin: How much illegal activity is financed through cryptocurrencies? The Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 1798–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Folkinshteyn, D., & Lennon, M. (2016). Braving Bitcoin: A technology acceptance model (TAM) analysis. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 18(4), 220–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gomber, P., Koch, J. A., & Siering, M. (2017). Digital Finance and FinTech: Current research and future research directions. Journal of Business Economics, 87, 537–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010). Cognitive processes of opportunity recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organization Science, 21(2), 413–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hassan, A., Saleem, I., Anwar, I., & Hussain, S. A. (2020). Entrepreneurial intention of Indian university students: The role of opportunity recognition and entrepreneurship education. Education+ Training, 62(7/8), 843–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Available online: http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2024).
  36. Hayes, A. F., & Cai, L. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 709–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Wright, G. (2002). Confronting strategic inertia in a top management team: Learning from failure. Organization Studies, 23(6), 949–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hou, F., Su, Y., Qi, M., Chen, J., & Tang, J. (2022). A multilevel model of entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: Opportunity recognition as a mediator and entrepreneurial learning as a moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 837388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hung, A., Parker, A. M., & Yoong, J. (2009). Defining and measuring financial literacy (RAND Working Paper No. WR-708). Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1498674 (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  41. Iederan, O. C., Curşeu, P. L., Vermeulen, P. A., & Geurts, J. L. (2011). Cognitive representations of institutional change: Similarities and dissimilarities in the cognitive schema of entrepreneurs. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(1), 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Iederan, O. C., Curşeu, P. L., Vermeulen, P. A., & Geurts, J. L. (2013). Antecedents of strategic orientations in Romanian SMEs: An institutional framing perspective. Journal for East European Management Studies, 18, 386–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ilies, R., Yao, J., Curșeu, P. L., & Liang, A. X. (2019). Educated and happy: A four-year study explaining the links between education, job fit, and life satisfaction. Applied Psychology, 68(1), 150–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jena, R. K. (2022). Examining the factors affecting the adoption of blockchain technology in the banking sector: An extended UTAUT model. International Journal of Financial Studies, 10(4), 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jeong, I., Gong, Y., & Zhong, B. (2023). Does an employee-experienced crisis help or hinder creativity? An integration of threat-rigidity and implicit theories. Journal of Management, 49(4), 1394–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kang, G. L., & Park, C. W. (2024). The impact of financial literacy and financial management behavior on recognition of startup opportunity. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8(9), 7268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. König, A., Graf-Vlachy, L., & Schöberl, M. (2021). Opportunity/threat perception and inertia in response to discontinuous change: Replicating and extending Gilbert (2005). Journal of Management, 47(3), 771–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kreiser, P. M., Anderson, B. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Marino, L. D. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation and environmental hostility: A threat rigidity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(6), 1174–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Krueger, N., Jr., & Dickson, P. R. (1994). How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Perceived self--efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences, 25(3), 385–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Krueger, N. F., Jr., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 411–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lim, W., Lee, Y., & Mamun, A. A. (2023). Delineating competency and opportunity recognition in the entrepreneurial intention analysis framework. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 15(1), 212–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lusardi, A. (2019). Financial literacy and the need for financial education: Evidence and implications. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 155(1), 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2006). Financial literacy and planning: Implications for retirement well-being. In A. Lusardi, & O. S. Mitchell (Eds.), Financial literacy. Implications for retirement security and the financial marketplace (pp. 17–39). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The economic importance of financial literacy: Theory and evidence. American Economic Journal: Journal of Economic Literature, 52(1), 5–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Martino, P., Bellavitis, C., & DaSilva, C. M. (2020). Cryptocurrencies and entrepreneurial finance. In J. M. Munoz, & M. Frenkel (Eds.), The Economics of cryptocurrencies (pp. 51–56). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  57. Mary George, N., Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: Insights on influencing factors. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12, 309–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Matanovič, A. (2017, October 18). Blockchain/cryptocurrencies and cybersecurity, threats and opportunities. The 9th International Conference on Business Information Security (BISEC-2017) (pp. 11–15), Belgrade, Serbia. [Google Scholar]
  59. Mazzei, M. J., DeBode, J., Gangloff, K. A., & Song, R. (2024). Old Habits Die Hard: A Review and Assessment of the Threat-Rigidity Literature. Journal of Management, 51, 2154–2181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nyhus, E. K., Frank, D. A., Król, M. K., & Otterbring, T. (2024). Crypto cravings: Gender differences in crypto investment intentions and the mediating roles of financial overconfidence and personality. Psychology & Marketing, 41(3), 447–464. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22(5), 1286–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ocasio, W. C. (1995). The enactment of economic adversity: A reconciliation of theories of failure-induced change and threat-rigidity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 287–331. [Google Scholar]
  63. Phillips, D., Bylund, P. L., Rutherford, M. W., & Moore, C. B. (2023). Cryptocurrency legitimation through rhetorical strategies: An institutional entrepreneurship approach. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 35(1–2), 187–208. [Google Scholar]
  64. Rawhouser, H., Vismara, S., & Kshetri, N. (2023). Blockchain and vulnerable entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 36(1–2), 10–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rieger, M. O. (2020). How to measure financial literacy? Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(12), 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Risman, A., Mulyana, B., Silvatika, B., & Sulaeman, A. (2021). The effect of digital finance on financial stability. Management Science Letters, 11(7), 1979–1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Saiedi, E., Broström, A., & Ruiz, F. (2021). Global drivers of cryptocurrency infrastructure adoption. Small Business Economics, 57(1), 353–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Schär, F. (2021). Decentralized finance: On blockchain- and smart contract-based financial markets. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 103(2), 153–174. [Google Scholar]
  69. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sutton, R. I., & D’Aunno, T. (1989). Decreasing organizational size: Untangling the effects of money and people. Academy of management Review, 14(2), 194–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Van Rooij, M., Lusardi, A., & Alessie, R. (2011). Financial literacy and stock market participation. Journal of Financial Economics, 101, 449–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Van Rooij, M., Lusardi, A., & Alessie, R. (2012). Financial literacy, retirement planning and household wealth. The Economic Journal, 122, 449–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 15 00403 g001
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Admsci 15 00403 g001
Admsci 15 00403 g002
Figure 2. The interaction effect between perceived threats and financial literacy.
Figure 2. The interaction effect between perceived threats and financial literacy.
Admsci 15 00403 g002
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations.
MeanSD12345678
1. Gender0.300.461
2. Age37.6210.050.0451
3.Education4.851.290.065−0.0091
4. Entrepreneurial experience8.566.53−0.0710.635 **0.1001
5. Company size13.4024.97−0.0650.185 *0.195 *0.198 *1
6. Financial literacy1.570.86−0.079−0.0090.174 *0.0010.0051
7. Perceived opportunities2.640.99−0.031−0.1120.015−0.158−0.0010.1601
8. Perceived threats2.700.890.192 *0.069−0.011−0.0630.068−0.0280.388 **1
9. Intention to use cryptocurrency2.651.12−0.195 *−0.180 *0.050−0.169−0.0080.208 *0.651 **0.046
Notes: gender was coded as a dummy variable with 0 = men and 1 = women; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table 2. Results of the regression analyses for intention to use cryptocurrency.
Table 2. Results of the regression analyses for intention to use cryptocurrency.
Intention to Use Perceived Opportunities
Model 1Model 2
Constant2.87 *** (0.61)2.81 *** (0.44)2.56 *** (0.63)
Gender−0.56 * (0.22)−0.42 * (0.19)−0.08 (0.19)
Age−0.009 (0.001)−0.004 (0.01)0.001 (0.01)
Education 0.02 (0.08)0.05 (0.06)−0.01 (0.07)
Entrepreneurial experience−0.02 (0.02)−0.01 (0.02)−0.03 (0.02)
Organization size0.004 (0.005)0.003 (0.004)0.002 (0.004)
Financial literacy (FL)0.22 * (0.11)0.08 (0.08)0.22 * (0.11)
Perceived threats (PT) −0.29 ** (0.10)
Perceived opportunities (PO) 0.76 *** (0.09)
FLxPT −0.27 ** (0.10)
PoxPT 0.0002 (0.08)
R20.130.560.07
F statistic2.34 *16.44 ***1.79 †
Note: gender was coded as a dummy variable 0 = men, 1 = women; unstandardized regression coefficients are shown with robust standard errors between parentheses (the H3 estimator was used); *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01, and * p < 0.05. † p < 0.10.
Table 3. Results of hypothesis testing.
Table 3. Results of hypothesis testing.
HypothesesSupported/Not Supported
H1 (Entrepreneurial experience is positively associated with perceived opportunities)Not supported
H2 (Financial literacy is positively associated with perceived opportunities)Supported
H3a (Perception of opportunities mediates the relationship between experience and intention)Not supported
H3b (Perception of opportunities mediates the relationship between financial literacy and intention)Supported
H4 (Perceived threats attenuate the positive relationship between financial literacy and intention)Supported
H5 (Perceived threats attenuate the positive relationship between perceived opportunities and intention)Not supported
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ursu, A.; Curșeu, P.L.; Trif, S.R.; Cociș, A.M. Cryptocurrencies and the Entrepreneurial Mindset: The Role of Financial Literacy in Driving Adoption. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15100403

AMA Style

Ursu A, Curșeu PL, Trif SR, Cociș AM. Cryptocurrencies and the Entrepreneurial Mindset: The Role of Financial Literacy in Driving Adoption. Administrative Sciences. 2025; 15(10):403. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15100403

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ursu, Alexandru, Petru L. Curșeu, Sabina R. Trif, and Alina Maria Cociș (Fleștea). 2025. "Cryptocurrencies and the Entrepreneurial Mindset: The Role of Financial Literacy in Driving Adoption" Administrative Sciences 15, no. 10: 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15100403

APA Style

Ursu, A., Curșeu, P. L., Trif, S. R., & Cociș, A. M. (2025). Cryptocurrencies and the Entrepreneurial Mindset: The Role of Financial Literacy in Driving Adoption. Administrative Sciences, 15(10), 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15100403

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop