1042-2587

C 2015 Baylor University

V

Determinants of Social
Entrepreneurial
Intentions
Kai Hockerts

This article tests the model proposed by Mair and Noboa (2006) who identify four antece-
dents which they suggest predict social entrepreneurial intentions. The study extends the
model by including prior experience with social problems as an additional variable. Find-
ings show that prior experience predicts social entrepreneurial intentions. This effect is
mediated by the antecedents suggested by Mair and Noboa. Social entrepreneurial self-
efficacy has both the largest impact on intentions as well as being itself most responsive
to prior experience. Lastly, the study shows that the amount of optional social entrepre-
neurship electives students enroll in is predicted by social entrepreneurial intentions.

Introduction

This article is interested in the determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions.

Understanding the antecedents of social entrepreneurial intentions is crucial for policy
makers and educators who want to motivate more people to engage in social entrepre-
neurship (S-ENT). In the literature, S-ENT is used to describe a number of phenomena
(Dees, 2012; Defourny & Nyssens, 2010; Mort, Weerawardena, & Carnegie, 2003): the
discovery of social innovation opportunities, the generation of earned-income for social
purposes, the founding and management of social enterprises, as well as the democratic
governance of such organizations. This article understands social entrepreneurial behav-
ior as the identification of opportunities to create social impact through the generation of
market and nonmarket disequilibria (Hockerts, 2007, 2010). Typically, such processes
are enacted through the launching of a social enterprise.
In recent years, S-ENT research has graduated beyond its initial focus on descriptive
anecdotal case evidence and attempts at definition and delimitation (Bacq & Janssen,
2011; Dacin, Dacin, & Tracey, 2011; Mair & Martı, 2006). The field has seen the emer-
gence of sets of S-ENT theories and propositions often based on grounded qualitative
research (Datta & Gailey, 2012; Haugh, 2007; Hockerts, 2015a; Jones, Latham, & Betta,
2008; Townsend & Hart, 2008; Tracey & Jarvis, 2007). Yet, it is only in the past few years
that researchers have begun the empirical testing of the emerging propositions of S-ENT
research (Bloom & Smith, 2010; Corner & Ho, 2010; Desa, 2012; Liu, Eng, & Takeda,
2013; Teasdale, McKay, Phillimore, & Teasdale, 2011).

Please send correspondence to: Kai Hockerts, tel.: 145 3815 3175; e-mail: kho.ikl@cbs.dk and www.
cbs.dk/staff/kho

September, 2015 1
DOI: 10.1111/etap.12171
 This article is interested in the determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions. Such
research is important since policy makers and educators engage increasingly in efforts to
motivate more people to engage in S-ENT. In the absence of a better empirical under-
standing of the antecedents of social entrepreneurial intentions such efforts risks missing
the intended outcome.
So far, few empirical studies exist in this domain. A survey of 181 Malaysian students
has studied which personality traits (such as agreeableness and openness) predict certain
characteristics of S-ENT (such as having social vision or looking for social innovation
opportunities) finding that agreeableness positively influences all dimensions of S-ENT
(Koe Hwee Nga & Shamuganathan, 2010). However, studies of personality traits do not
really provide much support for actors who want to actively promote the practice of S-
ENT. This article argues that a more promising theoretical framework for the formation
of social entrepreneurial intentions is that advanced by Mair and Noboa (2006) since it is
based on variables that are more open to manipulation than more stable personality traits.
The next section will study this model in detail.

Theoretical Framing

Mair and Noboa (2006) were the first to advance theoretical propositions about the
antecedents of social entrepreneurial intentions. In their model, they draw on entrepre-
neurial intention theory (Krueger, 1993; Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000) and, in partic-
ular, the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991), which posits that intentions are
reliable and effective predictors of actual behavior. For a more detailed overview of the
entrepreneurial intentions literature, see Carsrud and Br€annback (2009), Krueger (2009),
and Fayolle and Li~nan (2014).
Ajzen’s (1991) TPB has been widely tested in entrepreneurship research and has been
found to be a robust predictor of entrepreneurial intentions and behavior (Kautonen, van
Gelderen, & Fink, 2015). The TPB stipulates that intentions are predicted by a person’s
attitudes toward a behavior (ATB), the perceived subjective norms, and the perceived
behavioral control (PBC), which can be differentiated into internal and external control
(Ajzen, 2002a). Internal control is typically equated with a person’s self-efficacy, whereas
external control refers to a person’s beliefs about the support or opposition she or he will
find in the environment.
Mair and Noboa (2006) argue that several unique aspects of the social entrepreneurial
context require an adaptation of the traditional measures used in the TPB and entrepre-
neurial intentions models. They propose the following four antecedents of social entrepre-
neurial intentions:
 empathy as a proxy for attitudes toward behavior,
 moral judgment as a proxy for social norms,
 self-efficacy as a proxy for internal behavioral control, and
 perceived presence of social support as a proxy for external behavioral control.
According to Mair and Noboa (2006), the effect of the four antecedents on social
entrepreneurial intentions is mediated by Shapero and Sokol’s (1982) constructs of per-
ceived desirability and perceived feasibility. Namely, the effect of empathy and moral
judgment on intentions formation is advanced as being mediated by perceived desirability
and the effect of self-efficacy and perceived social support on intentions is hypothesized
as being mediated by perceived feasibility. As will be explained later, the constructs per-
ceived desirability and perceived feasibility were not included in this study since

2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed that they were not, in fact, separate factors.
Thus, given that divergent validity was rejected for perceived desirability and perceived
feasibility, these two latent constructs were dropped from the model.
Mair and Noboa’s (2006) idea has been discussed theoretically by Tukamushaba,
Orobia, and George (2011) who have applied the model to an international context while
retaining all variables and hypothesis suggested by Mair and Noboa. To date, only a few
attempts at empirical verification have been carried out. Forster and Grichnik (2013) have
applied it in the context of corporate volunteering using traditional measurement scales
and finding support for the ideas advanced by Mair and Noboa.
Another study of the intentions formation of social entrepreneurs was conducted by
Ernst (2011), who although not directly testing the Mair and Noboa (2006) model was the
first to empirically apply the TPB to S-ENT. While drawing on traditional TPB survey
items (Ajzen, 2002b; Li~nan & Chen, 2009), she indirectly tested some of the Mair and
Noboa hypotheses. Ernst finds partial support for the applicability of the TPB to S-ENT.
However, some of her findings are at odds with the propositions advanced by Mair and
Noboa. Increased empathy, for example, is found to decrease the attitude respondents
have toward becoming social entrepreneurs.
These initial efforts, however, have two weaknesses. First, Forster and Grichnik
(2013) apply their study to corporate volunteerism. However, this article would argue
that equating volunteering with S-ENT is not appropriate. Second, previous studies
(Ernst, 2011; Forster & Grichnik) have tended to draw on scales developed for other
purposes. When talking about self-efficacy Bandura (2006) argues that “the ‘one-
size-fits all’ approach usually has limited explanatory and predictive value because
most of the items in an all-purpose test may have little or no relevance to the domain.
[. . .] Items in such a measure are usually cast in general terms divorced from the sit-
uational demands and circumstances” (p. 307). To address this problem, this study
uses scales that have been developed explicitly for usage in a S-ENT context (Hock-
erts, 2015b).
This study finally extends the Mair and Noboa (2006) model by adding prior experi-
ence with social organizations as a new antecedent of social entrepreneurial intentions.
Familiarity with the kind of problems social enterprises aim to solve is assumed to be a
trigger for intention formation. Moreover, it will be argued that the antecedents suggested
by Mair and Noboa mediate the effect between experience and intentions. In other words,
exposure to social organizations augments the four antecedents, which in turn affects
intentions.
In the following chapter, hypotheses will be proposed based on the Mair and Noboa
(2006) model, which will then be tested in the remainder of the article.

Hypotheses

Given the previous discussion, this article aims to test the determinants of social
entrepreneurial intentions by testing how the four social entrepreneurial antecedents iden-
tified by Mair and Noboa (2006) predict social entrepreneurial intentions. Toward this
end, seven sets of hypotheses will be developed.

Empathy
In Mair and Noboa’s (2006) model, empathy is proposed as a proxy for a person’s atti-
tude toward social entrepreneurial behavior thus addressing the first element of Ajzen’s

September, 2015 3
(1991) TPB. This is, at first glance, a crude proxy since typically ATB reflects “an individu-
al’s awareness of the outcome of a behavior and the degree to which an individual has a
favorable evaluation of performing the behavior” (Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014, p. 3). Empa-
thy, conversely, reflects an attitude toward a person rather than a behavior. Typically empa-
thy is understood as an individual’s ability to imagine what feelings another person has
(Preston et al., 2007) or a tendency to respond to another being’s mental state emotionally
(Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) or compassionately (Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010).
Experiments into the effect of empathy show that participants who read scenarios
filled with high-empathy adjectives (e.g., pitiful, touching) are more likely to develop
intentions to volunteer than participants who read descriptions using only factual lan-
guage (Batson, Early, & Salvarani, 1997). It is thus not surprising that empathy is often
identified as an intuitive predictor of social entrepreneurial intentions by researchers such
as London (2010); Dees (2012); Groch, Gerdes, Segal, and Groch (2012); Miller, Grimes,
McMullen, and Vogus (2012); and Wood (2012). This is also evidenced by S-ENT initia-
tives such as the Ashoka Empathy Initiative (Ashoka, 2014).
In the context of S-ENT, we are interested in cognitive empathy (the ability to assess
another person’s emotional state) and affective empathy (the propensity to react to
another person’s emotional state). A sub element of affective empathy is “empathic con-
cern” (Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990) which is defined as “an emotional response
of compassion and concern caused by witnessing someone else in need” (Niezink, Siero,
Dijkstra, Buunk, & Barelds, 2012, p. 544).
The following hypothesis can, therefore, be derived:

Hypothesis 1: Empathy is positively related to social entrepreneurial intentions.

Moral Obligation
A second predictor of intentions formation in the TPB is the influence of perceived
subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991). These are the perceived normative beliefs about persons
in an individual’s environment also referred to as injunctive norms (Cialdini, Reno, &
Kallgren, 1990). They are expected to exert social pressure, which can strengthen or
diminish intentions (Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014). Subjective norms thus represent an indi-
vidual’s beliefs about expected and accepted behavior (Forster & Grichnik, 2013).
Perceived moral beliefs have been found to act as important determinants of behavior
by Kaiser (2006) and Rivis, Sheeran, and Armitage (2009). It is thus not surprising that
the adherence to moral standards is another cornerstone of the S-ENT literature. Born-
stein (1996); Hemingway (2005); Koe Hwee Nga and Shamuganathan (2010); and Yiu,
Wan, Ng, Chen, and Su (2014) all identify personal moral values as essential attributes of
social entrepreneurs.
Mair and Noboa (2006) propose Kohlberg’s stages of moral judgment (Kohlberg,
1981) as their proxy for social norms. The use of Kohlberg’s model by Mair and Noboa
has been criticized by Hockerts (2015b) for two reasons. First, it tends to measure the rea-
son why a person feels morally obliged but not the extent of that obligation. Second, Kohl-
berg’s hierarchy suggests self-selected moral principles as the highest form of moral
judgment, which is at variance with the TPB’s view that intentions are formed by percep-
tions of external social norms.
Hockerts (2015b), therefore, draws on Haines, Street, and Haines (2008), who iden-
tify a belief of moral obligation as being positioned between the act of moral judgment
and the formation of moral intent. Consequently, this study will use the perception that

4 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

societal norms imply a moral obligation to help marginalized people as a measure for the
second variable rather than Kohlberg’s stages of moral judgment. From this, the follow-
ing hypothesis can be derived:

Hypothesis 2: A perception that societal norms imply a moral obligation to help

marginalized people is positively related to social entrepreneurial intentions.

Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy

The Mair and Noboa (2006) model includes self-efficacy as a measure for internal
PBC which they hypothesize as a determinant of intentions in line with Ajzen’s (1991)
predictions. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s appreciation of his or her own ability to
successfully carry out an intended behavior (Bandura, 1977). Past research has found
self-efficacy to be an important antecedent of pro-social behavior such as blood donation
(Giles, McClenahan, Cairns, & Mallet, 2004) as well as entrepreneurial behavior (Zhao,
Seibert, & Hills, 2005).
Following Bandura’s (2006) suggestion that self-efficacy measures should ideally be
close to the domain in question, this study proposes a self-efficacy measure that is aimed
particularly at the S-ENT context. Given that many social challenges are quite daunting,
it is not surprising that a healthy dose of confidence in one’s own abilities has been theor-
ized to be a predictor of social entrepreneurial intentions (Mair & Noboa, 2006; Smith &
Woodworth, 2012). In this article, social entrepreneurial self-efficacy is understood as a
person’s belief that individuals can contribute toward solving societal problems.
From this, the following hypothesis can be derived:

Hypothesis 3: Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy is positively related to social

entrepreneurial intentions.

Perceived Social Support

The fourth construct in the Mair and Noboa (2006) model draws on Ajzen’s (2002a)
suggestion that a person’s perception of external control is an important antecedent of
intentions. This refers to the beliefs a person has about how malleable the context of a
behavior is to the will of the individual. Mair and Noboa hypothesize this to be deter-
mined by the support an individual expects to receive from her or his surroundings. In
other words, can a social entrepreneur expect funding or other types of backup from her
or his environment? In this context, support systems and networks such as Ashoka or the
Schwab Foundation can possibly play an important role (Meyskens, Robb-Post, Stamp,
Carsrud, & Reynolds, 2010; Ruttmann, 2012).
From this, the following hypothesis can be derived.

Hypothesis 4: Perceived availability of social support is positively related to

social entrepreneurial intentions.

Experience
This article extends the Mair and Noboa model (2006) through the inclusion of prior
experience with social problems as a predictor of social entrepreneurial intent. Past
research has, for example, identified prior family exposure (Carr & Sequeira, 2007;

September, 2015 5
Chlosta, Patzelt, Klein, & Dormann, 2012) as well as prior work experience (Kautonen,
Luoto, & Tornikoski, 2010) to be predictors of entrepreneurial intent.
Research has found that prior experience also predicts prosocial behavior such as
participation in a recycling program (Vining & Ebreo, 1989). Prior community
service experience has been found to be a predictor of the impact ethics courses have
on their participants. Prior knowledge about social problems has also been found by
Ernst (2011) to predict attitudes toward social entrepreneurial intent as well as PBC.
Moreover, Yiu et al. (2014) have found that private entrepreneurs were more likely
to be motivated to engage in charitable poverty reduction programs if they had perso-
nal prior experiences (such as limited educational opportunities, unemployment, and
rural poverty).
For the purpose of this study, prior experience is measured as a person’s practical
experience working with social-sector organizations. It is assumed that such experiences
generate familiarity with the kind of problems social enterprises aim to solve in turn mak-
ing the formation of intentions to solve these problems more likely. For this reason, the
model tested in this study is extended by the following set of hypotheses.

Hypothesis 5: Prior experience with social organizations is positively related to

social entrepreneurial intent.

Past research suggests that this link is mediated in four different ways. First, it can be
assumed that prior experience with social problems has a positive effect on empathy. This
hypothesis is supported by research showing that prior experience with a need increases
the empathy felt for another person experiencing that need (Batson et al., 1997). Con-
versely, it has been suggested that the level of social entrepreneurial empathy depends on
the physical distance between individual and beneficiaries (Tukamushaba et al., 2011).
Therefore, the following hypothesis has been formulated.

Hypothesis 6a: The link between prior experience and social entrepreneurial
intent is mediated by empathy.

Other research suggests that perceived moral norms are better predictors of intentions
to choose organic wine when consumers have had previous experience with organic pro-
duce (Thøgersen, 2002) or of pro-environmental intentions when individuals have had
direct experience with national park reserves (Coff, 1999). Mair and Noboa (2006) point
toward the work of Comunian and Gielen (1995), which suggests that exposure to social
experiences affect a person’s moral judgment.
It can thus be assumed that the link between prior experience and intent is mediated
by a person’s perception of moral obligation toward marginalized people.

Hypothesis 6b: The link between prior experience and social entrepreneurial
intent is mediated by perceived moral obligation.

Research has also indicated that task familiarity is positively linked with self-efficacy
(Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Studies have, for example, identified that prior work experience
predicts higher levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Zhao et al., 2005), while job tenure
predicts job self-efficacy (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). The mechanism through which expe-
rience acts on self-efficacy is as follows: Personal experience generates information that
is accessible for an individual’s assessment of his or her own knowledge and skills and
the effectiveness of various performance strategies that use these abilities (Gist &

6 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

Mitchell). It can thus be hypothesized that the link between experience and intent is mod-
erated by social entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 6c: The link between prior experience and social entrepreneurial
intent is mediated by social entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

Intent is not just determined by an individual’s (internal) self-efficacy but also the
perceived presence of (external) support systems and networks that may help them
achieve the intended outcome. Familiarity with social problems due to prior experience is
likely to favor knowledge about support systems such as Ashoka or similar social entre-
preneurial organizations.

Hypothesis 6d: The link between prior experience and social entrepreneurial
intent is mediated by perceived external social support.

Enrollment in S-ENT Electives

A key challenge of observing entrepreneurial behavior is the elusiveness of the
process. While intentions can be measured immediately, actual entrepreneurial behav-
ior can often only be observed much later. However, there exist nonetheless behavioral
proxies that can be used to validate the seriousness of a person’s social entrepreneurial
intentions. One particular type of variable is the selection of elective courses in the
area of S-ENT. Cheng and Chu (2014), for example, have applied the TPB to explain
whether students enroll into business ethics courses, while Shen (2010) has used the
TPB to predict behavior such as the enrollment in elective physical education in high
schools. This article, therefore, extends the Mair and Noboa (2006) model by adding
the number of S-ENT elective courses picked by a student as a proxy for social entre-
preneurial intentions.
Given that S-ENT courses are a relative new phenomenon, they do not exist at all uni-
versities. An alternative hypothesis in such situations could be that students with social
entrepreneurial intentions compensate by either taking courses that have a corporate
social responsibility (CSR) profile or courses that have an entrepreneurship profile.
The last set of hypotheses, therefore, predicts that the number of such electives sub-
scribed to will be predicted by a person’s social entrepreneurial intent.

Hypothesis 7a: Social entrepreneurial intentions are positively related to the

number of elective courses selected with a social entrepreneurial profile.
Hypothesis 7b: Social entrepreneurial intentions are positively related to the
number of elective courses selected with a CSR profile.
Hypothesis 7c: Social entrepreneurial intentions are positively related to the
number of elective courses selected with an entrepreneurship profile.

To recapitulate, the model tested in this study can be summarized as follows: It uses
prior experience as an antecedent of social entrepreneurial intentions. Empathy, a percep-
tion that societal norms imply a moral obligation, social entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and
perceived social support for social entrepreneurial activity are each proposed as media-
tors. Finally, intention is suggested as an antecedent for student enrollment in S-ENT
courses. All hypotheses advanced above are summarized in Figure 1.

September, 2015 7
Figure 1

Overview of the Structural Model Underlying the Hypotheses

Empathy

H1
H6a
Moral
Obligaon H2
H6b

Experience H5 Intent
H6c Self- H3
Efficacy
H6d H7
H4

Perceived
Number of
Social Support
courses

Method

Data Collection and Sample

To verify how stable results from this study are across populations, three samples
were taken. In selecting the first sample, this study follows Krueger (1993), who suggests
that in the case of entrepreneurial career choice it is appropriate to identify “samples of
subjects currently facing actual major career decisions” (p. 7). For the purpose of this
study, a population of second-year students was selected, who were enrolled in a Master
of Science in Management at a Scandinavian business school. Students were surveyed
just before starting their third semester. During this semester, students can select up to
four elective courses on a broad number of topics. After finishing the elective semester
students have only their master’s thesis left to write before graduating. Accordingly, most
students will make career choices within the next 12 months suggesting that survey sub-
jects are actively involved in a career intention formation process.
The survey was sent to 1,444 students in late August 2013, during the week preceding
the start of the semester, followed by a reminder 5 days later. A total of 257 valid answers
were received corresponding to a 17.8% response rate. Fifty-six percent of the respond-
ents were female (Table 1). There was a near-equal split between students from Scandina-
via and from abroad. Non-Scandinavian students came from 32 different nations with
Germany (9.4%), Italy (6.3%), Switzerland (4.3%), India (2.8%), and the United States
(2.4%) representing the five largest non-Scandinavian populations. Three out of five non-
Scandinavian students were from Europe and two-thirds of the non-Scandinavian students
were visiting students on an exchange semester. One-third were enrolled for their whole
master.
The first sample described is specific in three ways: region, age, and educational
background. These specificities might introduce biases into the analysis, which would
make generalization of the results difficult. First, the results may be influenced by their
regional setting. Scandinavia is a region which traditionally has had high standards of

8 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of the Sample

Sample 1 (Scandinavian Sample 2 Sample 3

Business School Students) (U.S. Respondents) (MOOC Participants)

N (complete answers) 257 327 2790

% female 56% 57% 49%
% non-Scandinavian 51% 100% 96.7%
Age, mean 25.5 39.3 32.8
Age, SD 2.8 12.6 10.3
Racial minority 20.2% 22.5%

living, a secular population, and progressive welfare states (Esping-Andersen & Korpi,
1986). This effect is somewhat controlled for through the visiting students. However,
many of these are from Europe. In order to verify the findings from Sample 1, replication
would be required in a different national context.
Moreover, the first sample is limited through the use of business school students.
Business schools have been a fertile ground for S-ENT courses in recent years (Brock,
2011). A focus on this population is thus not inappropriate. However, looking at social
entrepreneurs in general, it is obvious that only a small proportion have gone to business
school. Moreover, by focusing on students, the survey has favored a quite young response
group. In order to test replicability, a sample is needed that covers broader segments of
society in terms of age and education.
To address these issues, two replication samples were studied. Data for Sample 2
were collected in January 2014. Responses were bought from SurveyMonkey, a Palo
Alto-based Internet firm which has randomly selected respondents from its pool of 20 mil-
lion people who have volunteered to take part in market research surveys. In return for
participation volunteers can nominate charities such as UNICEF, the Boys and Girls
Clubs of America, or Doctors Without Borders to which funds are donated by Survey-
Monkey every time a survey is replied to. Moreover, respondents are entered into sweep-
stakes as part of which they can win $100.
This sample consists of responses from 327 persons living in the United States drawn
from the SurveyMonkey pool of volunteers (“U.S. Respondents” sample). As far as gen-
der is concerned, the second sample resembles the first sample in that 57% of the respond-
ents were female (Table 1). However, respondents were considerably older with a mean
age of 39.3 (SD 5 12.6 years). Roughly one-fifth of the respondents identified themselves
as belonging to a racial minority (black, African-American, American-Indian, Alaskan-
Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander, or from multiple races).
The purpose of the replication study is not to claim representative results for the
United States but rather to complement the study of students at a Scandinavian business
school. Sample 2 comprised respondents from a different national background, different
educational backgrounds, and has a considerably higher age group. Thus, if findings can
be observed in both samples this would strengthen the assumption that findings are
generalizable.
To further test the robustness of the findings, a third sample was taken in September
2014 to, again, examine the same hypotheses. Respondents for Sample 3 came from a

September, 2015 9
group of 28,967 participants enrolled in a massive open online course (MOOC) on S-
ENT run on the Coursera web platform (“MOOC Participants” sample). A total of 2,790
complete responses were obtained for sample 3 translating into a response rate of 9.63%.
Descriptive statistics (Table 1) show that 49% of the respondents were female. The mean
age was 32.8 years (SD 5 10.3 years). Furthermore, 22.5% of the participants self-
identified as belonging to a minority. In terms of nationality, the survey had participants
from 120 countries. The five most represented nationalities included the United States
(16.5%), India (9.6%), Brazil (4%), Mexico (3.9%), and France (3%).

Measures
With the exception of elective enrollment and the covariate control variables age,
gender, nationality, and minority status multiple-item scales were used to measure the
latent variables. Each scale item used a 5-point Likert-type response format ranging from
1, “strongly disagree” to 5, “strongly agree.” The items for the four latent variables empa-
thy with marginalized people, perceived social norms about a moral obligation to help
marginalized people, social entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and perceived social support
were taken from Hockerts (2015b).
The items for the two latent variables prior experience and social entrepreneurial
intentions were developed specifically for this study. Social entrepreneurial intentions are
a three-item scale which was developed in adaptation of previously used entrepreneurial
intentions scales (Douglas & Shepherd, 2002; Thompson, 2009).
An EFA on the sample of this study confirmed a 6-factor solution. Individual factor
loadings and the Cronbach’s a values for each latent variable suggest internal consistency
thus reconfirming the items developed by Hockerts (2015b) while also supporting the
validity of two new constructs. The items for all six latent variables are listed in Table 2
including Cronbach’s alphas and item loadings for the main study and the replication
studies.
In order to also cover the two constructs perceived desirability and perceived feasibil-
ity as suggested by Mair and Noboa (2006), the EFA originally also included three items
for perceived desirability (“Starting an enterprise that solves social problems would be
attractive to me,” as well as “The notion of starting a social enterprise does not seem
desirable to me,” and “I would enjoy starting an organization such as a social enterprise”)
and perceived feasibility (such as “I would have good chances of succeeding if I were to
start a social enterprise,” “It seems achievable that I could start a successful social enter-
prise,” and “I would most likely fail if I tried to launch a social enterprise”). However,
both constructs did not result in separate factors. Instead, EFA results indicated that desir-
ability cross-loaded with social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (.675–.703) and empathy
(.413–.478), while feasibility cross-loaded with social entrepreneurial self-efficacy
(.581–.684) and perceived social support (.313–.348). No separate factors for either feasi-
bility or desirability emerged. Thus, divergent validity was rejected for perceived desir-
ability and perceived feasibility. Consequently, the latent constructs were dropped from
the model.
Discriminant validity was tested for the six remaining latent variables. Bivariate cor-
relations (see off-diagonal values in Table 3) are present in the .2–.5 range for most rela-
tionships between latent variables. Correlations for empathy are moderate with moral
obligation (.641) and for efficacy and intent (.647). Moderate correlations for empathy
and moral judgment are to be expected since past research (Jones, 1991) has shown that
cognitive moral intent is intensified by increased emotions. An analysis of the square root

10 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

Table 2

Items, Factor Loadings, and Cronbach’s a

Study 1 Study 2 Study 3

(N 5 257) (N 5 327) (N 5 2790)

Prior Experience a 5 .782 .849 .812

I have some experience working with social problems. .827 .882 .673
I have volunteered or otherwise worked with social organizations. .840 .858 .785
I know a lot about social organizations. .759 .744 .839
Empathy a 5 .760 .730 .714
When thinking about socially disadvantaged people, I try to put myself .702 .834 .740
in their shoes.
Seeing socially disadvantaged people triggers an emotional response in .807 .574 .702
me.
I feel compassion for socially marginalized people. .787 .545 .591
Moral Obligation a 5 .830 .898 .784
It is an ethical responsibility to help people less fortunate than .705 .846 .754
ourselves.
We are morally obliged to help socially disadvantaged people. .795 .864 .779
Social justice requires that we help those who are less fortunate than .844 .836 .726
ourselves.
It is one of the principles of our society that we should help socially .756 .763 -
disadvantaged people.
Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy a 5 .745 .768 .692
I am convinced that I personally can make a contribution to address .800 .661 .531
societal challenges if I put my mind to it.
I could figure out a way to help solve the problems that society faces. .693 .739 .691
Solving societal problems is something each of us can contribute to. .718 .723 .758
Perceived Social Support a 5 .742 .855 .747
People would support me if I wanted to start an organization to help .820 .727 .564
socially marginalized people.
If I planned to address a significant societal problem people would back .770 .774 .769
me up.
It is possible to attract investors for an organization that wants to solve .730 .816 .786
social problems.
Social Entrepreneurial Intent a 5 .831 .809 .716
I expect that at some point in the future I will be involved in launching .774 .751 .771
an organization that aims to solve social problems.
I have a preliminary idea for a social enterprise on which I plan to act .812 .772 .645
in the future.
I do not plan to start a social enterprise.† .813 .767 .603

†
Item is reverse coded.

of the variance shared between the constructs and their measures, the so-called average
variance extracted (AVE), allows testing further for structural validity (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). Table 3 shows that the square root of AVE is in all cases larger than the
bivariate correlations, thus demonstrating structural validity.
Student enrollment in elective courses was based on the types of electives courses stu-
dents had signed up for during the forthcoming autumn semester. All electives taken by
the 257 respondents were coded according to the topic covered. Four electives offered
explicitly addressed S-ENT, eight electives addressed CSR topics, and seven electives
covered entrepreneurship-related topics (ENT). The remaining 20 electives (such as for
example Financial Statement Analysis or Neuromarketing) were coded as OTHER. In

September, 2015 11
12
Table 3

Correlations Between Latent Variables (Sample 1 “Student Respondents”)

M SD AVE Age Gender Non-Scand Experience Empathy Obligation Self-efficacy Social Support Intent

Age 25.5 2.8

Gender 1.44 .5 .074
Non-Scand 1.51 .5 2.149* 2.097
Experience 3.11 0.97 0.56 .078 2.018 .115 .745
Empathy 3.83 0.74 0.54 .114† 2.271*** .079 .200*** .740
Obligation 3.96 0.66 0.55 .149* 2.107 2.124† .301* .656*** .735
Efficacy 3.77 0.63 0.59 .100 2.042 .060 .439*** .382*** .317*** .770
Support 3.46 0.64 0.53 .029 2.035 .000 .295*** .318*** .280*** .499*** .727
Intent 2.59 0.85 0.63 .101 2.112 .182*** .400*** .350*** .408*** .647*** .471*** .794

Mean (M). Standard deviation (SD). Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Bold diagonal elements represent the square root of the AVE. Off-diagonal elements represent bivariate
correlations between the constructs with the following statistical significance: †<0.1, *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001. The covariate control variables were coded as follows: age
(years), gender (1 5 female, 2 5 male), and nationality (1 5 Scandinavian, 2 5 Non-Scandinavian).

ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

total, students were allowed to enroll in a maximum of four electives. A count index was
calculated for each respondent based on the number of S-ENT, CSR, and ENT courses.
The resulting score ranged from a minimum count of zero to a maximum count of four.

Data Analysis and Findings

Control Variables
In terms of the covariate control variables three correlations (see Table 3) are worth
mentioning. First, as has been found in the past, male respondents exhibited lower levels
of empathy compared with their female counterparts (2.271***). Next, a positive corre-
lation between age and an expression of moral obligation was observed (.149*). Finally,
non-Scandinavian students had stronger social entrepreneurial intentions (.182***) while
being slightly younger and reporting fewer expressions of moral obligation. Taken on
their own, the control variables explain only a very small part of the variance of intention
(R2 5 .062). The three control variables were present in all following models and they are
reported in the tables although their influence will not be addressed explicitly in the text.

Measurement Model
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the structure of the
observed measures for the three control variables and the six latent variables with all
covariances between latent variables unconstrained. The CFA was carried out with Amos
21 using maximum likelihood as the estimation method.
As a first test for model fit the v2 value was calculated. Traditionally an insignificant
result to the v2 test would indicate a good model fit suggesting only moderate discrepancy
between the sample and the fitted covariance matrix (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In fact the
CFA for this study results in a significant (p < .000) v2 of 281 (df 5 176) which would
indicate poor model fit.
However, several limitations of the v2 test have been discussed in the literature. A
properly specified model may be wrongly rejected when data deviates from the assump-
tion of multivariate normality (McIntosh, 2007). Moreover, the v2 test is sensitive to var-
iations in sample size (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Kenny & McCoach, 2003). As one
alternative, the normed v2 has been proposed (Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin, & Summers,
1977), which divides v2 by the degrees of freedom. Recommendations suggest that an
acceptable ratio for v2/df lies at least below 5.0. A more conservative cutoff is suggested
to be below 2.0 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009). With a v2/df of 1.59, the mea-
surement model underlying this study can thus be considered acceptable, implying that
the significant v2 test is not problematic.
Good model fit is also suggested by a root mean square approximation (RMSEA) of
0.048 as well as a two-tailed 90% confidence interval for the RMSEA ranging from .038
to .059, since all values are below the .06 cutoff suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999). The
conclusion of good model fit is also upheld by a standardized root mean square (SRMR)
of 0.0468, which is below the strict 0.5 cutoff (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000). A com-
parative fit index (CFI) of 0.943 and an incremental fit index of 0.945 also suggest good
fit since both are above the traditional 0.9 cutoff and actually are even very close to the
stricter 0.95 limit suggested recently (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In sum, it can be concluded
that the model has a reasonably good model fit.

September, 2015 13
 To assess common method variance, Harman’s one-factor test was applied to assess
whether a method-bias induced single factor accounted for the covariance in the relation-
ships between independent and dependent variables (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). After
having constrained the factor analysis to only one factor it appears that such a factor
would account for no more than 30% of the variance. Given that this value is well below
the recommended 50% cutoff, it can be assumed that common method variance is not
likely to present a problem in our study.

Structural Model
The hypotheses were tested through a series of models (see Table 4). The first model
tests only the link between experience and intent (H5) revealing a statistically significant
positive result of medium size (.375***). An R2 of .196 means that a medium amount of
the variance of social entrepreneurial intent is explained by experience. The measure R2
accounts for variance in a dependent variable explained by one or several independent
and mediator variables together (Fairchild, Mackinnon, Taborga, & Taylor, 2009). Thus,
a model that explains an increased amount of the variance of a dependent variable can be
considered as preferable.
Next, four model variations (2a-2d) were used to test the effect of the four antecedents
proposed by Mair and Noboa (2006) as well as their mediating effect on the relationship
between experience and intent. Ultimately, we are interested in testing the simultaneous
effect of the four antecedents’ models. However, initially models 2a-2d test the effect of
each intervening variable separately. This implies that each model is a structurally differ-
ent model and it is thus not appropriate to use a v2 difference test in comparing these mod-
els. However, the variance explained (R2) of intention can serve as a first crude guide as
to which of the antecedents is most impactful.
 Model 2a testing H1 and H6a shows that empathy partially mediates the link
between experience and intent. Both experience and empathy have statistically sig-
nificant positive result of medium size (.278*** and .361***). Moreover, experi-
ence also predicts empathy (.266***). An R2 for empathy of .201 shows that
experience explains a moderate amount of the variance of empathy. Adding empa-
thy as a partial mediator also increases the R2 of social entrepreneurial intent to
.299 thus indicating that the model explains a larger amount of the variance of
social entrepreneurial intent.
 Model 2b testing H2 and H6b shows that moral obligation also partially mediates
the link between experience and intent. Both experience and moral obligation have
statistically significant positive results of medium size (.316*** and .319***).
Moreover, experience also predicts moral obligation (.196*), although the size of
the effect as well as an R2 for moral obligation of .099 show that experience seems
to have only a small effect on moral obligation. Adding moral obligation as a par-
tial mediator increases the R2 of social entrepreneurial intent to .291 thus indicat-
ing that this model also explains a larger amount of the variance of social
entrepreneurial intent compared to model 1.
 Model 2c tests the mediating effect of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the
link between experience and intent (H3 and H6c). By adding self-efficacy as a
mediator, the link between experience and intent weakens considerably both in
size and statistical significance (.127). The effect of self-efficacy on intent, con-
versely, is both positive and strong (.525***). Moreover, experience also seems to
be a good predictor for self-efficacy (.472***), with an R2 for self-efficacy of .236

14 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

Table 4

Comparison of Alternative Models (Sample 1 “Student Respondents”)

Model Fit Model 1 Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c Model 2d Model 3

v2/df 1.830 1.358 1.718 1.592 1.346 1.586

RMSEA .057 .037 .053 .048 .037 .048
SRMR .034 .034 .042 .037 .035 .069
CFI .972 .982 .966 .971 .982 .945
Intent R2 .196 .299 .291 .407 .343 .463
Age .029 .045 .058 .076 .096 .044
Gender 2.091 .019 2.053 2.062 2.068 .014
Nationality .145* .113† .195** .128* .149* .121†
Experience .375*** .278*** .316*** .127 .233*** .068
Empathy .361*** .237*
Obligation .319*** .030
Efficacy .525*** .355***
Support .409*** .221**
Empathy R2 .201 .217
Age .151* .148*
Gender 2.301*** 2.301***
Nationality .090† .087
Experience .266*** .295***
Obligation R2 .099 .119
Age .138* .133*
Gender 2.127† 2.127†
Nationality 2.167* 2.173*
Experience .196* .242**
Efficacy R2 .236 .258
Age .049 .045
Gender 2.057 2.055
Nationality .031 .029
Experience .472*** .495***
Support R2 .123 .135
Age .013 .009
Gender 2.057 2.058
Nationality .147 2.012
Experience .346*** .363***

N 5 257; dependent variables and their variance explained (R2) are bold; standardized regression weights are provided
for each predictor; two-tailed statistical significance: †<0.1, *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001

implying that experience can explain a large amount of the variance in self-
efficacy. Adding self-efficacy as a partial mediator increases the R2 of social entre-
preneurial intent to .407 thus indicating that this model explains a considerably
larger amount of the variance of social entrepreneurial intent compared to model 1.
 The fourth model (2d) tests the mediating effect of perceived social support on the
link between experience and intent (H4 and H6d). The results suggest perceived
social support as a partial mediator for the link between experience and intent since
both variables have positive statistically significant effects on intent of a medium
size (.233*** and .409***). Experience is also a predictor of perceived social sup-
port (.346***) although it only explains a medium amount of the variance
(R2 5 .123) in perceived social support. Model 2d also explains an increased
amount of variance in intent (R2 5 .343) thus also constituting an improvement
compared to model 1.

September, 2015 15
Figure 2

Overview for Sample 1 “Student Respondents” (N 5 257)

R2=.217
Empathy

.237*
.295***
Moral R =.119
2

Obligaon .030
.242**
R2=.463
Experience .068 Intent
.495*** Self- R2=.258 .355***
Efficacy
.362***
.221**

Perceived R =.135
2

Social Support

Notes: N 5 257; Arrows signify standardized regression weights (n.s. > 0.1, †<0.1, *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001); Val-
ues in ellipses represent the variance explained (R2). Covariate control variables, items and error terms have not been
included in the figure for ease of presentation.

Testing the four models independently was, of course, only an intermediary step
since the theoretical model requires a concurrent testing of the four antecedents pro-
posed by Mair and Noboa (2006). In a next step model 3, therefore, tests the simul-
taneous effect on the link between experience and intent of combining all four
mediating variables in a single model. The results show that in this model the effect
between experience and intent is almost completely mediated as both the direct
effect size (.068) and statistical significance fall (p 5 .408) substantially compared to
model 1. Of the four variables, three emerge as statistically significant and positive:
empathy (.237*), social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (.355***), and perceived social
support (.221**). However, in this model moral obligation is no longer statistically
significant (2.030, p 5 .751) suggesting that its effect is eclipsed by the other varia-
bles. The R2 for social entrepreneurial intent (.463) is the highest of all four models
although the variance explained is not very much higher than that of model 2c. This
implies that the predictive power for intent is highest for social entrepreneurial self-
efficacy, followed by empathy and perceived social support, with moral obligation
not having an effect.
Considering the effect experience has on the four antecedents, the results are very
similar. Following Cohen’s (1988) suggested conventions for assessing R2 effect sizes,
we can conclude that experience has a large effect on social entrepreneurial self-
efficacy (.495***, R2 5 .258) and on empathy (.295***, R2 5 .217), and a medium
effect on perceived social support (.362***, R2 5 .135) and moral obligation (.242**,
R2 5 .119).
To test whether the effects present were actually in moderation rather than mediation
effects, additional tests for moderation were carried out. The results were statistically
nonsignificant suggesting that moderation effects were not present. The key findings of
model 3 are summarized in Figure 2. Considering fit, all models display acceptable
goodness-of-fit (see RMSEA, SRMR, CFI in Table 4).

16 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

Table 5

Comparison of Alternative Elective Course Counts (Sample 1 “Student

Respondents”)

S-ENT electives CSR electives ENT electives

R2 .187 .033 .055

Age .029 .056 2.017
Gender 2.025 .008 .213
Nationality .016 .093 .044
Experience .166* 2.001 .097
Intention .345*** .134† 2.035

N 5 257; dependent variables and their variance explained (R2) are bold; standardized regression weights are provided
for each predictor; two-tailed statistical significance: †<0.1, *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001

Electives Enrollment
In a next step, Table 5 tests the effect social entrepreneurial intentions have on the types
of electives courses students chose. The results show that the link between social entrepre-
neurial intent and electives enrollment is statistically significant and positive (.345***) for
electives with a social entrepreneurial profile. The effect explains a medium amount
(R2 5 .187) of the variance in elective behavior, thus confirming hypothesis 7a. However,
only a weak relationship can be reported for the electives with a CSR profile (.134†) and no
statistically significant relationship was found for general entrepreneurship courses.

Sample 2—U.S. Respondents (N 5 327)

In order to evaluate the replicability of the findings the hypotheses were also tested on
two replication samples (see Table 1 above for descriptive statistics). Sample 2 consists of
327 U.S.-based volunteers who answer online surveys for the American survey provider,
SurveyMonkey. The variables tested are the same as in the first sample with two exceptions.
Behavior in terms of the number of elective courses enrolled was dropped since it was not
applicable to a nonstudent population. Nationality as a control variable was dropped since
all respondents were from the United States. Instead, a variable for racial minority was
added. 20.7% of respondents identified themselves as belonging to a racial minority such as
black, African-American, American-Indian, Alaskan-Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian,
other Pacific Islander, or from multiple races.
Cronbach’s alphas for the latent variables reconfirm internal consistency for the six
latent variables (see Table 2). Only the last two items of empathy exhibit lower factor
loadings than could be desired. A CFA reveals adequate model fit (v2/df 5 1.828,
RMSEA 5 .049, SRM 5 .045, CFI 5 .958).
The results of the structural analysis indicate that the core findings from the first sam-
ple are robust in general terms. Prior experience with social problems again emerges as a
predictor of social entrepreneurial intentions. All four antecedents act as mediators reduc-
ing the direct effect of experience while increasing the variance explained. Perceived
social support has the biggest impact, followed by social entrepreneurial self-efficacy,
moral obligation, and empathy.

September, 2015 17
Figure 3

Overview for Sample 2 “U.S. Respondents” (N 5 327)

R2=.146
Empathy

-.249
.380***
Moral R =.0862

.281**
Obligation .293
R2=.546
Experience .270*** Intent
.483*** .249*
Self- R2=.234

Efficacy
.454*** .368***

2
Perceived R =.220
Social Support

Notes: N 5 327; Arrows signify standardized regression weights (n.s. > 0.1, †<0.1, *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001); Val-
ues in ellipses represent the variance explained (R2). Covariate control variables, items and error terms have not been
included in the figure for ease of presentation.

When testing the simultaneous effect of all four mediating variables the model has
again the highest variance explained although the effect of both empathy and moral obli-
gation are no longer statistically significant. Prior experience, conversely, remains as a
direct influence, suggesting that the four variables exert only a partial mediation effect.
An overview of model 3 is presented in Figure 3. The variance explained for the five
endogenous variables is broadly in the same order of magnitude as in the first sample.

Study 3—MOOC Participants (N 5 2,790)

The last replicability test was carried out on a sample of participants enrolled in a
MOOC on S-ENT on Coursera (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics); 48.7% of all
respondents were female and 22.5% identified themselves as belonging to a racial minor-
ity. The variables tested are the same as for sample 2 with one exception due to a manual
mistake the fourth item of moral obligation (“It is one of the principles of our society. . .”)
was not included in that latent variable. However, since there remain three items for moral
obligation, this is only a minor issue.
Cronbach’s alphas for the latent variables again reconfirm internal consistency for the
six latent variables (see Table 2). The CFA corroborates adequate model fit (v2/
df 5 9.850, RMSEA 5 .056, SRM 5 .079, CFI 5 .915).
The structural analysis again confirms the core findings from the main study. Prior
experience with social problems is a predictor of social entrepreneurial intentions. Again,
when modelled individually all four antecedents act as mediators reducing the direct
effect of experience while increasing the variance explained. Self-efficacy has the biggest
impact, followed by empathy, and perceived social support.
When testing the simultaneous effect of all four mediating variables the model has
once more the highest variance explained and prior experience is completely moderated.
However, it is noteworthy that in a simultaneous test the effect of moral obligation turns
into a negative albeit small effect. An overview of the results for sample 3 is presented in

18 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

Figure 4

Overview for Sample 3 “MOOC Participants” (N 5 2,790)

R2=.130
Empathy

.232***
.309***
Moral R =.099
2

.254***
Obligaon -.105*
R2=.413
Experience .048 Intent
.399*** .501***
Self- R2=.162

Efficacy
.418*** .189***

2
Perceived R =.172
Social Support

Notes: N 5 2,790; Arrows signify standardized regression weights (n.s. > 0.1, †<0.1, *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001);
Values in ellipses represent the variance explained (R2). Covariate control variables, items and error terms have not
been included in the figure for ease of presentation.

Figure 4. The variance explained for the five endogenous variables is once again of the
same order of magnitude as for the first two samples.

Discussion

Mair and Noboa (2006) discuss four antecedents which they suggest predict social
entrepreneurial intentions and behavior. This study first tests this model and second,
extends it by including prior experience with social problems as an additional variable.
The results of all three samples provide strong evidence that individuals with prior
experience of social issues tend to have higher social entrepreneurial intentions (H5).
This effect is mediated by the four variables suggested by Mair and Noboa (2006). An
analysis of effect sizes and variance explained suggests that social entrepreneurial self-
efficacy (H3) and perceived social support (H4) have both a large impact on intentions as
well as being themselves responsive to prior experience (H6c/H6d). All three studies are
also consistent in that they find that while moral obligation on its own has an impact on
intent (H2/H6b), this effect is eclipsed by the other variables in a simultaneous model. In
the last sample, the effect actually even results in a small negative effect. The findings
regarding empathy (H1/H6a) are mostly upheld. The first and third samples suggest that
empathy acts as a positive mediator in the simultaneous model. Only in sample 2 is this
effect negative albeit statistically not significant. We thus can conclude that that there is
preliminary support for hypothesis 6a but that more research may be necessary.
Finally, the results from the first study suggest that intentions (H7a) are predictors of
the number of electives with a social entrepreneurial profile selected by students.
Some of the results presented here are in line with prior research. For example, the
findings regarding social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and perceived social support are in
line with the findings of Forster and Grichnik (2013) who conclude that corporate volun-
teering intentions are predicted by self-efficacy and perceived collective efficacy. Ernst

September, 2015 19
(2011) also found that PBC had a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intentions of
German university students.
Prior findings regarding social norms are somewhat contradictory. Forster and Grichnik
(2013) find that perceived social norms have a positive effect on corporate volunteering
intentions. However, Ernst (2011) found that social norms did not have a statistically sig-
nificant effect on social entrepreneurial intentions thus reinforcing the findings from this
study regarding moral obligation. Given that Forster and Grichnik were actually studying
corporate volunteering this could suggest that, whereas social norms may guide the forma-
tion of corporate volunteering intentions the same may not be true for S-ENT intentions as
studied in this article. This might open an interesting venue for future research.
Findings regarding empathy are also contradictory. Forster and Grichnik (2013) find
that empathy has a positive effect on corporate volunteering intentions, thus reinforcing
results from the first and third samples. However, Ernst (2011) actually concluded that
empathy had a negative effect on a respondent’s attitudes toward starting a social enter-
prise. This suggests that the mixed findings from this study regarding empathy call for fur-
ther research into the effect empathy has on social entrepreneurial intentions.
When taking into account prior literature on entrepreneurial intentions, these findings
seem to be in line with what has been found in that field. A review of entrepreneurship lit-
erature by Schlaegel and Koenig (2014) has identified 98 studies on entrepreneurial inten-
tions two-thirds of which have used the TPB. Their meta-analysis finds that PBC has the
strongest effect on entrepreneurial intentions, with attitude toward behavior having a
more moderate effect. Both findings are in line with the results from this study. Schlaegel
and Koenig (2014) found only a small positive impact of subjective norms on entrepre-
neurial intentions, which, however, was not statistically significant. This again is in line
with the findings in this study (no significant effect was found for moral obligation) sug-
gesting parallels between social entrepreneurial intentions and traditional entrepreneurial
intentions.

Conclusions

The practical implications of these results suggest that efforts aimed at increasing
social entrepreneurial activity may want to consider the variables studied in this article.
Both interested policy makers and business schools wanting to boost the proportion of
their alumni involved in S-ENT can take away that social entrepreneurial self-efficacy
and perceived social support seem to be the most impactful measures. Moreover, both
variables seem to be open to manipulation. Concretely, interested business schools should
engage in and try to measure the effect of service learning that exposes students to social
problems first hand. The findings from this article would suggest that service learning in
social organizations will tend to promote social entrepreneurial intentions via the antece-
dents discussed in this article.
In this context, it is important to remember that the measure for social entrepreneurial
self-efficacy used in this study differed from usual constructs for self-efficacy. The focus
was less on an individual’s belief in their ability to start a venture (which would be closer
to traditional entrepreneurial self-efficacy measures), but on her or his belief that looming
social problems can be tackled by them. The effectiveness of individual-level interven-
tions would thus depend on the degree to which they lead individuals to the conclusion
that, rather than being insurmountable, social problems can be tackled.
The findings also suggest that interventions could be aimed at eliciting empathy with
disadvantaged groups, as well as highlighting the availability of support systems. Stressing

20 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

society’s moral obligation seems to be less important. This last finding may be explained by
past TPB research, which has found that injunctive norms (what should be done) may be
less powerful predictors of behavior than descriptive norms, which involve the perceptions
of which behaviors are actually performed within an individual’s peer groups (Manning,
2009). Research also shows that there may be considerable differences between perceived
injunctive and descriptive norms in a peer group and the actual norms espoused (Borsari &
Carey, 2003).
Moreover, the results also suggest that interventions that bring individuals in direct
contact with social problems are likely to elicit an increase in social entrepreneurial inten-
tions. Optional volunteering programs, required service learning components, and project
work in locations with high degrees of social problems would suggest themselves as
measures schools and universities might undertake.
Finally, the findings from this article leave ample room for future research. First, it
would be interesting to draw on Gollwitzer’s (1999) differentiation between goal inten-
tions (I intend to perform x) and implementation intentions (I intend to perform goal-
motivated behavior y when I encounter situation z) to better understand which implemen-
tation intentions are most likely to result in social entrepreneurial outcomes.
A second line of inquiry might fruitfully link the antecedents studied here with the
question of how they interact with deep beliefs or mental prototypes of S-ENT (such as,
for example, suggested by Krueger, Kickul, Gundry, Wilson, & Verma, 2006). In other
words, how does the mental stereotype of what it means to be a social entrepreneur mod-
erate the effects observed in this article?
Such a path of inquiry would allow us to move beyond the black–and–white world of
traditional entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. This in turn would allow us to study
different manifestations of social entrepreneurs such as the “Ashoka” social innovator
(Drayton, 2002), the “Yunus” social business founder (Yunus, Moingeon, & Lehmann-
Ortega, 2010), or the “EMES” social enterprise leader (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). As
the S-ENT field matures, it will be increasingly important that future research efforts to
provide a more fine-grained understanding of the different subtypes of S-ENT and their
respective antecedents.

REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Proc-
esses, 50(2), 179–211.

Ajzen, I. (2002a). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

Ajzen, I. (2002b). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations.

Available at http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf, accessed 22 July 2015.

Ashoka. (2014). About Ashoka’s Empathy Initiative. Available at http://empathy.ashoka.org/about-ashokas-

empathy-initiative, accessed 22 July 2015.

Bacq, S. & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional
issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6),
373–403.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84(2), 191–215.

September, 2015 21
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Prajores and T. Urban (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Charlotte, NC: IAP Press.

Batson, C.D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus
imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751–758.

Bentler, P.M. & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

Bloom, P.N. & Smith, B.R. (2010). Identifying the drivers of social entrepreneurial impact: Theoretical
development and an exploratory empirical test of SCALERS. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1),
126–145.

Bornstein, D. (1996). The price of a dream, The story of the Grameen Bank. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Borsari, B. & Carey, K.B. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A meta-analytic
integration. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(3), 331–341.

Brock, D. (2011). Social entrepreneurship education resource handbook. Washington, DC: Ashoka
U—Global Academy for Social Entrepreneurship.

Carr, J.C. & Sequeira, J.M. (2007). Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and entre-
preneurial intent: A theory of planned behavior approach. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1090–1098.

Carsrud, A.L. & Br€annback, M. (2009). Understanding the entrepreneurial mind. Dordrecht, the Nether-
lands: Springer.

Cheng, P. & Chu, M. (2014). Behavioral factors affecting students’ intentions to enroll in business ethics
courses: A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and social cognitive theory. Journal of Business
Ethics, 124(35), 35–46.

Chlosta, S., Patzelt, H., Klein, S.B., & Dormann, C. (2012). Parental role models and the decision to
become self-employed: The moderating effect of personality. Small Business Economics, 38(1),
121–138.

Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., & Kallgren, C.A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the
concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
58(6), 1015–1026.

Coff, R.W. (1999). When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: The resource-based view
and stakeholder bargaining power. Organisation Science, 10(2), 119–133.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Statistical power analysis for the
behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Comunian, A.L. & Gielen, U.P. (1995). Moral reasoning and prosocial action in Italian culture. The Jour-
nal of Social Psychology, 135(6), 699–706.

Corner, P.D. & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneureship,
Theory, and Practice, 34(4), 635–659.

Dacin, M.T., Dacin, P.A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions.
Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213.

Datta, P.B. & Gailey, R. (2012). Empowering women through social entrepreneurship: Case study of a
women’s cooperative in India. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 569–587.

Dees, J.G. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem solving, and the future of social entrepreneur-
ship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 321–334.

22 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

Defourny, J. & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe
and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.

Desa, G. (2012). Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mecha-

nism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 727–751.

Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J.A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the uninitiated. London:
Sage Publications Inc.

Douglas, E.J. & Shepherd, D.A. (2002). Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial
intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 81–90.

Drayton, W. (2002). The citizen sector: Becoming as entrepreneurial and competitive as business. Cali-
fornia Management Review, 44(3), 120–132.

Ernst, K. (2011). Heart over mind–An empirical analysis of social entrepreneurial intention formation on
the basis of the theory of planned behaviour. Unpublished dissertation, University Wuppertal.

Esping-Andersen, G. & Korpi, W. (1986). From poor relief to institutional welfare states: The develop-
ment of Scandinavian social policy. International Journal of Sociology, 16(3), 39–74.

Fairchild, A.J., Mackinnon, D.P., Taborga, M.P., & Taylor, A.B. (2009). R2 effect-size measures for
mediation analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 486–498.

Fayolle, A. & Li~nan, F. (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business
Research, 67(5), 663–666.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measure-
ment error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.

Forster, F. & Grichnik, D. (2013). Why social entrepreneurs act—The intention formation of corporate
volunteers. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 153–181.

Giles, M., McClenahan, C., Cairns, E., & Mallet, J. (2004). An application of the Theory of Planned Behav-
iour to blood donation: The importance of self-efficacy. Health Education Research, 19(4), 380–391.

Gist, M.E. & Mitchell, T.B. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malabil-
ity. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.

Goetz, J.L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empiri-
cal review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 351–374.

Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psycholo-
gist, 54(7), 493–503.

Groch, K., Gerdes, K.E., Segal, E.A., & Groch, M. (2012). The grassroots londolozi model of African
development: Social empathy in action. Journal of Community Practice, 20(1-2), 154–177.

Haines, R., Street, M.D., & Haines, D. (2008). The influence of perceived importance of an ethical issue
on moral judgment, moral obligation, and moral intent. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 387–399.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Vectors. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Haugh, H. (2007). Community-led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2),
161–182.

Hemingway, C.A. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Ethics, 60(3), 233–249.

September, 2015 23
Hockerts, K. (2007). Social entrepreneurship. In W. Visser, D. Matten, M. Pohl, & N. Tolhurst (Eds.),
The A-Z of corporate social responsibility (p. 422). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Hockerts, K. (2010). Social entrepreneurship between market and mission. International Review of Entre-
preneurship, 8(2), 177–198.

Hockerts, K. (2015a). How hybrid organizations turn antagonistic assets into complementarities. Califor-
nia Management Review, 57(3), 83–106.

Hockerts, K. (2015b). Antecedents of social entrepreneurial intentions: A validation study. Social Enter-
prise Journal, 11(3).

Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

Jones, R., Latham, J., & Betta, M. (2008). Narrative construction of the social entrepreneurial identity.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 14(5), 330–345.

Jones, T.M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals: An issue-contingent model. Academy of
Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.

Kaiser, F.G. (2006). A moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: Norms and anticipated feelings
of regret in conservationism. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(1), 71–81.

Kautonen, T., Luoto, S., & Tornikoski, E.T. (2010). Influence of work history on entrepreneurial intentions
in “prime age” and “third age”: A preliminary study. International Small Business Journal, 28(6), 583–601.

Kautonen, T., van Gelderen, M., & Fink, M. (2015). Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in pre-
dicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 655–674.

Kenny, D.A. & McCoach, D.B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural
equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(3), 333–351.

Koe Hwee Nga, J. & Shamuganathan, G. (2010). The influence of personality traits and demographic fac-
tors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 259–282.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. New York:
HarperCollins.

Krueger, N. (2009). Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: Long live entrepreneurial intentions. In A. L.
Carsrud & M. Br€annback (Eds.), Understanding the entrepreneurial mind (pp. 51–72). New York:
Springer.

Krueger, N., Kickul, J., Gundry, L., Wilson, F., & Verma, R. (2006). Discrete choices, trade-offs, and
advantages: Modeling social venture opportunities and intentions. 2nd International Social Entrepreneur-
ship Research Conference, New York, NY.

Krueger, N.F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasi-
bility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5–21.

Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411–432.

Li~nan, F. & Chen, Y. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to mea-
sure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593–617.

Liu, G., Eng, T.-Y., & Takeda, S. (2013). An investigation of marketing capabilities and social enterprise
performance in the UK and Japan. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 267–298. doi:10.1111/
etap.12041

24 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

London, M. (2010). Understanding social advocacy: An integrative model of motivation, strategy, and
persistence in support of corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Manage-
ment Development, 29(3), 224–245.

Mair, J. & Martı, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and
delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.

Mair, J. & Noboa, E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture get
formed. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 121–136). New
York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Manning, M. (2009). The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-
analysis. The British Journal of Social Psychology/The British Psychological Society, 48(Pt 4), 649–705.

McIntosh, C.N. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and
elaboration on Barrett (2007). Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 859–867.

Mehrabian, A. & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 525–543.

Meyskens, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J., Carsrud, A., & Reynolds, P. (2010). Social ventures from a
resource-based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global Ashoka fellows. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 34(4), 661–680.

Miller, T.L., Grimes, M.G., McMullen, J.S., & Vogus, T.J. (2012). Venturing for others with heart and
head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 37(4),
616–640.

Mort, G.S., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualisa-
tion. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76–88.

Niezink, L.W., Siero, F.W., Dijkstra, P., Buunk, A.P., & Barelds, D.P.H. (2012). Empathic concern: Dis-
tinguishing between tenderness and sympathy. Motivation and Emotion, 36(4), 544–549.

Podsakoff, P.M. & Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.
Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

Preston, S.D., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Grabowski, T.J., Stansfield, R.B., Mehta, S., et al. (2007). The
neural substrates of cognitive empathy. Social Neuroscience, 2(3-4), 254–275.

Rivis, A., Sheeran, P., & Armitage, C.J. (2009). Expanding the affective and normative components of
the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis of anticipated affect and moral norms. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2985–3019.

Ruttmann, R. (2012). Investing for impact: How social entrepreneurship is redefining the meaning of
return. Credit Suisse Research Institute and Schwab Foundation, January, 58.

Schlaegel, C. & Koenig, M. (2014). Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta-analytic test and inte-
gration of competing models. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 291–332.

Shapero, A. & Sokol, L. (1982). Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, &
K. H. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Shen, B. (2010). How can perceived autonomy support influence enrollment in elective physical educa-
tion? A prospective study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81(4), 456–465.

Smith, I.H. & Woodworth, W.P. (2012). Developing social entrepreneurs and social innovators: A
social identity and self-efficacy approach. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3),
390–407.

September, 2015 25
Teasdale, S., McKay, S., Phillimore, J., & Teasdale, N. (2011). Exploring gender and social entrepreneur-
ship: Women’s leadership, employment and participation in the third sector and social enterprises. Volun-
tary Sector Review, 2(1), 57–76.

Thompson, E.R. (2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an
internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 669–694.

Thøgersen, J. (2002). Direct experience and the strength of the personal norm–behavior relationship. Psy-
chology and Marketing, 19(10), 881–893.

Tierney, P. & Farmer, S. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to crea-
tive performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148.

Townsend, D.M. & Hart, T.A. (2008). Perceived institutional ambiguity and the choice of organizational
form in social entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(405), 685–701.

Tracey, P. & Jarvis, O. (2007). Toward a theory of social venture franchising. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 31(5), 667–685.

Tukamushaba, E., Orobia, L., & George, B. (2011). Development of a conceptual model to understand
international social entrepreneurship and its application in the Ugandan context. Journal of International
Entrepreneurship, 9(4), 282–298.

Vining, J. & Ebreo, A. (1989). An evaluation of the public response to a community recycling education
program. Society & Natural Resources, 2(1), 23–36.

Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D.F., & Summers, G.F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in
panel models. In D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 84–136). Jossey-Bass.

Wood, S. (2012). Prone to progress: Using personality to identify supporters of innovative social entre-
preneurship. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 129–141.

Yiu, D.W., Wan, W.P., Ng, F.W., Chen, X., & Su, J. (2014). Sentimental drivers of social entrepreneurship: A
study of China’s Guangcai (Glorious) Program. Management and Organization Review, 10(1), 55–80.

Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from
the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 308–325.

Zahn-Waxler, C. & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1990). The origins of empathic concern. Motivation and Emo-
tion, 14(2), 107–130.

Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E., & Hills, G.E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of
entrepreneurial intentions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265–1272.

Kai Hockerts, Professor of Social Entrepreneurship at Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Porcelaen-
shaven 18, DK-2000 Frederiksberg Denmark.

My sincere thanks to my colleague Wencke Gwozdz, who has been essential in introducing him to
structural equation modelling; to Bersant Hobdari, Bo Bernhard Nielsen, and the two anonymous
reviewer for helpful comments on drafts of this article; as well as to Martiina Srkoc for copy editing
help.

26 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE