The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1750-8614.htm
SEJ
17,1
20
Received 16 July 2020
Revised 12 October 2020
Accepted 23 October 2020
Social Enterprise Journal
Vol. 17 No. 1, 2021
pp. 20-43
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1750-8614
DOI 10.1108/SEJ-07-2020-0054
Millennial social entrepreneurial
intent and social entrepreneurial
self-efficacy: a comparative
entrepreneurship study
Yang Zhang, Juanita Trusty, Tatiana Goroshnikova, Louise Kelly,
Kwok K. Kwong, Stephen J.J. McGuire, Juan Perusquia,
Veena P. Prabhu, Minghao Shen and Robert Tang
(Author affiliations can be found at the end of the article)
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to propose and test predictors of millennials’ social entrepreneurial
intent (SEI), mediating mechanisms and influential contextual factors.
Design/methodology/approach – This study includes survey data from 1,890 respondents, 315 each
from China, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Russia and the USA.
Findings – Empirical results show that social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (SESE) mediated the
relationship between perseverance and proactive personality and the dependent variable SEI in all six
countries. Life satisfaction positively moderated this relationship among US students and negatively
moderated it among Chinese students. In China dissatisfaction appears to enhance SEI, while in the US
satisfaction appears to do so.
Originality/value – This paper identifies the mediating role of SESE and the moderating role of life
satisfaction when explaining SEI, as well as providing data from millennials in six countries.
Keywords Proactive personality, Life satisfaction, Millennials, Social entrepreneurial intent,
Perseverance, Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Social entrepreneurship is an increasingly popular practice in which business solutions and
innovation are used to solve social problems (Germak and Robinson, 2014). Social
entrepreneurs focus on achieving a social mission. They apply innovative methods to a
social objective using a variety of business models in both profit and non-profit
organizations.
Researchers suggest that millennials, those born between 1980 and 2000, are more
inclined than members of previous generations to become social entrepreneurs (Cone,
2006). Millennials have witnessed corporate scandals, watched their parents lose jobs to
corporate downsizing and outsourcing and experienced high unemployment. These
conditions have prompted millennials to look for entrepreneurial opportunities. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce (2012) reports that an estimated one-half to two-thirds of
millennials are interested in entrepreneurship and about 25% are already self-employed.
Furthermore, millennials may have a special interest in social entrepreneurship because
of their desire to have meaningful work that makes a difference in the world (Cone,
2006).
 This research examines individuals’ social entrepreneurial motivation within a Social
global context and thereby incorporates macro-dimensions and individual motivation. entrepreneurial
There is abundant evidence that national contexts shape innovation and
entrepreneurial activity (Shane, 1992; Williams and McGuire, 2010); however, more
self-efficacy
investigation into the role of culture in entrepreneurial intent and activity is needed
(Gorgievski and Stephan, 2016; Huggins and Thompson, 2014; Liñ
an et al., 2015;
Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014). Our study tested hypotheses about predictors of social
21
entrepreneurial intent (SEI) [perseverance (PER), proactive personality (PP) and
concern for social problems (CSP)] among 1,890 members of the millennial generation
from six national contexts – China, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Russia and USA – as
well as a mediator social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (SESE) and a potential moderator
of the mediated relationship (life satisfaction).
This study aims to answer two major research questions: What factors predict
millennials’ SEI? How do the predictors differ in the different countries we studied? We
contribute to the literature on SEI and social entrepreneurship by integrating individual
differences theory with cross-cultural comparative entrepreneurship literature. This study
provides insight into the variations and commonalities of the social entrepreneurial
intentions of millennials in six countries.

Literature review
Social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs
Zahra et al. (2009) compiled the various definitions of social entrepreneurship and social
entrepreneurs. Synthesizing common elements, we conceptualize social entrepreneurship as
the use of innovative means to create and exploit opportunities that yield sustained
solutions to social problems. A social entrepreneur leverages resources to realize both a
social and financial return on investments and may deploy any one of various business
models to accomplish the organization’s mission.
Social entrepreneurs share many of the same characteristics as traditional or
commercial entrepreneurs such as need for achievement, PER and proactivity
(Brockhaus and Horwitz, 1986; Crant, 1996; Mair and Martí, 2006) Notwithstanding,
researchers attest to the fact that social entrepreneurs are distinct from commercial
entrepreneurs (Bacq and Janssen, 2011). This distinction has been seen in the level of
compassion and concern for social issues (Miller et al., 2012; Ghalwash et al., 2017).
Researchers have also associated these qualities with the millennial generation (Cone,
2006; Loudenback, 2016).
SEI is described as an individual’s intention to create an innovative business venture
that yields sustained solutions to social problems. The theory of entrepreneurial
intentionality is grounded in cognitive and social psychology, which seeks to predict
and explain human behavior (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994). Bird (1992) suggested that
entrepreneurial intentions were based on personal characteristics such as personal
history, personality and abilities, as well as contextual factors such as the social,
political and economic environment. Other researchers (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994;
Krueger and Carsrud, 1993) suggested that entrepreneurial intentions are also the
result of beliefs and attitudes. According to the theory of planned behavior, attitudes
toward a behavior, subjective norms and perceptions of personal control predict
behavioral intention (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). In other words, individuals form
attitudes about performing a behavior based on normative beliefs about the behavior,
the belief that the behavior will result in certain consequences and the perception of
SEJ their ability to perform the behavior. These attitudes form behavioral intentions which
17,1 become the immediate determinant of behavior.
Intentions are assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence behavior; they are
indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to
exert to perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991, p. 181).
Krueger and Carsrud (1993, p. 315) suggest that entrepreneurial intent is the “single best
22 predictor” of entrepreneurial behavior. Social entrepreneurial behavior, therefore, is more
likely to occur if individuals believe that they can make a difference if they feel that they are
competent in their ability to be a social entrepreneur and if they have the support of
significant others in their efforts. Individual factors such as personality, background,
persistence and proactivity, as well as situational or contextual factors also interact to form
SEI (Hockerts, 2017; Krueger et al., 2000; Mair and Noboa, 2003). Thus, the main dependent
variable of this study is SEI.
In 2003, Mair and Noboa proposed a model of SEI adapted from previous
entrepreneurial intent (EI) models. They proposed that SEI arose from the perceived
desirability and perceived feasibility of enacting social entrepreneurship. In their
model, empathy (an emotion) and moral judgment (a cognition) were antecedents to
desirability, while self-efficacy and social support predicted feasibility. The inclusion of
empathy and moral judgment differentiated Mair and Noboa’s (2003) SEI model from
general models explaining EI.
Other researchers have attempted to identify characteristics of social entrepreneurs that
would predict SEI. For example, Nga and Shamuganathan (2010) found that some of the Big
Five personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience) were
associated with some manifestations of social entrepreneurship, with agreeableness being
the best predictor of the three. A 2016 GEM (2016) report, for example, found that in the UK
people who became social entrepreneurs were “pretty much average people when it comes to
demographics. They have various educational backgrounds – from no formal education to
doctorates – and come from all ethnic groups” (Ernst, 2012, p. 52). Riedo et al. (2019)
concluded that prospective social entrepreneurs differed from prospective commercial
entrepreneurs in four dimensions: personal distress, need for achievement, entrepreneurial
self-efficacy and risk-taking propensity. Social entrepreneurs were found to be higher than
commercial entrepreneurs in extraversion and openness to experience (Cohen et al., 2019).
Prieto (2010) learned that PP was associated with SEI among African American and
Hispanic students and was moderated by hope. Prabhu et al. (2012) found that PP, mediated
by entrepreneurial self-efficacy, predicted three different manifestations of EI – general,
high growth and lifestyle.
We, therefore, need to entertain the possibility that commercial and social entrepreneurs
are quite different types of people, perhaps, in personality or, perhaps, in values. For
example, individuals with high SEI may have different values than individuals with high
commercial EI (Aşcıgil and Magner, 2013; Bosch, 2013).
Hockerts (2017) tested the direct effects of moral obligation, entrepreneurial self-efficacy
(ESE), empathy and perceived social support on SEI without Mair and Noboa’s moderators
(perceived desirability and perceived feasibility). He found that prior experience dealing
with social problems mediated the relationship between moral obligations, ESE, empathy
and perceived social support on SEI. Lacap et al. (2018) found similar results: prior
experience with social problems positively affected empathy, moral obligation, SESE and
perceived social support among Indonesian and Filipino students; moreover, SESE and
social support positively affected SEI.
Gaps in the literature Social
This review reveals several gaps in the research on social entrepreneurship that are entrepreneurial
addressed by this research. These include insufficient attention to the problems in society,
social entrepreneurs’ personality, developed versus undeveloped societies and motivational
self-efficacy
drivers of SEI.
Insufficient attention to problems in society. Drivers of SE must take context into account
such as a given social problem or support for the social entrepreneur from other persons or
institutions (Tiwari et al., 2017). Mair and Noboa (2003) called that driving exogenous factor 23
a “trigger event.” Hockerts (2017) found that prior experience with a social problem was the
main, direct predictor of SEI. Ghalwash et al. (2017) proposed that social problems and social
challenges – combined with personal characteristics of the social entrepreneur – were inputs
in the process of social transformation. While social entrepreneurs may have several
different motivations, it is quite clear that their concern with a given problem in society is at
least part of what drives them to take action. Social entrepreneurs do not engage in
entrepreneurship to solve problems in general; they are highly motivated to address one or
more very specific social problems. Social entrepreneurs seek to address an unmet social
need or seize a new social value creation opportunity in a given, specific community (Mair
and Martí, 2006; Urbano et al., 2017). Consequently, research on the antecedents of social
entrepreneurship and SEI ought to take into account the salience of social problems to the
entrepreneur.
Social entrepreneurs’ personality. Although some research has explored the traits of
social entrepreneurs (Nga and Shamuganathan, 2010; Ernst, 2011) – thus shedding light on
personal characteristics that might be predictive of intentions to become a social
entrepreneur – certain personality traits may have been under-studied. Stephan and
Drencheva (2017) called for additional studies examining the relationship between social
entrepreneur personality and SE outcomes. Specifically, PP has been found to be a predictor
of EI (Crant, 1996; Prabhu et al., 2012). Moreover, Kedmenec et al. (2015) found that people
with SEI had about the same proactiveness as did people with commercial EI.
Whiteside and Lynam (2001) had earlier classified “perseverance” as an aspect of
personality. Prabhu et al. (2016) found that both PP and PER predicted SEI, reasoning that
social entrepreneurs, faced with numerous obstacles and setbacks in their attempt to solve
social problems, would need to demonstrate proactiveness, as well as a high degree of PER
and tenacity. Ghalwash et al. (2017, p. 283) noted that one characteristic of a social
entrepreneur was PER, which they defined as “the ability to overcome adversity such as
bureaucracy, corruption and the absence of government support [. . .] and other external
challenges and barriers.” In conclusion, models that predict SEI should take into account the
personality of the individual who intends to solve a social problem through
entrepreneurship.
Developed and developing societies. Social entrepreneurship is a global phenomenon that
should be studied in both developed and developing societies and examined for
commonalities and differences in these different contexts. As Gupta et al. (2020, p. 222) wrote:
“One way to consider contexts outside the enterprise would be to study SE activities based on
the country of origin (i.e. developed countries, developing countries).” Implicit leadership
theory suggests that national cultural contexts may have varying expectations for ideal
leadership values and behaviors; they may support or limit aspirations for social
entrepreneurship (Lee and Kelly, 2019; Austin et al., 2006; House et al., 2002). Dwivedi and
Weerawardena (2018, p. 39) noted that future research was sorely needed in economically
less-developed countries, notably those at the “base of the pyramid.” Both supportive factors
(external support) and social problems are likely to vary by society, thus the motivations and
SEJ enablers of SE will vary considerably around the globe. Nonetheless, many SEI studies have
17,1 focused only on the developed world; in fact, one review of the SE literature found that 66%
of 188 studies reviewed were from North America, Europe and Australia (Gupta et al., 2020)
with some notable exceptions: Indonesian and Filipino students (Lacap et al., 2018), Indian
students (Tiwari et al., 2017), Russians (Popkova and Sergi, 2020), Brazilians (Nascimento
and Salazar, 2020) and data from Bangladesh, Chile, China, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan,
24 Senegal, South Africa, Taiwan and Tanzania (Dionisio, 2019; Gupta et al., 2020).
Motivational drivers of social entrepreneurial intent. The research on social
entrepreneurship and SEI would benefit from a greater focus on factors motivating people to
engage in social entrepreneurship in addition to the concern for a social problem mentioned
above. Ideally, these motivational factors would go beyond the generic prosocial behaviors
or empathy of social entrepreneurs because, as we can acknowledge, the vast majority of
prosocial, empathetic people neither intend to nor actually become social entrepreneurs. For
example, people who are not satisfied with the status quo, who are unhappy with the
conditions of life, might be more likely to engage in SE. Research has indeed found that
“Many marginalized groups [. . .] display a culture of entrepreneurship that is noticeably
more socially orientated” (Williams, 2007, p. 471). It might well be that one’s SE motivation
is in part a function of how happy one is with his/her current situation and life.
Moreover, Shaw and Carter (2007) found that social entrepreneurs sought personal
satisfaction through social entrepreneurial activities and were motivated by dissatisfaction
with a previous career. Vasakarla (2008) noted that social entrepreneurs were characterized
by, among other things, dissatisfaction with what they had been involved with in the past.
Thus, we conclude that research would benefit from a focus on the motivational drivers of
SEI: CSP and satisfaction. One aspect of this gap in the literature is the need for research to
examine the relationship between satisfaction (life, career, etc.) and SEI.
Multi-country, empirical samples with robust data analysis. Stephan and Drencheva
(2017) reminded us that to generate generalizable findings, researchers need to publish large
sample quantitative studies that use theory-embedded validated scales. Moreover, a study
that allows the comparison of respondents from different nationalities allows us to discover
commonalities and differences across countries.

Hypotheses development
To address some of the aforementioned gaps in the literature, we advance a conceptual
model of potential antecedents of SEI (Figure 1). Our conceptual model allows us to examine
empirically the contribution of the individual factors of proactivity, PER, CSP and SESE in

Figure 1.
Conceptual model of
millennials’ SEI
different national contexts. Because patterns of national attitudes, norms and resources Social
shape social entrepreneurial intentions and behavior, we do not expect that individual entrepreneurial
factors would predict SEI equally in all countries. In some countries, these same variables
self-efficacy
might predict other outcomes such as for-profit entrepreneurship, volunteering or working
for the government. Our interest in the present paper is, however, limited to SEI.

Perseverance 25
PER, the ability to remain concentrated on a tedious or difficult task (Whiteside and Lynam,
2001), repeatedly makes the list of characteristics attributed to entrepreneurs (Mair and
Martí, 2006). In fact, some suggest that persistence or PER is the single most important
factor for entrepreneurial success. Duckworth et al.’s (2007) study of grit – a non-cognitive
trait defined as “perseverance and passion for long-term goals” – found that grit accounted
for incremental variance above and beyond IQ or conscientiousness in predicting success
outcomes (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1087). In other words, PER and passion are just as
important, if not more important, to success than ability or talent. Thus, we believe that PER
will predict SEI:

H1(a). Among millennials, PER will explain SEI.

Proactive personality
Bateman and Crant (1993, p. 103) defined the construct PP “as a dispositional construct that
identifies differences among people in the extent to which they take action to influence their
environment.” Proactive Personality is a unique disposition not captured by other
typologies such as the Big Five; Crant and Bateman (2000) found only moderate correlations
with the five-factor model of personality. PP’s effects have been found in studies of career
success (Erdogan and Bauer, 2005; Seibert et al., 1999), job performance (Thompson, 2005);
transformational (Bateman and Crant, 1993) and charismatic leadership (Crant and
Bateman, 2000); and job search success (Brown et al., 2006). According to Crant (2000,
p. 439), “Proactive people identify opportunities and act on them, show initiative, take action
and persevere until meaningful change occurs.”
Prabhu et al. (2012) found a positive relationship between proactivity and entrepreneurial
intent; we logically feel that proactivity will also predict SEI:

H1(b). Among millennials, PP will explain SEI.

Concern for social problems

As one of the distinguishing features of social entrepreneurship is the pursuit of social value,
it follows that concern for social issues explains SEI. Organizations have identified the most
pressing social issues for millennials. Over 31,000 millennials participating in the 2017
World Economic Forum’s Global Shapers Survey cited climate change, poverty, inequality,
economic opportunity, human safety and well-being and government accountability and
corruption as top social concerns (Loudenback, 2016). A survey by The Clinton Global
Initiative (2014) revealed that millennials care about some social issues more than their
parents do; these include the environment, human rights, health-care, poverty and
education. We categorized these issues into five broad areas of globally-relevant social
issues, namely: corruption and good government, environment (climate change, pollution,
etc.), human health, human rights and human suffering.
SEJ Despite the characterization of millennials as selfish and apathetic, data suggest that
17,1 millennials are compassionate, care deeply about global social issues and are determined to
take action (Loudenback, 2016). The growing sense of global interdependence and real-time
depictions of suffering, inequality and abuse throughout the world have given rise to
compassion. Rynes et al. (2012) and Miller et al. (2012) suggest that compassion is the
underlining motivation for social entrepreneurship. Compassion encourages social
26 entrepreneurship by integrative thinking that allows entrepreneurs to reconcile the
simultaneous creation of economic value and social value, a prosocial cost-benefit analysis
where the outcomes for others are valued highly and encourages the emotional connection to
the suffering that strengthens a person’s prosocial identity and their commitment to
investing time and energy in helping others even under demanding and difficult
circumstances. We, therefore, believe that CSP will predict SEI.

H1(c). Among millennials, CSP will explain SEI.

Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy

Self-efficacy – which can generally be defined as “people’s belief in their capabilities to
mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources and courses of action needed to exercise control
over events in their lives” (Wood and Bandura, 1989, p. 364) – is an essential component of
behavioral intentions. Individual motivation can be captured, in part, by the person’s belief
that he or she has the ability to achieve goals (Bandura, 1977). Individuals develop self-
efficacy through mastery experiences of repeated accomplishments, vicarious experience or
observational learning from role models, social persuasion by important people and
judgments about their own physiological state (e.g. feelings of exhilaration or fear)
(Bandura, 1977; Boyd and Vozikis, 1994).
Self-efficacy is not specific to a particular person but is associated with a particular
challenge or related tasks in a specific domain (Bandura, 1977). For example, a person may
have a high sense of self-efficacy related to their competence in job search, but low self-
efficacy related to mathematical ability. SESE refers to a person’s perception of their ability
to be an entrepreneur (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994). SESE expresses the strength of an
individual’s belief that he or she has the skills and ability to perform the roles and tasks of a
successful social entrepreneur. Research has shown that entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE)
is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions and behavior (Chen et al., 1998; Zhao et al.,
2005; Smith and Woodworth, 2012).
Self-efficacy is a particular domain that may serve as a mediator of behavioral intentions
and is often used to explain why people persevere to accomplish difficult tasks (Bandura,
1997). Indeed, researchers have reported that both ESE (Zhao et al., 2005) and SESE (Prabhu
et al., 2016) played a mediating role in students’ intentions to become entrepreneurs or social
entrepreneurs. Thus, we expect SESE to mediate the relationship between the predictors –
PER, PP and CSP – and SEI:

H2. SESE will mediate the relationship between (a) PER, (b) PP and (c) CSP and SEI.

Life satisfaction
Life satisfaction is “a global assessment of a person’s quality of life” according to that
person’s chosen criteria (Shin and Johnson, 1978, p. 478). Life Satisfaction is always the
result of a comparison between one’s situation and whatever the person selects as an
appropriate standard. Standards are internal; they are not externally imposed (Diener et al., Social
1985). entrepreneurial
Blanchflower and Oswald (1998) report that entrepreneurs had high levels of job and life
satisfaction. Research also suggests that life satisfaction can serve to moderate the effects of
self-efficacy
stressful events (Suldo and Huebner, 2004). Consequently, millennials with high levels of
Life Satisfaction may have the motivation and capacity to help others, may be better able to
cope with the stress associated with starting and sustaining a social enterprise and may be 27
more likely to persevere in the social venture. On the other hand, those with low levels of
satisfaction may be preoccupied with their own situation, feel less confident in their ability
to start a social enterprise and may be less likely to take action on behalf of others:

H3. Life satisfaction (Lsat) will positively moderate the mediated relationship between
(a) PER, (b) PP and (c) CSP and SEI through SESE.

Measurements and methods

SEI was measured using four items adapted from Prabhu et al. (2012). PP was measured
with six items from Bateman and Crant’s (1993) scale. PER was measured using the four
items from Whiteside and Lynam (2001). CSP was measured by scale items for five social
issues: corruption and good government, environment (climate change, pollution, etc.),
human health, human rights and human suffering, with the question: “how likely–in the
next 5 years– is it that you will take action to address the following social problems?” SESE
was measured using nine items adapted from Prabhu et al. (2012). Finally, life satisfaction
(Lsat) was measured using Shin and Johnson’s (1978) four-item scale. All of these measures
are on a seven-point Likert scale. Detailed survey items will be provided upon request.
We collected survey data from millennials in six countries (China, Mexico, Nigeria,
Philippines, Russia and the USA) and examined direct effect by linear regression and
indirect results by Hayes’ PROCESS version 3.0 at the control of age, work experience and
gender effect. After verifying that data were normally distributed, we replaced missing data
with the averages of each country. Prior to testing hypotheses, we verified that
multicollinearity was not a severe problem that would impede the interpretation of the
regression analyzes (Wasserman et al., 1983).
Table 1 reports descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlations for the overall sample
(For detailed information of individual samples, please contact the authors.)

Results
Direct predictors of social entrepreneurial intent
The first hypothesis posited a direct relationship between the predictor’s PER, PP and CSP and
the dependent variable, SEI, after controlling for age, work experience and gender. Multiple
regression analyzes were used to test if the predictors explained SEI. The results of separate
regressions for the overall sample indicated that PER, PP and all five social concerns separately
explained a modest amount of the variance in SEI when controlling for gender, work
experience and age. Table 2 summarizes the regression results for the overall sample.
Tables 3 to 8 report the results of tests of direct effects on SEI in the different country
samples. PER predicted SEI in four countries (but not in Mexico or Russia). PP predicted SEI
in all countries except Russia. One or more of the social concerns was a direct predictor of SEI
in Mexico, the Philippines or Russia, but not in China, Nigeria or the USA. For each country,
we identified at least one direct predictor of SEI. We, therefore, found partial support for H1.
 28
SEJ
17,1

Table 1.

correlations
Overall means,
reliabilities and
Variable list Mean STD SEI SESE PER PP Corrpt Envir HH HRts Hsuffer Lsat GEN WEXP

SEI 4.579 1.417 (0.840)

SESE 4.748 0.980 0.381*** (0.864)
PER 5.338 1.168 0.213*** 0.377***(0.722)
PP 5.114 1.029 0.291*** 0.611*** 0.512*** (0.839)
Corruption (Corrpt) 4.691 1.829 0.091*** 0.075** 0.028 0.054* .
Environment 5.003 1.754 0.078*** 0.044 0.073** 0.029 0.505*** .
Human health (HH) 5.181 1.687 0.109*** 0.089*** 0.104*** 0.072** 0.449*** 0.584*** .
Human rights (HRts) 5.199 1.663 0.114*** 0.090*** 0.083*** 0.095*** 0.480*** 0.489*** 0.629*** .
Human suffer (Hsuffer) 5.010 1.699 0.095*** 0.044 0.083*** 0.058* 0.458*** 0.476*** 0.520*** 0.580*** .
Life satisfaction (Lsat) 4.409 1.213 0.133*** 0.244*** 0.198*** 0.283*** 0.036 0.068** 0.074** 0.059* 0.069** (0.762)
Gender (Gen) 0.441 0.497
0.012 0.054*
0.045
0.014 0.021
0.018 0.001
0.018 0.005 0.006 .
Work exp (WEXP) 1.698 3.173 0.017 0.009 0.070** 0.083***
0.070**
0.064**
0.031 0.008 0.002 0.055*
0.027 .
Age 21.420 3.906 0.000
0.033 0.100*** 0.056*
0.081***
0.050*
0.030 0.003 0.001 0.027 0.010 0.705***

Notes: Construct reliabilities show in the diagonal with parentheses; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
DV: SEI b b b b b b b b

Gender
0.012
0.003
0.008
0.015
0.012
0.013
0.011
0.014

Work experience 0.027 0.020
0.007 0.030 0.033 0.030 0.026 0.027
Age
0.014
0.029
0.004
0.008
0.013
0.012
0.013
0.013
PER 0.223***
PP 0.310***
Corruption 0.090***
Environment 0.080***
Human health 0.106***
Human rights 0.116***
Human suffering 0.097***
DF 0.333 93.163 189.963 14.684 11.425 20.546 24.367 17.063
DR2 0.001 0.049*** 0.095*** 0.008*** 0.006*** 0.011*** 0.013*** 0.010***

Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

self-efficacy
Social

Table 2.

overall sample
of direct effects, the
Regression analyzes
29
entrepreneurial
SEJ DV: SEI b b b b b b b b
17,1
Gender 0.032 0.039 0.027 0.023 0.024 0.016 0.022 0.023
Work experience 0.019 0.015
0.006 0.026 0.022 0.018 0.027 0.025
Age 0.019 0.013 0.035 0.035 0.033 0.033 0.034 0.036
PER 0.141*
PP 0.178**
30 Corruption
0.007
Environment 0.049
Human health 0.078
Human rights 0.038
Human suffering
0.006
Table 3. DF 0.224 6.218 9.920 0.015 0.719 1.824 0.435 0.329
Regression analyzes DR2 0.002 0.020* 0.031** 0.000 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.000
of direct effects,
Chinese sample Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

DV: SEI b b b b b b b b

Gender
0.104
0.100
0.135
0.107
0.097
0.097
0.087
0.104

Work experience
0.009
0.005
0.019 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.004
0.008
Age 0.090 0.081
0.050 0.091 0.087 0.087 0.092 0.098
PER 0.085
PP 0.298***
Corruption 0.108
Environment 0.085
Human health 0.149*
Human rights 0.194***
Human suffering 0.166**
Table 4. DF 1.703 2.195 28.576 3.579 2.175 6.878 11.762 8.577
Regression analyzes DR2 0.017 0.007 0.086*** 0.012 0.007 0.022* 0.054*** 0.027**
of direct effects,
Mexican sample Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

DV: SEI b b b b b b b b

Gender
0.107
0.075
0.027
0.107
0.105
0.107
0.110
0.114

Work experience 0.072 0.078 0.067 0.072 0.069 0.073 0.081 0.073
Age
0.082
0.070
0.087
0.081
0.091
0.084
0.093
0.089
PER 0.474***
PP 0.526***
Corruption 0.010
Environment
0.068
Human health
0.024
Human rights
0.082
Human suffering
0.083
Table 5. DF 2.075 91.656 117.884 0.030 1.434 0.186 2.108 2.189
Regression analyzes DR2 0.020 0.224*** 0.270*** 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.007 0.007
of direct effects,
Nigerian sample Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
DV: SEI b b b b b b b b
Social
entrepreneurial
Gender 0.020 0.026 0.039 0.012 0.010 0.019 0.020 0.016 self-efficacy
Work experience 0.101 0.088 0.045 0.065 0.046 0.071 0.051 0.062
Age
0.121
0.128
0.089
0.080
0.061
0.086
0.067
0.070
PER 0.156
PP 0.314
Corruption 0.242*** 31
Environment 0.289***
Human health 0.186***
Human rights 0.281***
Human suffering 0.249***
DF 0.767 7.419 32.569 18.555 21.045 10.684 25.382 19.614
Table 6.
DR 2
0.008 0.024** 0.097*** 0.058*** 0.065*** 0.034*** 0.077*** 0.061*** Regression analyzes
of direct effects,
Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 Filipino sample

DV: SEI b b b b b b b b

Gender 0.092 0.090 0.092 0.090 0.092 0.091 0.098 0.094

Work experience 0.118 0.111 0.119 0.118 0.122 0.126 0.119 0.117
Age
0.207*
0.204*
0.210*
0.210*
0.210*
0.214*
0.217*
0.212*
PER 0.035
PP 0.034
Corruption 0.045
Environment 0.051
Human health 0.050
Human rights 0.117*
Human suffering 0.050
DF 2.675 0.367 0.353 0.614 0.818 0.772 4.274 0.767
Table 7.
DR2 0.026* 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.014* 0.002 Regression analyzes
of direct effects,
Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 Russian sample

DV: SEI b b b b b b b b

Gender
0.032
0.014
0.018
0.031
0.031
0.030
0.032
0.031

Work experience 0.197* 0.195* 0.139* 0.198* 0.198* 0.196* 0.198* 0.197*
Age
0.216*
0.197*
0.144
0.213*
0.216*
0.213*
0.217*
0.216*
PER 0.127*
PP 0.156*
Corruption 0.029
Environment 0.007
Human health 0.018
Human rights 0.016
Human suffering
0.007
DF 1.708 4.184 6.026 0.225 0.013 0.079 0.068 0.015
Table 8.
DR2 0.019 0.016* 0.022* 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Regression analyzes
of direct effects, US
Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 sample
SEJ 95% confidence
17,1 interval
Testing path Effect Standard error Low High

PER ! SESE ! SEI

Direct effect 0.105 0.029 0.049 0.161
Indirect effect 0.166 0.016 0.137 0.198
32
PP ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.156 0.038 0.081 0.230
Indirect effect 0.272 0.026 0.221 0.324
Corrpt ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.048 0.017 0.015 0.081
Indirect effect 0.022 0.008 0.007 0.038
Envir ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.050 0.018 0.015 0.084
Indirect effect 0.015 0.008 0.000 0.030
HH ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.061 0.018 0.025 0.097
Indirect effect 0.029 0.008 0.014 0.045
HRts ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.069 0.019 0.032 0.105
Indirect effect 0.031 0.008 0.014 0.047
Hsuffer ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.066 0.018 0.030 0.102
Indirect effect 0.015 0.008 0.000 0.032
Table 9.
Overall sample Notes: The authors controlled the potential effects of age, work experience and gender. The number of
mediation test bootstraps is 5,000

95% confidence interval

Testing path Effect Standard error Low High

PER ! SESE ! SEI

Direct effect 0.047 0.064
0.078 0.172
Indirect effect 0.109 0.029 0.055 0.171
PP ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect
0.018 0.090
0.196 0.160
Indirect effect 0.258 0.062 0.140 0.385
HH ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.025 0.042
0.058 0.108
Indirect effect 0.034 0.016 0.005 0.069
Table 10.
Chinese sample Notes: The authors controlled the potential effects of age, work experience and gender. The number of
mediation test bootstraps is 5,000
 95% confidence interval
Social
Testing path Effect Standard error Low High entrepreneurial
self-efficacy
PER ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect
0.052 0.076
0.201 0.098
Indirect effect 0.169 0.037 0.099 0.243
PP ! SESE ! SEI 33
Direct effect 0.037 0.110
0.179 0.253
Indirect effect 0.412 0.076 0.264 0.568
Corrpt ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.029 0.042
0.055 0.111
Indirect effect 0.058 0.021 0.018 0.102
Envir ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.029 0.043
0.055 0.114
Indirect effect 0.039 0.020 0.001 0.080
HH ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.064 0.044
0.024 0.151
Indirect effect 0.061 0.021 0.023 0.103
HRts ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.086 0.044
0.002 0.174
Indirect effect 0.075 0.022 0.034 0.122
Hsuffer ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.055 0.042
0.028 0.137
Indirect effect 0.074 0.022 0.035 0.121
Table 11.
Notes: The authors controlled the potential effects of age, work experience and gender. The number of Mexican sample
bootstraps is 5,000 mediation test

95% confidence interval

Testing path Effect Standard error Low High

PER ! SESE ! SEI

Direct effect 0.323 0.060 0.205 0.442
Indirect effect 0.179 0.038 0.110 0.259
PP ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.463 0.087 0.292 0.634
Indirect effect 0.182 0.068 0.057 0.327
Envir ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect
0.004 0.043
0.089 0.081
Indirect effect
0.054 0.023
0.101
0.009
Hsuffer ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect
0.022 0.039
0.098 0.054
Indirect effect
0.043 0.021
0.085
0.004
Table 12.
Notes: The authors controlled the potential effects of age, work experience and gender. The number of Nigerian sample
bootstraps is 5,000 mediation test
SEJ 95% confidence interval
17,1 Testing path Effect Standard error Low High

PER ! SESE ! SEI

Direct effect 0.057 0.071
0.083 0.198
Indirect effect 0.131 0.038 0.066 0.213
34 PP ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.263 0.088 0.089 0.437
Indirect effect 0.151 0.058 0.048 0.279
Corrpt ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.125 0.015 0.050 0.199
Indirect effect 0.040 0.015 0.015 0.074
Envir ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.147 0.045 0.057 0.236
Indirect effect 0.060 0.020 0.024 0.102
HH ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.106 0.055
0.002 0.213
Indirect effect 0.073 0.023 0.033 0.122
HRts ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.187 0.051 0.086 0.289
Indirect effect 0.068 0.023 0.029 0.117
Hsuffer ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.167 0.043 0.082 0.251
Indirect effect 0.031 0.017 0.002 0.067
Table 13.
Filipino sample Notes: The authors controlled the potential effects of age, work experience and gender. The number of
mediation test bootstraps is 5,000

95% confidence interval

Testing path Effect Standard error Low High

PER ! SESE ! SEI

Direct effect
0.065 0.070
0.203 0.072
Indirect effect 0.107 0.033 0.049 0.180
PP ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect
0.148 0.085
0.315 0.019
Indirect effect 0.194 0.047 0.106 0.282
Table 14.
Russian sample Notes: The authors controlled the potential effects of age, work experience and gender. The number of
mediation test bootstraps is 5,000

Predictors of social entrepreneurial intent through social entrepreneurial self-efficacy

Our second hypothesis posited that SESE would mediate the relationship between (a) PER,
(b) PP and (c) CSP and SEI. Tables 9 and 10 to 15 provide the results of regression tests of
mediation through SESE with Hayes’ PROCESS (version 3.0).
We found that SESE mediated the relationship between both PER and PP and SEI in all
six countries. We found full or partial mediation through SESE of these two predictors in the
 95% confidence interval
Social
Testing path Effect Standard error Low High entrepreneurial
self-efficacy
PER ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.048 0.076
0.101 0.197
Indirect effect 0.106 0.035 0.047 0.185
PP ! SESE ! SEI 35
Direct effect 0.008 0.098
0.186 0.201
Indirect effect 0.214 0.057 0.11 0.334
HH ! SESE ! SEI
Direct effect 0.045 0.051
0.056 0.147
Indirect effect
0.030 0.016
0.065
0.001
Table 15.
Notes: The authors controlled the potential effects of age, work experience and gender. The number of US sample mediation
bootstraps is 5,000 test

different countries. For example, in Nigeria and the Philippines, we found partial mediation
through SESE on SEI for PP, which means that the PP’s direct relationship with the
dependent variable SEI was significant even without SESE. In the Nigerian sample, we
likewise found partial mediation of PER’s relationship with SEI through SESE.
In the Chinese, Mexican, Filipino, Russian and US samples, we found full mediation of
the relationship of PER to SEI through SESE. In the Chinese, Mexican, Russian and US
samples, we also found full mediation of the relationship of PP to SEI through SESE. Full
mediation indicates that only the indirect effect of the predictor on SEI through SESE was
significant in these countries.
Evidence that one or more CSP’ effect on SEI was fully or partially mediated by SESE
was found in China, Mexico, Nigeria and the Philippines, but not in Russia or the USA.
Almost always, when mediation was found, it was positive. Surprisingly, in the US sample,
the Human Health to SEI relationship through SESE was negative and in the Nigerian
sample SESE fully and negatively mediated the relationship between SEI and two social
concerns – concern for the environment and concern for human suffering. While SESE
positively predicted SEI, CSP of the environment and human suffering negatively predicted
SESE. We are unable to provide a clear explanation for such results but wonder if SESE was
diminished if respondents concerned with an important problem saw it as intractable or
impossible to solve. We, therefore, found abundant support for H2(a) and H2(b) and partial
support for H2(c).

Moderated mediation
Our third hypothesis was that life satisfaction would moderate the mediated relationship
between (a) PER, (b) PP and (c) CSP and SEI through SESE. We found moderated mediation
in two country samples–China and the USA.
Table 16 shows the results of tests of moderated mediation for the Chinese sample. The
index of moderated mediation through SESE was negative and significant for PER
(b =
0.064, boot SE = 0.024, 95% bias-corrected CI = [
0.117,
0.023]), PP (b =
0.1036,
boot SE = 0.045, 95% bias-corrected CI = [
0.230,
0.055]) and concern for human health
(b =
0.019, boot SE = 0.011, 95% bias-corrected CI = [
0.044,
0.022]). The mediation
effects of SESE were significant at low and medium levels of Life Satisfaction but were not
SEJ 95% confidence
17,1 interval
Testing path Indirect effect Standard error Low High

PER ! SESE ! SEI

Low Lsat: 2.987 0.172 0.040 0.100 0.256
Mean Lsat: 4.035 0.105 0.028 0.055 0.165
36 High Lsat: 5.084 0.038 0.037
0.037 0.110
Moderated mediation index
0.064 0.024
0.117
0.023
PP ! SESE ! SEI
Low Lsat: 2.987 0.402 0.074 0.263 0.553
Mean Lsat: 4.035 0.260 0.059 0.151 0.386
High Lsat: 5.084 0.117 0.077
0.030 0.273
Moderated mediation index
0.136 0.045
0.230
0.055
HH ! SESE ! SEI
Low Lsat: 2.987 0.053 0.024 0.008 0.102
Table 16. Mean Lsat: 4.035 0.033 0.016 0.005 0.066
High Lsat: 5.084 0.012 0.012
0.008 0.041
Chinese sample
Moderated mediation index
0.019 0.011
0.044
0.002
conditional indirect
effects of SESE at Notes: The authors controlled the potential effects of age, work experience and gender. The number of
values of Lsat bootstraps is 5,000

95% confidence
interval
Testing path Indirect effect Standard error Low High

PER ! SESE ! SEI

Low Lsat: 3.277 0.058 0.034 0.001 0.135
Mean Lsat: 4.491 0.103 0.036 0.045 0.182
High Lsat: 5.706 0.148 0.052 0.064 0.267
Moderated mediation index 0.037 0.021 0.002 0.084
PP ! SESE ! SEI
Low Lsat: 3.277 0.128 0.064 0.018 0.272
Table 17. Mean Lsat: 4.491 0.214 0.056 0.118 0.339
High Lsat: 5.706 0.301 0.078 0.165 0.467
US sample
Moderated mediation index 0.071 0.036 0.001 0.143
conditional indirect
effects of SESE at Notes: The authors controlled the potential effects of age, work experience and gender. The number of
values of Lsat bootstraps is 5,000

found at a high level of Life Satisfaction. It appears that some degree of dissatisfaction is a
catalyst for intending to become a social entrepreneur in China.
Table 17 shows that moderated mediation was also found in the US sample, but
manifestly different than in the Chinese. The index of moderated mediation through SESE
was positive and significant for PER (b = 0.037, boot SE = 0.021, 95% bias-corrected
CI = [0.002, 0.084]) and PP (b = 0.071, boot SE = 0.036, 95% bias-corrected CI = [0.001,
0.143]). The mediation effects of SESE increased as Life Satisfaction increased. Satisfaction
with life for US respondents appeared to be a catalyst for SEI.
 We, therefore, found support for H3(a) and H3(b) in the USA and China, but not in the Social
other countries. Only in China was there some support for H3(c), which predicted that entrepreneurial
Life Satisfaction would moderate the mediated relationship between CSP and SEI
through SESE.
self-efficacy

Discussion
The present study provides insight into commonalities and variations among the sample
countries regarding the SEI of millennials. CSP, PER and PP play an important role in
37
millennials’ social entrepreneurship intent. CSP among millennials predicted sei in all the
countries we studied.
As Gupta et al. (2020, p. 222) pointed out: “social entrepreneurial activities are highly
influenced by contextual settings.” We found significant variations in the specific
social concerns in the different societies that seem to drive SEI. Concern for the
environment predicted SEI in all six countries and it was the only concern that
predicted SEI in the USA and Mexican samples. On the other hand, concern for all five
issues (corruption and good government, environment, human rights, human health
and human suffering) predicted SEI in China, Nigeria and the Philippines – possibly
reflecting a more broad-based set of concerns – and these were the only countries
where a concern for corruption and good government predicted SEI. Concern for
human rights and human health, in addition to the environment, predicted SEI in the
Russian sample.
Self-efficacy is a major factor in the process of translating CSP into SEI. SESE
signifies that an individual believes that he or she will have the ability, resources and
support to start and manage a successful social enterprise. Often, this self-efficacy was
the driver, as most of the time it fully mediated the relationship between the predictors
and SEI; in other cases, it was in combination with the PP dimension. PP and PER were
direct predictors of SEI in only two countries – Nigeria and the Philippines. Perhaps,
the cultural contexts make these personal qualities more important to SEI in these
countries.
In the USA, higher levels of Life Satisfaction strengthened the mediated relationship
between PER and SEI through SESE and the relationship between PP and SEI through
SESE. The opposite was true in the Chinese sample – lower levels of Life Satisfaction
strengthened the mediated relationship between PER and SEI through SESE and the
relationship between PP and SEI through SESE such that those with lower levels of
satisfaction were more likely to express intentions to become social entrepreneurs. Life
Satisfaction also negatively moderated the relationship between concern for human health
and SEI through SESE in the Chinese sample. Life Satisfaction was not a significant
moderator of the mediated SEI relationships in Nigeria, Russia, Mexico or the Philippines.

Implications for theory

This present research integrates individual attributes with the cultural context and adds to
social entrepreneurship theory by linking individual differences theory with the cross-
cultural comparative entrepreneurship literature. It can serve as stimuli for researchers to
explore the regional differences of social entrepreneurship and SEI in various country
contexts, Different cultural values, environments that have more social challenges or
environments where there are more obstacles to starting a business.
The contrast in the effect of Life Satisfaction in the Chinese and US samples is interesting
and may indicate that Chinese and US youth have an opposite pattern of motivation for SEI.
Among the US sample, high Life Satisfaction was a predictor of SEI; while for Chinese
SEJ youth, low Life Satisfaction was a stronger predictor. This suggests that the American
17,1 millennials are pursuing social entrepreneurship from a place of abundance and the Chinese
youth are pursuing social entrepreneurship from a place of dissatisfaction. Future research
can investigate the role of competing perspectives on SEI in various countries such as
abundance vs lack or interdependence vs independence relationship models (Rynes et al.,
2012).
38 A natural extension of this study would be to replicate it in additional countries. It would
be interesting to include additional contextual variables, as well as characteristics unique to
each country – and backgrounds and experiences unique to each individual – in an effort to
develop a more comprehensive explanation of the differences of SEI in various countries
(Stephan and Drencheva, 2017).

Implications for practice and policy

Our study has implications for both practice and policy. As SESE is a key mechanism for
SEI, training to improve SESE would help millennials to pursue social entrepreneurship in
the countries in our sample. Both academic institutions and governments can implement
programs to help young people develop social entrepreneurial competencies. For example,
China’s government policy could train and support those individuals who are not satisfied
with the present life circumstances. Conversely, US policy could target millennials with high
Life Satisfaction and encourage them to consider social entrepreneurship options.
Corporations should also take note of the interest of millennials in SE as they seek to
attract and retain these employees. In fact, there is a growing movement of corporate social
entrepreneurship as companies seek to create shared social and economic value.
Corporations are challenged to create cultures that harness the drive and energy of young
social entrepreneurs through partnerships, new ventures and employee volunteer programs.
For example, managers at Dow Chemical serve as mentors to the management team of
Sanergy, a social enterprise that provides portable toilets in Kenya and converts the waste to
fertilizer (Business Fights Poverty, 2015). Similarly, Pfizer has a Global Health Fellows
Program where employees are on “loan” to international development organizations in
developing countries around the world for up to six months in an effort to improve health
outcomes in communities where they operate (Pfizer, 2018). With the right incentives, these
“would be” social entrepreneurs may find a welcoming home or partnership with
multinational corporations around the world.

Limitations
Data for this study were collected via self-report measures to assess both the predictors and
outcome variables thereby raising concerns about common method variance (Spector, 2006).
A second limitation was the use of university students as the sample. Analyzes in the
present study found support for interactions thereby slightly alleviating concerns about
common method variance. Podsakoff et al. (2003) noted that one of the most common
variables assumed to cause common method variance was the tendency for participants to
respond in a socially desirable manner. Podsakoff et al. (2003) argue that when anonymity is
assured, respondents may have less evaluation apprehension and, therefore, are less likely
to edit their responses to be more socially desirable. In the present study, the responses were
completely anonymous, thereby, protecting respondents’ identities. Although this does not
completely eradicate the problem of common method bias, it does alleviate it.
References Social
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision entrepreneurial
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
self-efficacy
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Aşcıgil, S.F. and Magner, N.R. (2013), “Is individualism a predictor of social capital in business
incubators?”, Journal of Management Policy and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 113-119.
39
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006), “Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same,
different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Bacq, S. and Janssen, F. (2011), “The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: a review of definitional
issues based on geographical and thematic criteria”, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 23 Nos 5/6, pp. 373-403.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Macmillan.
Bateman, T. and Crant, J. (1993), “The proactive component of organizational behaviour: a measure and
correlates”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 103-118.
Bird, B. (1992), “The operation of intentions in time: the emergence of the new venture”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 11-20.
Blanchflower, D.G. and Oswald, A.J. (1998), “What makes an entrepreneur?”, Journal of Labor
Economics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 26-60.
Bosch, D.A. (2013), “A comparison of commercial and social entrepreneurial intent: the impact of
personal values”, available at: https://search.proquest.com/openview/6b7ea4378b3fdfdcf0595aa
06cf19281/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (accessed 20 June 2018).
Boyd, N.G. and Vozikis, G.S. (1994), “The influence of self-efficacy on the development of
entrepreneurial intentions and actions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 63-77.
Brockhaus, R.H. and Horwitz, P.S. (1986), “The art and science of entrepreneurship”, The Psychology of
the Entrepreneur, Vol. 2 No. 11, pp. 25-48.
Brown, D., Cober, R., Kane, K., Levy, P. and Shalhoop, J. (2006), “Proactive personality and the
successful job search: a field investigation with college graduates”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 717-726.
Business Fights Poverty (2015), “Interview with David Auerbach and Ross McLean”, available at:
https://businessfightspoverty.org/articles/david-auerbach-and-ross-mclean (accessed 20 June
2018).
Chen, C., Greene, P. and Crick, A. (1998), “Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs
from managers?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 295-316.
Clinton Global Initiative (2014), “Key social issues”, available at: www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-
global-initiative/meetings/annual-meetings/2014/agenda/day-4 (accessed 20 June 2018).
Cohen, H., Kaspi-Baruch, O. and Katz, H. (2019), “The social entrepreneur puzzle: the background,
personality and motivation of Israeli social entrepreneurs”, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 211-231.
Cone (2006), “The 2006 cone millennial cause study”, available at: www.conecomm.com/research-blog/
2006-millennial-cause-study#download-research (accessed 20 Jun 2018).
Crant, J.M. (1996), “The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal
of Small Business Management, Vol. 34, pp. 42-49.
Crant, J.M. (2000), “Proactive behavior in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 435-462.
SEJ Crant, J.M. and Bateman, T.S. (2000), “Charismatic leadership viewed from above: the impact of
proactive personality”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 63-75.
17,1
Diener, E.D., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. and Griffin, S. (1985), “The satisfaction with life scale”, Journal
of Personality Assessment, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 71-75.
Dionisio, M. (2019), “The evolution of social entrepreneurship research: a bibliometric analysis”, Social
Enterprise Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 22-45.
40 Duckworth, A., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D. and Kelley, D.R. (2007), “Grit: perspective and
passion for long term goals”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6,
pp. 1087-1101.
Dwivedi, A. and Weerawardena, J. (2018), “Conceptualizing and operationalizing the social
entrepreneurship construct”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 86, pp. 32-40.
Erdogan, B. and Bauer, T.N. (2005), “Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive
personality: the role of fit with jobs and organizations”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58
No. 4, pp. 859-891.
Ernst, K. (2012), “Social entrepreneurs and their personality”, in Volkmann, C.K., Tokarski, K.O. and
Ernst, K. (Eds), Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business, SpringerLink, Gabler Verlag,
pp. 51-64.
Ernst, K. (2011), “Heart over mind – an empirical analysis of social entrepreneurial intention formation
on the basis of the theory of planned behaviour”, available at: http://elpub.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/
servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-2825/db1103.pdf (accessed 20 June 2018).
GEM (2016), “Education for people and planet: creating sustainable futures for all infographics”,
available at: https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/infographics/2016-gem-report-education-people-
and-planet-creating-sustainable-futures-all (accessed 20 June 2018).
Germak, A.J. and Robinson, J.A. (2014), “Exploring the motivation of nascent social entrepreneurs”,
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Ghalwash, S., Tolba, A. and Ismail, A. (2017), “What motivates social entrepreneurs to start social
ventures?”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 268-298.
Gorgievski, M. and Stephan, U. (2016), “Advancing the psychology of entrepreneurship: a review of the
psychological literature and an introduction”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 437-468.
Gupta, P., Chauhan, S., Paul, J. and Jaiswal, M.P. (2020), “Social entrepreneurship research: a review and
future research agenda”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 113, pp. 209-229.
Hockerts, K. (2017), “Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 105-130.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. and Dorfman, P. (2002), “Understanding cultures and implicit
leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Huggins, R. and Thompson, P. (2014), “Culture, entrepreneurship and uneven development: a spatial
analysis”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 26 Nos 9/10, pp. 6-752.
Kedmenec, I., Rebernik, M. and Peri
c, J. (2015), “The impact of individual characteristics on intentions
to pursue social entrepreneurship”, Ekonomski Pregled, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 119-137.
Krueger, N.F. and Carsrud, A.L. (1993), “Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned
behaviour”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 315-330.
Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5/6, pp. 411-432.
Lacap, J.P.G., Mulyaningsih, H.D. and Ramadani, V. (2018), “The mediating effects of social
entrepreneurial antecedents on the relationship between prior experience and social
entrepreneurial intent”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 329-346.
Lee, B. and Kelly, L. (2019), “Cultural leadership ideals and social entrepreneurship: an international Social
study”, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 108-128.
entrepreneurial
Liñ
an, F., Jaén, I. and Ortega, F.J. (2015), “Understanding the role of culture and economic conditions in
entrepreneurship”, in Peris-Ortiz, M. and Merig
o-Lindahl, J.M. (Eds), Entrepreneurship, Regional
self-efficacy
Development and Culture, Springer International Publishing, pp. 53-73.
Loudenback, T. (2016), “The 10 most critical problems in the world, according to millennials”, available
at: www.businessinsider.com/world-economic-forum-world-biggest-problems-concerning-
millennials-2018-2 (accessed 20 June 2018). 41
Mair, J. and Martí, I. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and
delight”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Mair, J. and Noboa, E. (2003), “Social entrepreneurship: how intentions to create a social enterprise get
formed”, working paper no. 521, IESE Business School, September.
Miller, T., Grimes, M., McMullen, J. and Vogus, T. (2012), “Venturing for others with heart and head:
how compassion encourages social entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37
No. 4, pp. 616-640.
Nascimento, L. and Salazar, V.S. (2020), “On social enterprises and social entrepreneurship: an
extension”, Brazilian Administrative Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 1-24.
Nga, J.K.H. and Shamuganathan, G. (2010), “The influence of personality traits and demographic
factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 2,
pp. 259-282.
Pfizer (2018), “Voices from the field: global health fellows”, available at: www.pfizer.com/news/hot-
topics/voices_from_the_field_global_health_fellows (accessed 20 June 2018).
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Popkova, E.G. and Sergi, B.S. (2020), “Human capital and AI in industry 4.0. convergence and
divergence in social entrepreneurship in Russia”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 565-581.
Prabhu, V.P., McGuire, S.J., Drost, E.A. and Kwong, K.K. (2012), “Proactive personality and
entrepreneurial intent: is entrepreneurial self-efficacy a mediator or moderator?”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 559-586.
Prabhu, V.P., McGuire, S.J., Kwong, K.K., Zhang, Y. and Ilyinsky, A. (2016), “Social entrepreneurship
among millennials: a three-country comparative study”, Australian Academy of Accounting and
Finance Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 323-353.
Prieto, L.C. (2010), “The influence of proactive personality on social entrepreneurial intentions among
African American and Hispanic undergraduate students: the moderating role of hope”, available
at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1316&context=gradschool_
dissertations (accessed 20 June 2018).
Riedo, V., Kraiczy, N.D. and Hack, A. (2019), “Applying person-environment fit theory to identify
personality differences between prospective social and commercial entrepreneurs: an
explorative study”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 989-1007.
Rynes, S., Bartunek, J., Dutton, J. and Margolis, J. (2012), “Care and compassion through an
organizational lens: opening up new possibilities”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37
No. 4, pp. 503-523.
Schlaegel, C. and Koenig, M. (2014), “Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: a meta-analytic test and
integration of competing models”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 38 No. 2.
Seibert, S., Crant, J. and Kraimer, M. (1999), “Proactive personality and career success”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 416-427.
SEJ Shane, S. (1992), “Why do some societies invent more than others?”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 29-46.
17,1
Shaw, E. and Carter, S. (2007), “Social entrepreneurship: theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis
of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 418-434.
Shin, D.C. and Johnson, D.M. (1978), “Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life”,
42 Social Indicators Research, Vol. 5 Nos 1/4, pp. 475-492.
Smith, I.H. and Woodworth, W.P. (2012), “Developing social entrepreneurs and social innovators: a
social identity and self-efficacy approach”, Academy of Management Learning and Education,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 390-407.
Spector, P.E. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232.
Stephan, U. and Drencheva, A. (2017), “The person in social entrepreneurship: a systematic review of
research on the social entrepreneurial personality”, The Wiley Handbook of Entrepreneurship,
pp. 205-229.
Suldo, S.M. and Huebner, E.S. (2004), “The role of life satisfaction in the relationship between
authoritative parenting dimensions and adolescent problem behavior”, Social Indicators
Research, Vol. 66 Nos 1/2, pp. 165-195.
Thompson, J.A. (2005), “Proactive personality and job performance: a social capital perspective”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 1011-1017.
Tiwari, P., Bhat, A.K. and Tikoria, J. (2017), “An empirical analysis of the factors affecting social
entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 1-25.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2012), “The millennial generation research review”, available at:
www.uschamberfoundation.org/reports/millennial-generation-research-review (accessed 20 June
2018).
Urbano, D., Ferri, E., Peris-Ortiz, M. and Aparicio, S. (2017), “Social entrepreneurship and institutional
factors: a literature review”, in Peris-Ortiz, M., Teulon, F. and Bonet-Fernandez, D. (Eds), Social
Entrepreneurship in Non-Profit and Profit Sectors, Springer, Cham, pp. 9-29.
Vasakarla, V. (2008), “A study on social entrepreneurship and the characteristics of social
entrepreneurs”, ICFAI Journal of Management Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 32-40.
Wasserman, W., Kutner, M.H. and Neter, J. (1983), Applied Linear Regression Models, Richard D. Irving,
Homewood, IL.
Whiteside, S.P. and Lynam, D.R. (2001), “The five-factor model and impulsivity: using a structural
model of personality to understand impulsivity”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 669-689.
Williams, C.C. (2007), “Socio-spatial variations in the nature of entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-37.
Williams, L.K. and McGuire, S.J. (2010), “Economic creativity and innovation implementation: the
entrepreneurial drivers of growth? Evidence from 63 countries”, Small Business Economics,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 391-412.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989), “Social cognitive theory of organizational management”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 361-384.
Zahra, S., Gedajilovic, E., Neubaum, D.O. and Shulman, J.M. (2009), “A typology of social
entrepreneurship: motives, search processes and ethical challenges”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 519-532.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2005), “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of
entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1265-1272.
Further reading Social
Amah, O.E. (2009), “Job satisfaction and turnover intention relationship: the moderating effect of job entrepreneurial
role centrality and life satisfaction”, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 24-35. self-efficacy
Bateman, T. and Crant, J. (1999), “Proactive behavior: meaning, impact, recommendations”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 63-70.
Dees, J. (1998), “Enterprising non-profits”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, pp. 54-65.
43
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., De Luque, M.S. and House, R.J. (2006), “In the eye of the beholder: cross
cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE”, Academy of Management Perspectives,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 67-90.
Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1999), “Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team
empowerment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 58-74.
Parker, S. and Sprigg, C. (1999), “Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: the role of job demands,
job control, and proactive personality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 6, pp. 925-939.
Tracey, P. and Phillips, N. (2007), “The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: a
postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education”, Academy of
Management Learning and Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 264-271.

Author affiliations
Yang Zhang, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas, USA
Juanita Trusty, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
Tatiana Goroshnikova, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation,
Moscow, Russian Federation
Louise Kelly, The University of La Verne, La Verne, California, USA
Kwok K. Kwong and Stephen J.J. McGuire, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles,
California, USA
Juan Perusquia, Universidad Autonoma de Baja California, Tijuana, Mexico
Veena P. Prabhu, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
Minghao Shen, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China
Robert Tang, De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde, Manila, Philippines

Corresponding author
Yang Zhang can be contacted at: yangyang132006@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com