See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342736347

What Inspires Social Entrepreneurship? The Role of Prosocial Motivation,

Intrinsic Motivation, and Gender in Forming Social Entrepreneurial Intention

Article  in  Entrepreneurship Research Journal · July 2020

DOI: 10.1515/erj-2019-0129

CITATIONS READS

10 1,192

3 authors:

Reza Yamini Daria Soloveva

University of Jyväskylä University of Jyväskylä
3 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Peng Xiaobao
University of Science and Technology of China
44 PUBLICATIONS   399 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

social entrepreneurship View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reza Yamini on 18 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Entrep. Res. J. 2020; 20190129

Reza Yamini, Daria Soloveva and Xiaobao Peng*

What Inspires Social Entrepreneurship? The
Role of Prosocial Motivation, Intrinsic
Motivation, and Gender in Forming Social
Entrepreneurial Intention
https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2019-0129
Received May 15, 2019; accepted May 5, 2020

Abstract: This paper applies the assumptions of self-determination theory to

study social entrepreneurial intention. We suggest that motivational forces,
identified as autonomous and controlled, affect an individual’s intention to start a
social venture. The study extends the social entrepreneurial intention research by
examining the effect of prosocial and intrinsic motivations on an individual’s
inclination to become a social entrepreneur and by testing the role of gender.
Prosocial and intrinsic motivations are found to positively affect social entrepre-
neurial intention of individuals. Furthermore, females have demonstrated to be
more influenced by the combination of motivational factors compared to males.

Keywords: gender, intrinsic motivation, prosocial motivation, social entrepreneurial

intention

1 Introduction
The incapability of state institutions in many developed and developing countries to
provide adequate welfare to all citizens contributes significantly to the formation of
social needs. The presence of social needs increases the value of social enterprises

Reza Yamini and Daria Soloveva contributed equally to the article.

*Corresponding authors: Xiaobao Peng, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei,
Anhui, China, E-mail: pxb1982@ustc.edu.cn
Reza Yamini: Department of Public Affairs, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei,
Anhui, 230026, China, E-mail: ryamini@mail.ustc.edu.cn. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6032-
2891
Daria Soloveva: School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei,
Anhui, China, E-mail: dariasolar@mail.ustc.edu.cn. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0254-7192
2 R. Yamini et al.

aiming to alleviate such needs. The social value created by the activities of social
enterprises determines the importance of this type of entrepreneurship as well as
intentions to launch a social enterprise, and, consequently, the incentives behind an
individual’s decision to become a social entrepreneur (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-
Skillern 2003; Di Domenico, Haugh, and Tracey 2010).
Social entrepreneurship (SE) is about finding and implementing ways to meet
a social need (Alvord, Brown, and Letts 2004; Lumpkin et al. 2013), as opposed to
commercial entrepreneurship, the goal of which is to make profits (Doherty,
Haugh, and Lyon 2014; Zahra and Wright 2016). Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-
Skillern (2003) define SE as nonprofit actions and initiatives creating social value
by solving social problems. Zahra et al. (2009) provided a more comprehensive
definition of SE: “activities and processes undertaken to discover, define, and
exploit opportunities to enhance social wealth by creating new ventures or man-
aging existing organizations in an innovative manner”. Mair and Noboa (2006)
offer another sophisticated definition of SE: “the innovative use of resource
combinations to pursue opportunities aiming at the creation of organizations and/
or practices that yield and sustain social benefits.” Therefore, the ultimate goal of
social entrepreneurs is the creation of social benefits and increase of social wealth.
The increased and sustained social benefits and social wealth sought by social
entrepreneurs make understanding their incentives vital for parties that might be
directly impacted by SE, such as policymakers (Korosec and Berman 2006). Past
behaviors and intentions are arguably among the best predictors of future be-
haviors and actions (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Gieure, del Mar Benavides-Espinosa,
and Roig-Dobón 2020; Krueger 1993; Ouellette and Wood 1998; Sheeran 2002),
indicating the amount of effort an individual is willing to put into achieving a
certain goal (Ajzen 1991), including the goal to launch a social enterprise. In-
tentions can be turned into actions by sufficient motivational incentives (Carsrud
and Brännback 2011). Social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) indicates individuals’
willingness to start their own venture aimed at meeting the needs of society
(Doherty, Haugh, and Lyon 2014).
Prior research has explored a variety of antecedents behind an individual’s
intent to launch a social venture. Two of the earliest and most notable works
exploring SEI were Mair and Noboa (2003) and Mair and Noboa (2006). Mair and
Noboa (2006) suggested a model in which emotional and cognitive attitudes, such
as empathy and moral judgment, affected perceived desirability, and so-called
“enabling factors” social support and self-efficacy, influenced perceptions of
feasibility. Perceptions of feasibility and desirability adapted from Krueger Jr,
Reilly, and Carsrud (2000) were revealed as the driving forces behind SEI. Positive
behavioral attitude toward SE from a career perspective has had a positive effect on
SEI (Mair and Noboa 2003). This positive behavioral attitude might stem from both
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 3

internal and external factors of motivation including empathy, self-efficacy, prior

experience, social appraisal, a nation’s institutions, and exposure to the knowl-
edge about SE (Ayob et al. 2013; Baierl et al. 2014; Hockerts 2017; Krueger Jr, Reilly,
and Carsrud 2000; Mair and Noboa 2003; Urban and Kujinga 2017). Ernst (2011)
explored the influence of perceived internal skills and perceived external resources
on an individual’s SEI. Other studies, such as Nga and Shamuganathan (2010) and
İrengün and Arıkboğa (2015), used a different approach by researching the rela-
tionship between the Five Big Personality Traits and SEI. However, the effect of
other aspects of an individual’s psychology, such as gender, has not yet been
comprehensively examined.
This study draws on self-determination theory, according to which the
behavior of individuals is determined by external and internal motivational forces
(Ryan and Deci 2000b). We propose that these motivational forces, coupled with
gender, which is one of the most important characteristics that define an in-
dividual’s behavior (Kroger 1997), influence SEI. Thompson and Bunderson (2003)
discussed how an individual’s perceived significance of their occupation and
dedication to a cause positively affects their motivation. Intrinsic motivation can thus
have a crucial role in forming an individual’s attitude. Simultaneously, based on the
aforementioned nature of SE, the influence of prosocial factors, such as empathy and
the desire to help others, is crucial for established and prospective social entrepre-
neurs. At the same time, controlled motivation (prosocial) involves a certain level of
pressure required for an action to be executed (Gagné and Deci 2005); this differs from
the autonomous type of motivation (intrinsic) involving an individual’s enjoyment of
an action and thus might not require additional incentives.
Motivation, and, consequently, intentions, can be influenced by personal
characteristics that one’s identity is based on, such as gender (Skoe et al. 2002).
Generally, scholars agree that men are more inclined to become entrepreneurs
(Kelley, Singer, and Herrington 2012a; Maes, Leroy, and Sels 2014; Mueller and
Dato-on 2013; Strobl, Kronenberg, and Peters 2012). The drivers behind SE, how-
ever, differ from those behind commercial entrepreneurship. SE is fueled by the
desire to help others, which, in turn, is attributed to an individual’s empathy,
sympathy, and compassion; these behavioral traits are commonly accepted as
being more feminine than masculine (Cox and Deck 2006; Nock, Kingston, and
Holian 2008). Thus, we argue that while motivational forces affect SEI, gender is an
important factor influencing the relationship between incentives and SEI due to
the differences between the psychology of men and women.
Our study makes two contributions. It aims to explain the antecedents behind
individuals’ intentions to become social entrepreneurs by testing first the role of
prosocial and intrinsic motivation on SEI, and second, the interaction between
gender, intrinsic motivation, and prosocial motivation on SEI. Motivations are
4 R. Yamini et al.

expected to be strong determinants of SEI. Furthermore, an individual’s gender

predicts the extent to which motivational incentives will influence their intention
to start a social venture. We propose a contrast of the strength of motivational
forces between men and women, more specifically, how each gender interacts with
incentives and how this reaction is further mirrored in their relationship with SEI.

2 Theoretical Framework
2.1 Motivation and SEI in the Context of Self-determination
Theory

Motivation, as one of the key driving forces behind efforts and actions (Latham and
Pinder 2005), is vital for understanding an individual’s intention and has previ-
ously been studied in the context of the individual and organizational behavior
(Mitchell and Daniels 2003). Motivation is a crucial component required to un-
derstand the processes stimulating the creation of a new venture (Segal, Borgia,
and Schoenfeld 2005). It determines the direction and intensity of an action and the
persistence on that action (Robbins and Judge 2007). These components of action
and the effort put into achieving a goal are determined by the value and feasibility
of an endeavor as perceived by an individual (Locke 2000).
Motivation is an indispensable and defining component of the self-determina-
tion theory. Self-determination theory divides motivations into autonomous and
controlled. Autonomous motivation stems from an enjoyment an individual feels
while taking an action or expects to feel during that action. Controlled motivation, on
the other hand, is determined by external factors, including both external rewards,
sense of duty, and obligations (Hagger and Protogerou 2020; Ryan and Deci 2000a).
According to self-determination theory, different actions and intentions can be
driven by different types of motivation. Since SEI resides in the yearning to solve
social problems, prosocial personality traits such as empathy and helpfulness are
crucial concepts in SE studies. Empathy, helpfulness, and concern for others’ well-
being are the key aspects of prosocial behavior (Penner et al. 2005). Prosocial
motivation thus is based on the aforementioned prosocial personality traits and
represents the desire to help others (Batson 1987), and, therefore, is a crucial
though also a well-studied topic of SEI research.
Prosocial motivation alone might not be enough to stimulate an action. Mul-
tiple psychological studies assume that acts of individuals are predominantly
determined by their personal interests (Batson 1990). The theoretical concept of
intrinsic motivation explains that an individual’s actions and efforts are stimulated
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 5

by the work itself and the desire to achieve internal satisfaction (Gagné and Deci
2005; Ryan and Deci 2000a). Individuals guided by intrinsic motivation can be
more energetic, eager to perform their tasks, and more organized (Koch 1956). In
addition to other incentives, individuals that establish ventures are driven by the
need of self-fulfillment (Carsrud et al. 2017; Deci, Cascio, and Krusell 1975). Moti-
vation to become an entrepreneur, whether social or commercial, could stem from
the “emotional high one feels when launching a firm” (Carsrud et al. 2017), which is
a purely internal stimulus. Carsrud et al. (2017) further argue that individuals
stimulated by intrinsic motivation do not have to be externally rewarded to persist
in their entrepreneurial effort. This assumption about internal motivations could
explain the power of intrinsic incentives and satisfaction with one’s own actions,
stimulating social entrepreneurs under conditions when the rewards of estab-
lishing a commercial business are low (McMullen 2011).
Ryan and Deci (2000a) suggested that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations
influence an individual’s intentions and actions. Extrinsic motivation in the
context of our study consists of external stimuli, such as monetary rewards, social
status, and recognition by others (Amabile 1993; Brief and Aldag 1977). More
importantly, extrinsic motivation serves as a component of the self-determination
theory, from which we sourced the motivation variables and, partially, an expla-
nation of them (Gagné and Deci 2005; Grant 2008). Extrinsic motivation is a
controlled motivation since it implies that external factors are required to motivate
an action (Deci 1971; Gagné and Deci 2005). However, previous SE studies
demonstrated that extrinsic needs were not significant compared to other types of
motivational incentives (Caringal-Go and Hechanova 2018) such as financial re-
wards (Grichnik, Smeja, and Welpe 2010). Thus, we argue that, due to the nature
and specific characteristics of SE, extrinsic motivation does not significantly affect
SEI.
Motivations of different types can interact with one another. According to self-
determination theory, prosocial and intrinsic motivations differ in whether an
action or intention is autonomous or whether additional control and stimulation
are required (Grant 2008). When an individual’s intention is stimulated by per-
sonal enjoyment (intrinsic), virtually no additional incentive is needed for that
individual to perform an action. However, an individual whose action is mainly
driven by prosocial incentives would require an external control and would have to
push and regulate themselves to complete that action (Gagné and Deci 2005; Kehr
2004). Thus, while undoubtedly affecting the intention to solve a social problem,
prosocial motivation by itself without an individual’s enjoyment in the relevant
action does not necessarily result in action, even when the desire to help is strong.
In addition, prosocially motivated individuals will perceive a certain action related
to that motivation as a means to achieve an ultimate goal (e. g., solve societal
6 R. Yamini et al.

issues, help others) (Grant 2007, 2008). In contrast, individuals driven by intrinsic
motivation will see the related actions as the end to their means. Hence, the actions
of prosocially motivated individuals, who perceive doing and completing an ac-
tion or work as essential to achieving their goals, might have a long-term orien-
tation compared to those driven by intrinsic motivation (BatSon 1998). Our study
thus focuses primarily on the interaction of prosocial and intrinsic motivation
combined with gender – an important trait of identification that affects the
behavior of each individual.

2.2 Gender and Social Entrepreneurial Intention

Prior SEI research has explored gender as a control (Bacq and Eddleston 2018;
Hockerts 2015; Martínez, Bañón, and Laviada 2019) and, more rarely, as an inde-
pendent variable (Hechavarria et al. 2012). The findings of these studies, however,
are inconclusive, providing conflicting results and limited explanations as to why
those results were achieved. Ernst (2011) recognized that the relationship between
gender and SEI might be influenced by a variety of factors, especially the rela-
tionship between females and SEI.
We argue that as gender has an important role in forming a person’s identity
and behavior (Kroger 1997), studying this component of personality could extend
our knowledge of SEI antecedents. We will not focus on the direct relationship
between gender and SEI because studying this relationship alone might not pro-
vide any new insights. Instead, we will explore the interaction of gender and
motivations, and the effect of this interaction on SEI. In order to build our hy-
pothesis about the aforementioned relationship, we will first discuss some of the
most crucial differences between genders demonstrated by previous behavioral,
managerial, and business research.
Since SEI literature does not provide conclusive findings on the relationship
between SEIs and gender, we have to refer to the commercial entrepreneurship
research, which, in contrast, has extensively explored the subject of gender. While
goals of commercial and social entrepreneurs differ (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-
Skillern 2003; Dees 2012), both types of ventures require their owners to have
roughly similar set of skills such as leadership and assertiveness making these two
fields comparable (McLeod 1997; Moss, Lumpkin, and Short 2008; Prabhu 1999).
Studies of entrepreneurship generally agree that males demonstrate greater
intention to become self-employed or to start a venture (Kelley, Singer, and Her-
rington 2012b; Maes, Leroy, and Sels 2014; Mueller and Dato-on 2013). The qualities
often perceived as masculine, such as leadership and the desire to dominate, are
seen as vital components of entrepreneurial activity. Similarly, the prestige
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 7

typically pursued by male entrepreneurs is often considered to accompany private

business owners (Carsrud et al. 2017; Santos, Roomi, and Liñán 2016). Assertive-
ness, competitiveness, and risk-taking behavior are also considered as qualities an
entrepreneur must possess; these characteristics, according to the common
perception, are frequently framed as masculine (Byrne and Fayolle 2010; Kickul
et al. 2008). Thus, entrepreneurship is stereotypically seen as a more masculine
rather than feminine activity (Shinnar, Giacomin, and Janssen 2012).
Based on prior studies, we know that men are motivated by external (extrinsic)
factors (Gatewood, Shaver, and Gartner 1995), such as financial success (Kirk and
Belovics 2006). However, intrinsic motivation has also been found to affect men.
For instance, Liñán and Chen (2009), although they only used gender as a control
variable, nonetheless revealed that men are more drawn to entrepreneurship since
they generally consider themselves to be more capable and more self-controlled
compared to women. The attitude toward entrepreneurship among males is also
fueled by the challenges associated with entrepreneurship and self-realization
(Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007; Van Gelderen et al. 2008). Males,
therefore, are not only perceived by others to have higher entrepreneurial capa-
bilities, but also evaluate themselves as capable entrepreneurs.
In contrast to how men and their behavior are often perceived, gender and
psychology studies widely recognize females as being more caring compared to
males, focusing more on various aspects of relationships and helping (Gilligan and
Attanucci 1988). Women generally score higher in moral obligation and empathy
(Nock, Kingston, and Holian 2008). The literature also attributes higher levels of
selflessness and generosity to women (Andreoni and Vesterlund 2001; Cox and
Deck 2006; Skoe et al. 2002). Croson and Gneezy (2009) found women to be more
reciprocal in their intentions and actions.
As previous studies indicate, women often perceive themselves to be lacking
financial and network resources (Becker-Blease and Sohl 2007; Harrison and
Mason 2005), along with required managerial talent and expertise (BarNir, Wat-
son, and Hutchins 2011; Brush et al. 2004; Carroll 2006). Compared to men, women
are less motivated to start a business venture, which the literature attributes to
females seeing entrepreneurship as an unfavorable career option (Georgellis and
Wall 2005). In addition, Costa Jr, Terracciano, and McCrae (2001) argued that
women, due to the perceived gender roles, are less stimulated by society to become
entrepreneurs. Women express greater concern over financial aspects of business
and risks; they are also more sensitive to the fear of failure (Langowitz and Minniti
2007; Minniti and Nardone 2007). At the same time, similar to men, women desire
8 R. Yamini et al.

their entrepreneurial efforts to be acknowledged. Santos, Roomi, and Liñán (2016)

stress that women seek social approval of their intentions, while men are moti-
vated by social recognition.
Compared to men, women place higher importance on the aspects of entre-
preneurship not associated with wealth increase and higher financial gains. For
instance, Budig (2006) demonstrated women to value the fact that self-employ-
ment can allow them to balance work and family responsibilities. Although Budig
(2006) contradicts the study of Georgellis and Wall (2005), these two and other
research works mentioned here show that women’s entrepreneurial intentions and
actions could be guided not only by the prospect of wealth increase, financial
success, and power, but also by the desire to improve their own lives. These studies
demonstrate that women’s behavior and intentions often depend on the situa-
tional context.

3 Theory and Hypotheses

3.1 Prosocial Motivation

Financial and self-oriented rewards do not provide a sufficient explanation of why

an individual would become a social entrepreneur (Grichnik, Smeja, and Welpe
2010). McMullen (2011) argued that a social enterprise should target a field which,
although it might not be attractive enough for commercial firms in terms of re-
wards, could compensate for that insufficiency with moral and social incentives. In
addition to the characteristics standard for a commercial entrepreneur, among
which are goal orientation, willingness to take risks, and resourcefulness, a social
enterprise owner should possess empathy and ethical grounds for the action
(Nicholls 2008). Prosocially motivated individuals are willing to put an effort and
perform actions that could benefit others (Penner and Finkelstein 1998). Previous
research has explored various aspects of prosocial behavior and incentives that
prompt individuals to help others, including compassion, moral fiber, and
agreeableness, and measured how these traits influence SEI (Forster and Grichnik
2013; Graziano et al. 2007; Kim et al. 2018; Waddock and Steckler 2016). Miller et al.
(2012) argued that other-oriented action is rooted in emotional connection with a
group of marginalized people in need of help. Thus, concern for others encourages
SE.

H1: People with higher prosocial motivation have more intention to do social entre-
preneurship.
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 9

3.2 Interaction of Prosocial and Intrinsic Motivations

There have been prior attempts to integrate prosocial and intrinsic types of moti-
vation in the psychology, organization, and human resource literature (De Dreu
and Nauta 2009; Grant 2008; Grant and Berg 2007; Hackman and Oldham 1976).
Following the assumptions of De Dreu and Nauta (2009), in this study, we see the
two concepts as complementary, though fundamentally different from one
another. Intrinsic motivation stems from a hedonic pleasure, while prosocial
motivation is rooted in the desire to help others, which is perceived as a purpose
(Ryan and Connell 1989; Ryan and Deci 2001).
According to the self-determination theory, intrinsic motivation combined
with an individual’s understanding of the action’s importance (which can be
attributed to internalized extrinsic motivational forces) could positively affect an
employee’s performance (Deci, Connell, and Ryan 1989; Deci and Ryan 1985;
Gagné and Deci 2005). Providing individuals with a “meaningful rationale” for
conducting an activity that those individuals might not find inherently interesting
might increase their willingness to conduct that action since it would allow them to
internalize that activity. Consequently, higher internalization leads to more
autonomous regulation. For instance, Grant (2008) discovered that increased
intrinsic motivation strengthened the relationship between employees’ prosocial
motivation and productivity, persistence, and performance.
The actions of an individual driven by prosocial incentives do not have to be
self-sacrificial, harming that individual’s self-interest (De Dreu 2006). Germak and
Robinson (2014) discovered that personal fulfillment and achievement are
important motivators for social entrepreneurs, alongside prosocial incentives. An
individual with high level of intrinsic motivation will find their work more
enjoyable through knowing that it helps other people. Conversely, an individual
with a firm desire to help people by establishing a social enterprise will have a
higher intention to embark on such an endeavor if that individual enjoys it. In this
way, an individual will be motivated by both autonomous and controlled forces
(Gagné and Deci 2005). Thus, high levels of both intrinsic and prosocial motiva-
tions will result in the overall increase of an individual’s willingness to conduct a
certain action, consequently boosting their productivity and efficiency (Grant
2008; Lazauskaite-Zabielske, Urbanaviciute, and Bagdziuniene 2015). Applying
this statement to intentions, if one desires to help, and this desire is accompanied
by personal satisfaction and enjoyment, the intention to conduct an action to help
others will be higher. Conversely, if intrinsic motivation is low, an individual will
feel forced to do their work and will perceive prosocial motivation as a form of
regulation (Ryan and Connell 1989). Therefore:
10 R. Yamini et al.

H2: Higher levels of both intrinsic and prosocial motivation will positively affect social
entrepreneurial intention.

3.3 Interaction of Gender, Prosocial, and Intrinsic

Motivations

We have previously discussed that women demonstrate a lower interest in owning

a conventional business venture (BarNir, Watson, and Hutchins 2011). This does
not mean that women are less skillful than men but merely highlights the differ-
ence of mindsets between the genders (Reichborn-Kjennerud and Svare 2014).
Previous research has reported that women exhibit higher levels of empathy
and express more eagerness to donate to charities or to become a volunteer (Einolf
2011). Women are stereotypically perceived as care-givers, helpful, and altruistic
(Cox and Deck 2006; Folbre 2012). Prior studies found women to be more sensitive,
experiencing emotions more intensely in various life situations (Chentsova-Dutton
and Tsai 2007; Harshman and Paivio 1987; Vainik 2006). Hechavarria et al. (2012)
found women entrepreneurs to pursue social and environmental goals rather than
purely economic goals. This finding is confirmed in the follow-up study demon-
strating that female entrepreneurs emphasize social value created by their entre-
preneurial activities (Hechavarría 2016).
Furthermore, female entrepreneurial intentions are influenced by a greater
variety of stimuli and to a greater extent compared to men (Ernst 2011). Prior
studies indicate that the pursuit of personal goals is an important determinant of
women’s entrepreneurial behavior (Budig 2006; DeMartino and Barbato 2003). By
analyzing two samples divided by gender, Ernst (2011) observed that women’s SEI
was influenced by a variety of factors presented in that study rather than by the sole
desire to become a social entrepreneur. Men, in contrast, were primarily affected
by perceived self-efficacy.

Figure 1: The hypothesized model used in the present study.

 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 11

Thus, we argue that women, who experience higher intrinsic and prosocial
motivation, would demonstrate more interest in establishing their own social
enterprise (Figure 1).

H3: Women with higher prosocial and intrinsic motivation have a higher intention to
be social entrepreneurs than men.

4 Data and Methodology

4.1 Data Collection and Sample

To assess the assumptions of the present study, we applied a quantitative method of

analysis. A survey was distributed among individuals who were taking full-time and
part-time degree programs in the universities in the USA, the UK, and China (see
Appendix B). The necessary requirement regarding those education programs was
the duration: a program would require a student to be physically present at the
courses for at least 1 year. There were no restrictions in regards to participants’ age
and countries of origin. Our final sample consisted of the representatives of 58
countries.
We used the SurveyMonkey online questionnaire platform to share the survey
with respondents on social media such as WeChat and Facebook. At the beginning
of the survey, we provided the participants with the definition and a brief
description of SE to clarify the meaning of the questions related to the dependent
variable. Another purpose of describing SE to respondents was to ensure that they
understood the difference between SE and volunteering.
With the exception of the question about gender, a 7-point Likert scale,
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, was used for each component
of the dependent and independent variables and the block of questions asking
about extrinsic motivational factors. Single-choice questions were used for the
remaining control variables. Additionally, in order to avoid a possible information
bias that could occur whether the respondents were not thorough with answering
the survey, we included several “trap” questions, asking about their recent
volunteer experience. In particular, we added the following: “Have you ever
participated in volunteering activities organized by other individuals or entities
(example: fundraising, charity, teaching kids in poor-stricken areas, etc.) to help
solve some social issue?”, “During the past 6 months, how many times have you taken
part in volunteering activities that involved helping others?”, and the statement
“Over the past half a year, I have been a volunteer 2 times or more.” The logic behind
asking these questions was to check whether a respondent was paying attention
12 R. Yamini et al.

while answering the survey and whether their answers were consistent. For
instance, if a respondent answered “no” to the first question, but input a number
higher than “0” in their answer to the second question or answered “yes” to the
third, the answer of that respondent would have to be disregarded. In addition, all
answers which would be considered illogical (such as a respondent claiming to be
under 18 years old with over 5 years of work experience) were disregarded. Apart
from the first question, which was also used as a control variable, the second
question and the statement were not applied to the main analysis. The survey was
sent to over 1500 people, and 328 responses were collected (21.8% response rate).
After a thorough check, we disregarded 21 of the 328 returned questionnaires and
were left with 307 responses to be used in the main analysis (see Table 1).
Since our study focuses on the relationship between gender, motivational
forces, and SEI, it is important to note that both genders are sufficiently repre-
sented in this study of 145 males and 162 females. The majority of respondents were
between the ages of 18 and 25 (113 respondents), 25 and 34 (164 respondents). Most
of our respondents, 240 out of 307, had prior volunteer experience.

4.2 Common Method Bias

Since the responses used for the analysis were collected via an online survey, we
had to test whether a common method bias (CMB) was present before testing our
hypotheses. Firstly, Harman’s single-factor test was applied (Harman 1967). This
method shows whether there is a single factor explaining over 50% of the vari-
ables, thus revealing the bias. Since the results of the test demonstrated a
maximum of 38% for a single factor’s explanatory power, which is below the
threshold, we can preliminarily conclude that no common bias was present
(Podsakoff et al. 2003; Podsakoff and Organ 1986). However, the application of
Harman’s test for CMB has received significant criticism because it does not sta-
tistically control for the method effects (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Thus, we used
confirmatory factor analysis to further test for CMB, and no violation was observed.

5 Variables
5.1 Dependent Variable

To collect data on SEI, we asked survey respondents to evaluate their own desire
and the probability of becoming a social entrepreneur based on the 7-point Likert
scales, ranging from “strongly disagree” (“1”) to “strongly agree” (“7”). The six
statements used were absolute, avoiding words such as “may be”, “might”, and
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 13

Table : Descriptive information of the sample.

Measures/dummy code Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male  .
Female  .
Age
Under   
–  .
–  .
–  .
–  
 above  
Educational level
High school degree  .
Associate degree  
Bachelor degree  .
Master degree  .
Doctorate degree  .
Others  .
Development
Developed country  .
Developing country  .
Working experience
Less than  year  .
Between  and  years  .
Between  and  years  .
Between  and  years  .
Between  and  years  .
More than  years  .
Volunteer experience
Yes  .
No  .
Occupation
Employed full-time  .
Employed part-time  .
Student  .
Retired  .
Self-employed  .
Unemployed  .

“probably” (e. g., “I might start a social enterprise someday”). In addition, we

avoided the statements in which a respondent’s role could have been passive and
their initiative unclear, such as: “I will participate in the start of a social enterprise”.
14 R. Yamini et al.

Instead, wording such as “I am ready to do anything to be a social entrepreneur that

helps society” and “I have a firm intention to start a social venture someday” was
used. The character of these statements allowed for a more reliable distinction
between the individuals who have intentions to start a social enterprise and be-
tween those who do not have this inclination.

5.2 Independent Variables

5.2.1 Prosocial and Intrinsic Motivation

Similar to SEI, prosocial and intrinsic motivations were measured based on survey
respondents’ answers using 7-point Likert scales. The approach previously applied
by Grant (2008) and developed based on self-regulation scales (Ryan and Connell
1989) was adopted. Respondents were asked, “What motivates you in your current
occupation?” and were given five statements for intrinsic motivation and four for
prosocial motivation. Evidence has been found that low job satisfaction increases
entrepreneurial intention (Lee et al. 2011), and it is intuitive to assume that people
would prefer to be self-employed if they were dissatisfied with their current
occupation. Despite these facts, there is no indication that low satisfaction with a
current occupation could push an individual to launch a social enterprise.
Conversely, individuals might be more motivated to benefit others through their
actions if their current state of affairs satisfies them, instead of focusing on solving
personal issues. Thus, to measure intrinsic motivation, we included such state-
ments as “My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment” and “I find the
work engaging”. For prosocial motivation, we included such statements as “I want
to help others through my work” and “I want to have a positive impact on others”.

5.2.2 Gender

To evaluate the effect of gender on SEI and to analyze whether gender is affected
differently by prosocial and intrinsic motivations, we asked respondents to specify
their biological gender. We coded males as “1” and females as “2”.

5.3 Control Variables

As extrinsic motivation is an important predictor of actions, including an intention

to start a commercial enterprise (Steers, Mowday, and Shapiro 2004), we added
extrinsic motivation as a control variable. It was measured using 7-point Likert
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 15

scales. Respondents were asked to evaluate their level of agreement or disagree-

ment with four statements about external rewards and benefits that could motivate
them tin their current occupation. We adapted the measurements used by Lin
(2007), adjusting them in accordance with the present research framework.
Additionally, Iakovleva, Kolvereid, and Stephan (2011) demonstrated the
difference in the commercial entrepreneurial intentions of people in developed
and developing countries and found that the intention is lower overall in devel-
oped nations. To control for this effect, we added the development level of a
respondent’s country of origin or permanent residence, using the United Nations
database. If a country, according to the database, had a status “developed”, we
assigned it “1”, and “0” if it was a developing economy or an economy in transi-
tion. We controlled for the respondents’ age (divided into categories), level of
education, work experience in the number of years, and whether the respondents
had any prior volunteer experience (“yes or no” question). We coded “1” if par-
ticipants had any previous volunteer experience and “2” if they had none. The
latter measurement was added to observe the effect of prior experience in con-
ducting any type of nonprofit activity that could benefit others. It could
also determine whether our respondents, who were given the definition of SE at
the beginning of the survey, understood the difference between volunteering
and SE.

6 Results
6.1 Preliminary Analysis

In order to evaluate the validity and applicability of the questions included in the
survey to our research model, exploratory factor analysis was performed using
SPSS. We checked for low reliability of factors, low validity of factors, variance
inflation factor (VIF), and multicollinearity of factors. The preliminary results
showed that Question 4 in the extrinsic motivation block had to be excluded since
it was loaded in the prosocial motivation block with a value higher than 0.3 (see
Table 2). The second step was to assess the threshold values, which for Cronbach’s
alpha is 0.8, for composite reliability (CR) – 0.7, and for average variance extracted
(AVE) – 0.5 (Chin 1998; Fornell and Larcker 1981). In our data, Cronbach’s alpha
ranges between 0.89 and 0.95, CR reaches values between 0.91 and 0.96, and AVE
ranges between 0.68 and 0.85, implying the overall fit, reliability, and lack of
cross-loading in our model (see Table 3).
Table 4 presents descriptive statistics and correlations between variables. In it,
the VIF analysis demonstrates the absence of a multicollinearity issue, as the
16 R. Yamini et al.

Table : Loadings and cross-loadings.

Construct Items SEI IM PM EM

Social entrepreneurial intention SEI . . . .

SEI . −. . .
SEI . . . −.
SEI . −. −. −.
SEI . . . .
SEI . −. . .
Intrinsic motivation IM . . −. −.
IM −. . . .
IM −. . . −.
IM −. . . .
IM . . . −.
Prosocial motivation PM . . . −.
PM . . . .
PM −. . . .
PM . . . −.
Extrinsic motivation EM −. −. . .
EM −. −. . .
EM −. −. . .
EM . . −. .

maximum value VIF reaches is 1.94, far below the recommended maximum of 10
(Hair et al. 2010). It also shows that AVE square root value is higher than the
correlation among all constructs, which indicates good convergent validity.

6.2 Hypothesis Testing

We used hierarchical linear regression to analyze the interaction effects since this
method allows for entering the variable order according to the pivotal significance
of variables (Osborne 2000). Table 5 presents the results of the hierarchical linear
regression analysis. Model 1 contains only control variables, Prosocial motivation
was added in Model 2 as an independent variable, and intrinsic motivation was
included in Model 3. Gender was further added in Model 4, and interaction effects
between Prosocial and Intrinsic motivations, Prosocial motivation and Gender,
and Intrinsic motivation and Gender were added in Model 5. Finally, the three-way
interaction between Prosocial motivation, Intrinsic motivation, and Gender was
added in Model 6. The control variable measuring whether a respondent had prior
volunteer experience was negative and significant for all four models (p < 0.01 for
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 17

Table : Results of factor analysis.

Construct Indicators Factor Cronbach’s Average variance Composite reli-

loading alpha extracted (AVE) ability (CR)

Social entrepre- SEI . . . .

neurial intention SEI .
SEI .
SEI .
SEI .
SEI .
Intrinsic motivation IM . . . .
IM .
IM .
IM .
IM .
Prosocial motivation PM . . . .
PM .
PM .
PM .
Extrinsic motivation EM . . . .
EM .
EM .

Model 1 and Model 6; p < 0.1 for Model 2; p < 0.05 for Model 3, Model 4, and Model
5). Previous volunteer experience encourages individuals to become social en-
trepreneurs. A respondent’s country of origin or permanent residence was nega-
tive, indicating that respondents from developing countries are more willing to
become social entrepreneurs; this finding is in line with that of Iakovleva, Kol-
vereid, and Stephan (2011). This effect, however, is significant only for Model 1
(p < 0.1).
As predicted by Hypothesis 1, individuals with higher levels of prosocial moti-
vation demonstrate a greater desire to become social entrepreneurs. This assump-
tion is confirmed with a strong level of significance (β = 0.42; p < 0.01) in Model 2, and
the effect lasts in Models 3, 4, and 5. The interaction between prosocial and intrinsic
motivation is positive and significant in Model 5 (β = 0.13; p < 0.01), which supports
Hypothesis 4 that higher levels of both types of motivation increase an individual’s
intention to become a social entrepreneur. Figure 2 demonstrates the slopes for the
relationship between prosocial and intrinsic motivation.
Finally, Hypothesis 3, positing that women are more willing to start a socially
oriented enterprise if they have higher levels of both prosocial and intrinsic moti-
vation, is supported at the level 0.05 (β = 0.17; p < 0.05). Figure 3 illustrates
 18

Table : Means, standard deviation, correlations, variance inflation factor, and square root of AVE.
R. Yamini et al.

Variable Mean S.D          

 Age . . 

 Education . . .** 
 Development . . −.** −.** 
 Working experience . . .** .** −. 
 Volunteer experience . . . . . . 
 Extrinsic motivation . . −.** −.* . −. −. .
 Prosocial motivation . . . . −. . −.** .** .
 Intrinsic motivation . . .* .** −. . −.* . .** .
 Gender . . −.** −.* .* −. −.* . . −. 
 SEI . . .** .* −.** . −.** . .** .** −.** .
VIF . . . . . . . . . .
Notes: N = , **Correlation is significant at the . level,*Correlation is significant at the . level.
Table : Results of hierarchical regression analyses for SEI.

Variables Model  Model  Model  Model  Model  Model 

Control variables
Age . (.) . (.) . (.) . (.) . (.) . (.)
Education . (.) . (.) . (.) . (.) . (.) . (.)
Development −. (.)* −. (.) −. (.) −. (.) −. (.) −. (.)
Working experience . (.) . (.) . (.) . (.) . (.) . (.)
Volunteer experience −. (.)*** −. (.)* −. (.)** −. (.)** −. (.)** −. (.)***
Extrinsic motivation . (.) −. (.) −. (.) −. (.) −. (.) −. (.)
Main variables
Prosocial motivation . (.)*** . (.)*** . (.)*** . (.)*** . (.)**
Moderators
Intrinsic motivation . (.)** . (.)** −. (.) −. (.)
Gender −. (.)*** −. (.)*** −. (.)***
Interactions
Intrinsic . (.)*** −. (.)
motivation × prosocial motivation
Prosocial −. (.) −. (.)
motivation × gender
Intrinsic motivation × gender . (.) . (.)*
Intrinsic . (.)**
motivation × prosocial
motivation × gender
R . . . . . .
Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research

ΔF .*** .*** .** .*** .*** .**

ΔR  . . . . .
Note: ***p < ., **p < ., *p < .. Standard errors are in parentheses.
19
20 R. Yamini et al.

Figure 2: Interaction effect of prosocial and intrinsic motivation on SEI.

this interaction, reflecting and confirming our hypothesis regarding the difference of
the effect of both types of motivation on SEI depending on the respondents’ gender.

6.3 Robustness Test

To test the validity of data and the main assumptions of this study, we ran a
heteroscedasticity check of the model and the results of the main analysis. The
heteroscedasticity check aims to demonstrate how extreme outliers affect the re-
sults. In order to do so, we performed a bootstrap test artificially raising the data
sample to 3000 observations. The level of significance of the prosocial, intrinsic
motivations, and gender interaction effect changed from p < 0.05 to p < 0.1. Aside
from this, there were no other significant changes in the standard errors (see
Table 6). Hence, we conclude that our main study results are robust.

7 Conclusion & Discussion

In this study, we investigate combinations of motivations and personal charac-
teristics that could influence SEI. In accordance with previous research (Hockerts
2013), we found prosocial motivation to affect SEI. More importantly, the effect of
prosocial motivation is strong, compared to intrinsic and extrinsic motivations,
and persists throughout the models. This result proves the crucial role of prosocial
motivation for SEI.
The combination of prosocial and intrinsic motivations is positively associated
with SEI. When driven by the desire to help others, self-fulfillment, and personal
satisfaction, people are more willing to become social entrepreneurs. This result
Figure 3: Interaction effect of gender, prosocial motivation, and intrinsic motivation on SEI.
Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research
21
Table : Robustness test, bootstrap test bias, and coefficients.
22

Variables Model  Model  Model  Model 

Control variables
Age . (−.) . (.) . (.) . (.)
Education . (.) . (−.) . (−.) . (−.)
Development −. (−.) −. (−.) −. (−.) −. (−.)
Working experience . (.) . (.) . (−.) . (−.)
R. Yamini et al.

Volunteer experience −. (.)** −. (.)** −. (.)** −. (.)***
Extrinsic motivation −. (.) −. (.) −. (−.) −. (−.)
Main variables
Prosocial motivation . (.)*** . (−.)*** . (−.)** . (−.)*
Moderators
Intrinsic motivation . (.)** −. (.) −. (.)
Gender −. (.)*** −. (−.)*** −. (.)***
Interactions
Intrinsic motivation × prosocial motivation . (−.)** −. (.)
Prosocial motivation × gender −. (.) −. (.)
Intrinsic motivation × gender . (.) . (−.)
Intrinsic motivation × prosocial . (−.)*
motivation × gender
Number    
***
Note: p < ., two-tailed test, biases are reported in parentheses. **p < . *p < ..
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 23

serves as evidence that individuals stimulated by the desire to solve a social

problem can be motivated by internal rewards as well, signifying the roles of these
two types of motivation in an individual’s SEI.
The results we obtained about the relationship between gender and SEI,
excluding moderation, are opposite to the effects observed by Hockerts (2015).
Although gender was only a control variable in Hockerts’ study, and the influence of
this component was not significant for every model included there, Hockerts re-
ported females to have higher SEI. There are at least two major aspects of Hockerts’
study that might have produced such a result. Firstly, the questions about re-
spondents’ intent allowed an individual to have a passive role in a prospective social
enterprise: “I expect that at some point in the future I will be involved in launching an
organization that aims to solve social problems”, “I have a preliminary idea for a social
enterprise on which I plan to act in the future”, and “I do not plan to start a social
enterprise” (the item for the third question was coded in reverse). While these
statements can be used to measure an individual’s SEI, they cover both strong and
vague intentions to start a venture. The questions we used, on the other hand, are
more precise and provide for a better distinction between the individuals who are
determined to launch a social enterprise and those who do not have such intention.
Another reason why our study contradicts Hockerts’ might be the difference in
sampling since Hockerts focused on European students and US residents. The
sample we presented, in contrast, includes individuals from 58 countries in
Europe, Asia, North America, and Africa. Hence, there might be cultural factors
influencing the relationship, unobserved in both studies.
As for other studies that used gender as a control variable, Yang et al. (2015),
who compared SEI between the citizens of the USA and China, reported results
comparable to ours, though not at a significant level. Similar to our results, Politis
et al. (2016) and Martínez, Bañón, and Laviada (2019) also demonstrated that men
had higher SEI compared to women. Prior studies indicate that women, although
providing care to others more often than men, experience higher distress when
they assume a caregiver’s role (Bédard et al. 2005; Stewart et al. 2016). Therefore,
some women might not be willing to launch asocial enterprise if they feel that the
endeavor could be an undue burden to them.
This study tested hypotheses about the multiple interaction effects of prosocial,
intrinsic motivations, and gender on SEI. Men seem to exhibit more interest in
becoming social entrepreneurs. They are, however, less affected by prosocial and
intrinsic motivational incentives, which confirm that men feel more comfortable with
the idea of becoming entrepreneurs and establishing either socially oriented or com-
mercial ventures. A completely opposite effect can be observed with SEI among women
who, according to the commercial entrepreneurship literature, are less encouraged
than men to own a private business (e. g., Costa Jr, Terracciano, and McCrae 2001). The
24 R. Yamini et al.

desire to become social venture owners among women, however, is largely affected by
the extent of prosocial and intrinsic motivations. This discovery extends the under-
standing of the previously understudied relationship between gender and SEI. The
result demonstrates that when female social entrepreneurs or, in our case, prospective
social entrepreneurs, enjoy doing relevant activities, they become more motivated, and
their intention to start a social venture tends to be higher.
Control variables also provide a subject for discussion. Extrinsic motivation,
used as a control variable, seems to have no significant effect on SEI. Although this
type of motivation is very important for both current and prospective commercial
business owners (Steers, Mowday, and Shapiro 2004), our result shows that the
expectation of an external reward does not increase SEI. This finding is consistent
with prior research on individual behavior in the context of social work and social
enterprises (Caringal-Go and Hechanova 2018). This is a meaningful finding for SEI
research since it further underlines the differences between the factors motivating
commercial and SE. Prosocial and intrinsic incentives are much more important for
individuals who intend to engage in SE.
Furthermore, Lacap, Mulyaningsih, and Ramadani (2018) demonstrated that
prior experience with social problems positively affects SEI. Similarly, our study
shows that individuals with previous volunteer experience seem to have higher
SEI. We provide further discussion of the relationship between volunteering and
SEI, as well as volunteering, gender, and SEI in Appendix A.

7.1 Practical Implications

The relationship between gender, prosocial, and intrinsic motivation, and the effect
of the combination of these factors on SEI provide valuable insights for practi-
tioners. Our analysis shows that the SEI of women can be increased if they enjoy an
activity while also perceiving its prosocial component. Governments and relevant
institutions could attract more women to establish social ventures by supporting
the types of entrepreneurship that could benefit society, and also by enhancing
entrepreneurial education and policies to make entrepreneurship itself more
accessible and attractive to women (Micozzi and Lucarelli 2016; Wach et al. 2017).

7.2 Future Research Directions

The findings of this study regarding the interaction between motivational in-
centives and gender propose a new line of SEI research and provide thoughts for
possible future directions scholars could follow.
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 25

Conducting a multiple-country study allowed us to observe whether the effect of

psychological factors on SEI holds across nations, that is, whether gender and
motivations are sufficient predictors of SEI. At the same time, we did not incorporate
measurement of an individual’s culture, religious beliefs, economic conditions, or
other factors by which individuals could be distinguished. The aforementioned
differences between our results and the results of Hockerts (2015) might be explained
by an unanalyzed effect of culture. Currently, too few SEI studies have focused on
cultural and economic differences. Adding these factors to the present research
framework could potentially bring further clarity to the factors forming SEI.
Secondly, as previous studies have demonstrated, intentions do not neces-
sarily result in action. Arguably, not enough studies linking SEI and an actual
enterprise launch have been conducted. Researching the link between intention
and action in the context of SE could be the next step in SE scholarship.

Acknowledgement: This work was supported by the USTC Funding for Featured
Liberal Arts under Grant Nos. YD2160002003, University of science and technology
of China (USTC) introduces talents for scientific research and starts special fund
project (The balance mechanism between commercial and public welfare of social
enterprises in China) under Grant Nos. KY2160000003, Anhui province science
and technology innovation strategy and soft science research special project under
Grant Nos. 201806a02020056. All errors are ours.

Appendix A
Gender, volunteering, and social entrepreneurial
intention
While the relationship between previous volunteer experience and SEI does not fit into
the framework of the self-determination theory, it could still provide crucial insights
into SEI antecedents. As the control variable volunteer experience shows, previous
experience of helping a cause positively affects SEI. There might be a very simple
explanation for the observed result. Volunteering implies help or assistance aimed at
tackling an issue, though not necessarily an issue of a social nature. Individuals who
actively participate in solving social, environmental, or other problems might have
more desire to help, as previous experience can predict an individual’s behavior.
The relationship between gender and volunteering has been well-examined by
previous studies. Most research has found women to be more involved in volun-
teering activities and willing to spend more time on volunteer work compared to
men (DiMaggio and Louch 1997; Einolf 2011; Taniguchi 2006). As mentioned in the
manuscript, recipients were asked whether they had any volunteer experience. The
26 R. Yamini et al.

exact question was as follows: “Have you ever participated in volunteering activities
organized by other individuals or entities (example: fundraising, charity, teaching
kids in poor-stricken areas, etc.) to help solve some social issue?” Since, in order to
explore the relationship between gender and volunteering, we had to compare two
dummy variables, a one-way ANOVA test was applied. The result is presented in
the tables and the graph below:
Although our main study shows that men demonstrate higher SEI, more
women than men in our survey sample had prior volunteer experience
F(1,305) = 6.80, p = 0.01. This result confirms the aforementioned studies which
investigated the relationship between volunteering and gender (DiMaggio and
Louch 1997; Einolf 2011; Taniguchi 2006). The result indirectly confirms the study
by Hechavarria et al. (2012) that female entrepreneurs emphasize on social value
rather than commercial. Another and even more interesting question is whether
any interaction exists between gender, volunteer experience, and SEI. We con-
ducted a simple linear regression analysis to test this relationship. The results
demonstrated in the table below showed that such an interaction does exist:
However, these results were not what we initially anticipated. As Model 2
(β = 0.52; p = 0.03) in Appendix Table 3 demonstrates, women with previous

Appendix Table : Descriptive statistics of volunteer experience and gender.

Variable/total N Mean Std. Std. % confidence Between component

effects deviation error intervals for mean variance

Lower Upper
bound bound

Male  . . . . .

Female  . . . . .
Total  . . . . .
Model fixed . . . .
effects
Random . .  .
effects

Appendix Table : ANOVA test of volunteer experience and gender.

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig

Between groups .  . . .

Within groups .  .
Total . 
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 27

Appendix Figure 1: Volunteer experience mean of men and women.

volunteer experience have lower SEI. , This result is especially surprising since,
according to our main study, women with higher prosocial and intrinsic motiva-
tion had higher SEI. A potential explanation of this phenomenon can be found in
prior research that we mentioned in the Conclusion and Discussion section. Re-
sponsibilities, even those related to caregiving and helping, might cause women to
experience stress more intensely than men. Previous studies found that the burden
women caregivers experienced caused greater distress compared to men in a
similar situation, though, at the same time, the level of distress women experi-
enced depended on their relationship with the care recipients (Bédard et al. 2005;
Stewart et al. 2016). Hence, while women are truly “natural caregivers”, they tend
to experience the negative aspects of their responsibilities more intensely; thus,
their desire to avoid the emotional burden might make some women unwilling to
help others.

Appendix Table : Linear regression of gender and volunteer experience on SEI.

Variables Model  Model 

Volunteer experience −. (.) ***

−. (.)***
Gender −. (.)*** −. (.)***
Interaction . (.)**
28 R. Yamini et al.

Appendix B
Questionnaire

Question Application

: I am ready to do anything to be a social entrepreneur Social Entrepreneurial Intention

that helps society.
: My professional goal is to be a social entrepreneur.
: I will make every effort to start and run my own
venture that helps society
: I am very determined to create a venture that helps
society in the future.
: I have very seriously thought of starting a firm that
helps society in some way.
: I have the firm intention to start a social venture
someday.
What motivates you in your current occupation (work/ Intrinsic Motivation
study, etc.)?
: because my work gives me a feeling of personal
accomplishment.
: Because I enjoy the work itself
: because the work I do is important.
: Because it’s fun
: Because I find the work engaging
What motivates you in your current occupation (work/ Prosocial Motivation
study, etc.)?
: Because I want to help others through my work
: Because I care about benefiting others through
my work
: Because I want to have a positive impact on others
: Because it is important for me to do good for others
through my work
: because I want to receive a higher wealth in return in Extrinsic Motivation
the future.
: because I want to have a better standard of living
: because I want a higher salary
: because I want to have a better social status
: During the past  months, how many times have you Trap Questions
taken part in volunteering activities that involved
helping others?
: Over the past half a year, I have been a volunteer 
times or more.
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 29

References
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50 (2): 179–211.
Alvord, S. H., L. D. Brown, and C. W. Letts. 2004. “Social Entrepreneurship and Societal
Transformation: An Exploratory Study.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40 (3):
260–82.
Amabile, T. M. 1993. “Motivational Synergy: Toward New Conceptualizations of Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Motivation in the Workplace.” Human Resource Management Review 3 (3): 185–201.
Andreoni, J., and L. Vesterlund. 2001. “Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism.” The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (1): 293–312.
Austin, J. E., H. H. Stevenson, and J. Wei-Skillern. 2003. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:
Same, Different, or Both? Revista de Administração. 47 (3), 370–84.
Ayob, N., C. Seng Yap, D. A. Sapuan, and Z. Abdul Rashidd. 2013. “Social Entrepreneurial Intention
among Business Undergraduates: An Emerging Economy Perspective.” Gadjah Mada
International Journal of Business 15 (3), 249–267.
Bacq, S., and K. A. Eddleston. 2018. “A Resource-based View of Social Entrepreneurship: How
Stewardship Culture Benefits Scale of Social Impact.” Journal of Business Ethics 152 (3): 589–611.
Baierl, R., D. Grichnik, M. Spörrle, and I. M. Welpe. 2014. “Antecedents of Social Entrepreneurial
Intentions: The Role of An Individual’s General Social Appraisal.” Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship 5 (2): 123–45.
BarNir, A., W. E. Watson, and H. M. Hutchins. 2011. “Mediation and Moderated Mediation in the
Relationship among Role Models, Self‐efficacy, Entrepreneurial Career Intention, and
Gender.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41 (2): 270–97.
Batson. 1990. “How Social an Animal? The Human Capacity for Caring.” American Psychologist 45
(3): 336.
BatSon, C. D. 1998. “Altruism and Prosocial Behavior.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol.
2, edited by D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, 282–316. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Batson, C. D. 1987. “Prosocial Motivation: Is It Ever Truly Altruistic?” In Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, edited by L. Berkowitz, 65–122. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Becker-Blease, J. R., and J. E. Sohl. 2007. “Do Women-owned Businesses have Equal Access to
Angel Capital?” Journal of Business Venturing 22 (4): 503–21.
Bédard, M., R. Kuzik, L. Chambers, D. W. Molloy, S. Dubois, and J. A. Lever. 2005. “Understanding
Burden Differences between Men and Women Caregivers: The Contribution of Care-recipient
Problem Behaviors.” International Psychogeriatrics 17 (1): 99–118.
Brief, A. P., and R. J. Aldag. 1977. “The Intrinsic-Extrinsic Dichotomy: Toward Conceptual Clarity.”
Academy of Management Review 2 (3): 496–500.
Brush, C., N. Carter, E. Gatewood, P. Greene, and M. Hart. 2004. Clearing the Hurdles: Women
Building High-growth Businesses. Upper Saddle River: FT Press.
Budig, M. J. 2006. “Gender, Self-employment, and Earnings: The Interlocking Structures of Family
and Professional Status.” Gender & Society 20 (6): 725–53.
Byrne, J., and A. Fayolle. 2010. “A Feminist Inquiry into Entrepreneurship Training.” In The Theory
and Practice of Entrepreneurship, edited by D. Smallbone, J. Leitão, M. Raposo, and F. Welter,
76–100. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Caringal-Go, J. F., and Ma. R. M. Hechanova. 2018. “Motivational Needs and Intent to Stay of Social
Enterprise Workers.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 9 (3): 200–14.
30 R. Yamini et al.

Carroll, J. 2006. “Americans Prefer Male Boss to a Female Boss.” Retrieved September 10: 2006.
Carsrud, A., and M. Brännback. 2011. “Entrepreneurial Motivations: What Do We Still Need to
Know?” Journal of Small Business Management 49 (1): 9–26.
Carsrud, A., M. Brännback, J. Elfving, and K. Brandt. 2017. “Motivations: The Entrepreneurial Mind
and Behavior.” In Revisiting the Entrepreneurial Mind, 185–209. Berlin: Springer.
Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E., and J. L. Tsai. 2007. “Gender Differences in Emotional Response among
European Americans and Hmong Americans.” Cognition and Emotion 21 (1): 162–81.
Chin, W. W. 1998. “The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling.” In
Methodology for Business and Management. Modern Methods for Business Research, edited
by G. A. Marcoulides, 295–336. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Costa, Jr., P. T., A. Terracciano, and R. R. McCrae. 2001. “Gender Differences in Personality Traits
across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 81 (2): 322.
Cox, J. C., and C. A. Deck. 2006. “When are Women More Generous than Men?” Economic Inquiry
44 (4): 587–98.
Croson, R., and U. Gneezy. 2009. “Gender Differences in Preferences.” Journal of Economic
Literature 47 (2): 448–74.
De DreuC. K. 2006. “Rational Self-interest and Other Orientation in Organizational Behavior: A
Critical Appraisal and Extension of Meglino and Korsgaard (2004).” Journal of Applied
Psychology 91 (6): 1245–52.
De Dreu, C. K. W., and A. Nauta. 2009. “Self-interest and Other-orientation in Organizational
Behavior: Implications for Job Performance, Prosocial Behavior, and Personal Initiative.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (4): 913–26.
Deci, E. L. 1971. “Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 18 (1): 105.
Deci, E. L., W. F. Cascio, and J. Krusell. 1975. “Cognitive Evaluation Theory and Some Comments on
the Calder and Staw Critique.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (1): 81–5.
Deci, E. L., J. P. Connell, and R. M. Ryan. 1989. “Self-determination in a Work Organization.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (4): 580–90.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 1985. “The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-determination in
Personality.” Journal of Research in Personality 19 (2): 109–34.
Dees, J. G. 2012. “A Tale of Two Cultures: Charity, Problem Solving, and the Future of Social
Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Ethics 111 (3): 321–34.
DeMartino, R., and R. Barbato. 2003. “Differences between Women and Men MBA Entrepreneurs:
Exploring Family Flexibility and Wealth Creation as Career Motivators.” Journal of Business
Venturing 18 (6): 815–32.
Di Domenico, M. L., H. Haugh, and P. Tracey. 2010. “Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value
Creation in Social Enterprises.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34 (4): 681–703.
DiMaggio, P., and H. Louch. 1997. Who Volunteers? Dominant and Relevant Statuses. Washington,
DC: Aspen Institute.
Doherty, B., H. Haugh, and F. Lyon. 2014. “Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review
and Research Agenda.” International Journal of Management Reviews 16 (4): 417–36.
Einolf, C. J. 2011. “Gender Differences in the Correlates of Volunteering and Charitable Giving.”
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40 (6): 1092–112.
Ernst, K. 2011. “Heart over Mind–An Empirical Analysis of Social Entrepreneurial Intention
Formation on the Basis of the Theory of Planned Behaviour.” Universität Wuppertal, Fakultät
für Wirtschaftswissenschaft/Schumpeter.
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 31

Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and
Research. Reading, MA: Addison Wessley.
Folbre, N. 2012. “Should Women Care Less? Intrinsic Motivation and Gender Inequality.” British
Journal of Industrial Relations 50 (4): 597–619.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.
Forster, F., and D. Grichnik. 2013. “Social Entrepreneurial Intention Formation of Corporate
Volunteers.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 4 (2): 153–81.
Gagné, M., and E. L. Deci. 2005. “Self‐determination Theory and Work Motivation.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 26 (4): 331–62.
Gatewood, E. J., K. G. Shaver, and W. B. Gartner. 1995. “A Longitudinal Study of Cognitive Factors
Influencing Start-up Behaviors and Success at Venture Creation.” Journal of Business
Venturing 10 (5): 371–91.
Georgellis, Y., and H. J. Wall. 2005. “Gender Differences in Self‐employment.” International Review
of Applied Economics 19 (3): 321–42.
Germak, A. J., and J. A. Robinson. 2014. “Exploring the Motivation of Nascent Social
Entrepreneurs.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 5 (1): 5–21.
Gieure, C., M. M. Benavides-Espinosa, and S. Roig-Dobón. 2020. “The Entrepreneurial Process:
The Link between Intentions and Behavior.” Journal of Business Research Volume 112: 541–8.
Gilligan, C., and J. Attanucci. 1988. “Two Moral Orientations: Gender Differences and Similarities.”
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 34 (3): 223–37.
Grant, A. 2008. “Does Intrinsic Motivation Fuel the Prosocial Fire? Motivational Synergy
in Predicting Persistence, Performance, and Productivity.” Journal of Applied Psychology
93 (1): 48.
Grant, A. M. 2007. “Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Prosocial Difference.”
Academy of Management Review 32 (2): 393–417.
Grant, A. M., and J. M. Berg. 2007. “Prosocial Motivation at Work: When, Why, and How Making a
Difference Makes a Difference.” In Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship,
edited by S.C. dalam Kim, M.S. Gretchen. book-chapter..
Graziano, W. G., M. M. Habashi, B. E. Sheese, and R. M Tobin. 2007. “Agreeableness, Empathy,
and Helping: A Person× Situation Perspective.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
93 (4): 583.
Grichnik, D., A. Smeja, and I. Welpe. 2010. “The Importance of Being Emotional: How Do Emotions
Affect Entrepreneurial Opportunity Evaluation and Exploitation?” Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 76 (1): 15–29.
Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1976. “Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory.”
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16 (2): 250–79.
Hagger, M. S., and C. Protogerou. 2020. “Self‐determination Theory and Autonomy Support to
Change Healthcare Behavior.” The Wiley Handbook of Healthcare Treatment Engagement,
141–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119129530.ch7. Wiley. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119129530.ch7.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, B. J. Babin, and W. C. Black. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Vol. 7. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Harman, D. 1967. “A Single Factor Test of Common Method Variance.” Journal of Psychology 35:
359–78.
32 R. Yamini et al.

Harrison, R. T., and C. Mason. 2005. Does Gender Matter? Women Business Angels and the Supply
of Entrepreneurial Finance in the United Kingdom. Edinburgh: Management School and
Economics. The University of Edinburgh.
Harshman, R. A., and A. Paivio. 1987. ““Paradoxical” Sex Differences in Self-Reported Imagery.”
Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie 41 (3): 287.
Hechavarría, D. M. 2016. “The Impact of Culture on National Prevalence Rates of Social and
Commercial Entrepreneurship.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal
12 (4): 1025–52.
Hechavarria, D. M., A. Ingram, R. Justo, and S. Terjesen. 2012. “Are Women more likely to Pursue
Social and Environmental Entrepreneurship.” Global Women’s Entrepreneurship Research:
Diverse Settings, Questions and Approaches 135–51, https://doi.org/10.4337/
9781849804752.00016.
Hockerts, K. 2017. “Determinants of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 41 (1): 105–30.
Hockerts, K. 2015. “The Social Entrepreneurial Antecedents Scale (SEAS): A Validation Study.”
Social Enterprise Journal 11 (3): 260–80.
Hockerts, K. N. 2013. “Antecedents of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Validation Study.”
Academy of Management Proceedings 2013 (1): 16805.
Iakovleva, T., L. Kolvereid, and U. Stephan. 2011. “Entrepreneurial Intentions in Developing and
Developed Countries.” Education+ Training 53 (5): 353–70.
İrengün, O., and Ş. Arıkboğa. 2015. “The Effect of Personality Traits on Social Entrepreneurship
Intentions: A Field Research.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 195: 1186–95.
Kehr, H. M. 2004. “Integrating Implicit Motives, Explicit Motives, and Perceived Abilities: The
Compensatory Model of Work Motivation and Volition.” Academy of Management Review 29
(3): 479–99.
Kelley, D., S. Singer, and M. Herrington. 2012a. “GEM 2011 Global Report.” Global
Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA).
Kelley, D. J., S. Singer, and M. Herrington. 2012b. “The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.” 2011
Global Report, GEM 2011 7.
Kickul, J., F. Wilson, D. Marlino, and S. D. Barbosa. 2008. “Are Misalignments of Perceptions and
Self-efficacy Causing Gender Gaps in Entrepreneurial Intentions among Our Nation’s Teens?”
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 15 (2): 321–35.
Kim, A., C. W. Moon, S. K. Kim, Y. S. Koh, and J. Shin. 2018. “An Empirical Investigation on the
Psychological Antecedents of Social Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal,
https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2017-0129.
Kirk, J., and R. Belovics. 2006. “Counseling would-be Entrepreneurs.” Journal of Employment
Counseling 43 (2): 50–61.
Koch, S. 1956. “Behavior as “intrinsically” Regulated: Work Notes Towards a Pre-theory of
Phenomena Called “motivational.” Nebraska symposium on motivation.
Korosec, R. L., and E. M. Berman. 2006. “Municipal Support for Social Entrepreneurship.” Public
Administration Review 66 (3): 448–62.
Kroger, J. 1997. “Gender and Identity: The Intersection of Structure, Content, and Context.” Sex
Roles 36 (11–12): 747–70.
Krueger , Jr., N. F., M. D. Reilly, and A. L. Carsrud. 2000. “Competing Models of Entrepreneurial
Intentions.” Journal of Business Venturing 15 (5–6): 411–32.
Krueger, N. 1993. “The Impact of Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure on Perceptions of New Venture
Feasibility and Desirability.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18 (1): 5–21.
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 33

Lacap, J. P. G., H. D. Mulyaningsih, and V. Ramadani. 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 9 (3): 329–
346.
Langowitz, N., and M. Minniti. 2007. “The Entrepreneurial Propensity of Women.”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31 (3): 341–64.
Latham, G. P., and C. C. Pinder. 2005. “Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the
Twenty-first Century.” Annual Review of Psychology 56: 485–516.
Lazauskaite-Zabielske, J., I. Urbanaviciute, and D. Bagdziuniene. 2015. “The Role of Prosocial and
Intrinsic Motivation in Employees’ Citizenship Behaviour.” Baltic Journal of Management 10
(3): 345–65.
Lee, L., P. K. Wong, M. Der Foo, and A. Leung. 2011. “Entrepreneurial Intentions: The Influence of
Organizational and Individual Factors.” Journal of Business Venturing 26 (1): 124–36.
Lin, H-F. 2007. “Effects of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation on Employee Knowledge Sharing
Intentions.” Journal of Information Science 33 (2): 135–49.
Liñán, F., and Y-W. Chen. 2009. “Development and Cross-cultural Application of a Specific
Instrument to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33
(3): 593–617.
Locke, E. 2000. “Motivation, Cognition, and Action: An Analysis of Studies of Task Goals and
Knowledge.” Applied Psychology 49 (3): 408–29.
Lumpkin, G. T., T. W. Moss, D. M. Gras, S. Kato, and A. S. Amezcua. 2013. “Entrepreneurial
Processes in Social Contexts: How Are They Different, If At All?” Small Business Economics 40
(3): 761–83.
Maes, J., H. Leroy, and L. Sels. 2014. “Gender Differences in Entrepreneurial Intentions: A TPB
Multi-group Analysis at Factor and Indicator Level.” European Management Journal 32 (5):
784–94.
Mair, J., and E. Noboa. 2003. “Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social
Enterprise Get Formed.” SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.462283.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=462283.
Mair, J., and E. Noboa. 2006. “Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Venture
Are Formed.” Social Entrepreneurship 121–135, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/
9780230625655_8.
Martínez, C. N., A. Rubio Bañón, and A. F. Laviada. 2019. “Social Entrepreneur: Same or Different
from the rest?” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 30
(3): 443–59.
McLeod, H. 1997. Crossover: The New Organization Builders Look, Think, and Act like
Entrepreneurs. 19: 100–05, Boston, MA: INC.
McMullen, J. S. 2011. “Delineating the Domain of Development Entrepreneurship: A Market-based
Approach to Facilitating Inclusive Economic Growth.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
35 (1): 185–215.
Micozzi, A., and C. Lucarelli. 2016. “Heterogeneity in Entrepreneurial Intent: The Role of Gender
across Countries.” International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 8 (2): 173–94.
Miller, T. L., M. G. Grimes, J. S. McMullen, and T. J. Vogus. 2012. “Venturing for Others with Heart
and Head: How Compassion Encourages Social Entrepreneurship.” Academy of Management
Review 37 (4): 616–40.
Minniti, M., and C. Nardone. 2007. “Being in Someone Else’s Shoes: The Role of Gender in Nascent
Entrepreneurship.” Small Business Economics 28 (2–3): 223–38.
34 R. Yamini et al.

Mitchell, T. R., and D. Daniels. 2003. “Observations and Commentary on Recent Research in Work
Motivation.” Motivation and Work Behavior 7 (1): 225–54.
Moss, Todd W., G. T. Lumpkin, and Jeremy C. Short. 2008. “The Dependent Variables of Social
Entrepreneurship Research.” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 28 (21): 1–3.
Mueller, S. L., and M. C. Dato-on. 2013. “A Cross Cultural Study of Gender-role Orientation and
Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 9
(1): 1–20.
Nga, J. K. H., and G. Shamuganathan. 2010. “The Influence of Personality Traits and Demographic
Factors on Social Entrepreneurship Start Up Intentions.” Journal of Business Ethics 95 (2):
259–82.
Nicholls, A. 2008. Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford:
OUP.
Nock, S. L., P. W. Kingston, and L. M. Holian. 2008. “The Distribution of Obligations.” In
Intergenerational Caregiving, edited by A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, S. M. Bianchi, and J. A.
Seltzer, 279–316. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Osborne, J. W. 2000. “The Advantages of Hierarchical Linear Modeling.
Ouellette, J. A., and W. Wood. 1998. “Habit and Intention in Everyday Life: The Multiple Processes
by Which Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (1): 54.
Penner, L. A., J. F. Dovidio, J. A. Piliavin, and D. A. Schroeder. 2005. “Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel
Perspectives.” Annual Review of Psychology 56: 365–92.
Penner, L. A., and M. A. Finkelstein. 1998. “Dispositional and Structural Determinants of
Volunteerism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (2): 525.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879.
Podsakoff, P. M., and D. W. Organ. 1986. “Self-reports in Organizational Research: Problems and
Prospects.” Journal of Management 12 (4): 531–44.
Politis, K., P. Ketikidis, A. D. Diamantidis, and L. Lazuras. 2016. “An Investigation of Social
Entrepreneurial Intentions Formation among South-East European Postgraduate Students.”
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 23 (4): 1120–41.
Prabhu, G. N. 1999. “Social Entrepreneurial Leadership.” Career Development International 4 (3):
140–5.
Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., and H. Svare. 2014. “Entrepreneurial Growth Strategies: The Female
Touch.” International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 6 (2): 181–99.
Robbins, S. P., and T. A. Judge. 2007. Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle, River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Ryan, R. M., and J. P. Connell. 1989. “Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization: Examining
Reasons for Acting in Two Domains.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (5): 749.
Ryan, R. M., and E. Deci. 2001. “On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-being.” Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 141–66.
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000a. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New
Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1): 54–67.
RyanR. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000b. “Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic
Motivation, Social Development, and Well-being.” American Psychologist 55 (1): 68.
Santos, F. J., M. A. Roomi, and F. Liñán. 2016. “About Gender Differences and the Social
Environment in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Journal of Small Business
Management 54 (1): 49–66.
 Social Entrepreneurial Intention Research 35

Segal, G., D. Borgia, and J. Schoenfeld. 2005. “The Motivation to Become an Entrepreneur.”
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 11 (1): 42–57.
Sheeran, P. 2002. “Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review.” European
Review of Social Psychology 12 (1): 1–36.
Shinnar, R. S., O. Giacomin, and F. Janssen. 2012. “Entrepreneurial Perceptions and Intentions:
The Role of Gender and Culture.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36 (3): 465–93.
Skoe, E. E. A., A. Cumberland, N. Eisenberg, K. Hansen, and J. Perry. 2002. “The Influences of Sex
and Gender-Role Identity on Moral Cognition and Prosocial Personality Traits.” Sex Roles 46
(9–10): 295–309.
Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati, and A. Al-Laham. 2007. “Do Entrepreneurship Programmes Raise
Entrepreneurial Intention of Science and Engineering Students? The Effect of Learning,
Inspiration and Resources.” Journal of Business Venturing 22 (4): 566–91.
Steers, R. M., R. T. Mowday, and D. L. Shapiro. 2004. “The Future of Work Motivation Theory.”
Academy of Management Review 29 (3): 379–87.
Stewart, N. J., D. G. Morgan, C. P. Karunanayake, J. P Wickenhauser, A. Cammer, D. Minish, M. E.
O’Connell, and L. A. Hayduk. 2016. “Rural Caregivers for a Family Member with Dementia:
Models of Burden and Distress Differ for Women and Men.” Journal of Applied Gerontology 35
(2): 150–78.
Strobl, A., C. Kronenberg, and M. Peters. 2012. “Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Intentions:
Assessing Gender Specific Differences.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business 15 (4): 452–68.
Taniguchi, H. 2006. “Men’s and Women’s Volunteering: Gender Differences in the Effects of
Employment and Family Characteristics.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35 (1):
83–101.
Thompson, J. A., and J. S. Bunderson. 2003. “Violations of Principle: Ideological Currency in the
Psychological Contract.” Academy of Management Review 28 (4): 571–86.
Urban, B., and L. Kujinga. 2017. “Towards Social Change: South African University Students as
Social Entrepreneurs.” South African Journal of Higher Education 31 (1): 243–59.
Vainik, E. 2006. “Intracultural Variation of Semantic and Episodic Emotion Knowledge in
Estonian.” Trames 10 (2): 169–89.
Van Gelderen, M., M. Brand, M. van Praag, W. Bodewes, E. Poutsma, and A. Van Gils. 2008.
“Explaining Entrepreneurial Intentions by Means of the Theory of Planned Behaviour.” Career
Development International 13 (6): 538–59.
Wach, D., P. Kruse, S. F. Costa, and J. A. Moriano. 2017. “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurial
Intentions in Namibian and German University Students.” Academy of Management
Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.17470.
Waddock, S., and E. Steckler. 2016. “Visionaries and Wayfinders: Deliberate and Emergent
Pathways to Vision in Social Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Ethics 133 (4): 719–34.
Yang, R., M. Meyskens, C. Zheng, and L. Hu. 2015. “Social Entrepreneurial Intentions: China versus
the USA–Is There a Difference?” The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
16 (4): 253–67.
Zahra, S. A., E. Gedajlovic, D. O. Neubaum, and J. M. Shulman. 2009. “A Typology of Social
Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges.” Journal of Business
Venturing 24 (5): 519–32.
Zahra, S. A., and M. Wright. 2016. “Understanding the Social Role of Entrepreneurship.” Journal of
Management Studies 53 (4): 610–29.

View publication stats