sustainability
Article
COVID-19 and Its Effects on Attitudes toward
Opportunity-Motivated Entrepreneurship: Before
and after Lockdown
Yuan Zhi Seah






Citation: Seah, Y.Z. COVID-19 and
Its Effects on Attitudes toward
Opportunity-Motivated
Entrepreneurship: Before and after
Lockdown. Sustainability 2021, 13,
8689. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13168689
Academic Editors: Nicola Mucci,
Antonio Ariza-Montes and
Gabriele Giorgi
Received: 24 June 2021
Accepted: 28 July 2021
Published: 4 August 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168689
School of Humanities and Behavioural Sciences, Singapore University of Social Sciences,
Singapore 599494, Singapore; victorseahyz@suss.edu.sg
Abstract: COVID-19 lockdown measures have largely been effective in curtailing the spread of
the disease. Yet, its other effects have been profound and pervasive, exposing gender inequalities,
reducing psychological sustainability, and causing economic hardship. Entrepreneurship, with its
potential for effecting social good and sustainable economic development, has too been changed with
studies finding a drop in entrepreneurship during the crisis. Yet, it is unknown how entrepreneurship
may change after COVID-19 and lockdown measures are eased. We study changes in attitudes toward
entrepreneurship by testing two samples of Singaporean undergraduates before the implementation
(N = 242) and after the easing (N = 280) of lockdown measures. In doing so, we contribute to
research about attitudes toward entrepreneurship, often side-lined in Theory of Planned Behaviour
entrepreneurship studies which tend to focus instead on entrepreneurship intentions. Our findings
indicate that opportunity-motivated, or pull, entrepreneurship may have become more positive
after lockdown measures are eased. Next, women hold stronger beliefs in entrepreneurship’s
capacity to fulfil agentic-type goals (e.g., power, achievement). For both genders, the extent to which
entrepreneurship can achieve prosocial, communal-type goals is a key post-lockdown determinant
of positive attitudes to entrepreneurship. Our findings provide clues into what to expect regarding
post-lockdown entrepreneurship, and bears practical implications for entrepreneurship educators
and policymakers.
Keywords: attitude; entrepreneurship; COVID-19; theory of planned behaviour; gender; communion;
agency; prosociality
1. Introduction
“The deepest recession since the Second World War” notes a World Bank press release
in June 2020 on the economic effects of COVID-19 [1]. Indeed, while the effects of COVID-
19 on society is all-encompassing, including changes in consumption patterns [2], increases
in anxiety and depression risks [3], and decreases in psychological sustainability [4] and
quality of life [5], the economic impact on businesses has been unprecedented. For example,
Cowling et al. [6] reported that without external assistance, 61% of a sample of 1500 British
Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are projected to run out of cash because of COVID-19
lockdown restrictions.
Leaders of SMEs, employers of 70% of the global workforce [7], have the desire [8] and
potential [9] to effect sustainable economic development. Entrepreneurship, in particular,
has been singled out as an important engine of economic growth and social good during
this COVID-19 crisis [10]. As a potential medium for greater gender equality [11,12] and
avenue for decent work [13,14], entrepreneurship has the potential to achieve multiple
United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals in the wake of COVID-19. Yet, apart from
COVID-19 being a career shock [15] and a catalyst for drastic change [16,17], the exact
direction and impact of the pandemic on entrepreneurship is still being ascertained.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689 2 of 13

Past research suggests that entrepreneurship activity will be subdued during crises [18–21]
such as COVID-19. As countries recover from crises though, a rise in interest and participation
in entrepreneurship has been documented all around the world, in countries such as Aus-
tralia [22], China [23], Indonesia [24], and Spain [18]. For COVID-19, an indicator of recovery
is the easing of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions such as the reopening of indoor group dining.
This rise in interest can be examined using Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour
(TPB) [25] in terms of variables such as entrepreneurial intent and attitudes toward en-
trepreneurship. Indeed, entrepreneurial intent is an outcome variable commonly studied
using the TPB, often at the neglect of other TPB variables such as subjective norms and atti-
tudes toward entrepreneurship [26]. Attitudes toward entrepreneurship can be examined
in terms of overall feelings (e.g., how positive entrepreneurship is judged to be as a career
option) or in terms of entrepreneurship’s perceived capacity to fulfil agentic-type (power,
achievement, seeking new experiences or excitement) and prosocial (affiliation, altruism,
intimacy) goals [27].
As such, this study examines how the easing of COVID-19 lockdown measures has
affected attitudes toward entrepreneurship. To that end, we surveyed two groups of
Singaporean undergraduates—one group in early 2020, before the implementation of
lockdown restrictions [28], and another group in early 2021, after the easing of major
lockdown measures [29]. Our study on attitudes also contributes to the relative paucity of
TPB research on attitudes toward entrepreneurship.
We now review the literature on COVID-190 s effects on attitudes to entrepreneurship,
and present our hypotheses. Next, we outline our methods and materials before reporting
our results. We discuss our findings and how it compares to other similar empirical studies.
We end by stating the implications of our findings, acknowledging study limitations, and
proposing future research directions.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Literature Review
Rummel et al.’s pre-COVID-19 study [15] surveyed recent graduates and identified
several negative career shocks (e.g., disappointment with organisational life, and personal
tragedy) and positive career shocks (e.g., a moment of realization—spotting opportunities)
that preceded their starting of a business. It seems likely that COVID-19 would lead to such
negative and positive career shocks among aspiring entrepreneurs. The concept of career
shocks, as a catalyst for entrepreneurship, is meant to complement the traditional concep-
tualisation of entrepreneurship as resulting from necessity (“push” entrepreneurship) or
opportunity (“pull” entrepreneurship) [30]. As Devece et al. [18] documented with Spanish
entrepreneurs before and after the 2008 Great Recession, economic crises (such as the one
brought about by COVID-19 lockdown restrictions) can lead to substantial push factors
for entrepreneurship in the form of unemployment, underemployment, and difficulty in
finding permanent work.
Current evidence suggests that during a crisis, entrepreneurship activity is inhib-
ited. Melugbo et al. [19] report a slowdown in entrepreneurial activity among Nigeria
entrepreneurs during the pandemic. Similarly, Cepel et al. [20] find an increase in percep-
tions of financial risk among entrepreneurs and SMEs in the Czech Republic and Slovakia
during this period. Ruiz-Rosa et al. [21], examining social entrepreneurship, also reports a
fall in entrepreneurial intent because of COVID-19. Indeed, Gomes et al. [31] summarise
research as demonstrating considerable decreases in entrepreneurial rates and intent in
times of economic crisis.
After a crisis and in the longer-term though, there is some evidence that interest in, and
participation in entrepreneurship may increase through proactive career behaviours [30].
This is certainly the case in selected fields. For example, Zhang and Huang [23] found
that in response to lockdowns and changes in mindsets and behaviours, such as higher
participation rates in the internet economy, Chinese college students are more likely to
start an online business after the crisis. Similar increases in interest in entrepreneurship are
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689 3 of 13

reported in Indonesia, through an increase in self-rated interest in social entrepreneurship

among university students because of COVID-19 [24], and in Australia, through the cre-
ation of new ventures in response to the Black Saturday Bushfires [22]. Indeed, Linan and
Jaen [32] notes data on potential entrepreneurs from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
that indicates a significant increase in entrepreneurial intent, especially related to push
entrepreneurship, in the years following the 2008 Great Recession. All this suggests a possi-
ble increase in positive attitudes toward, and intentions to participate in entrepreneurship
as countries exit lockdowns.
Ajzen’s [25] Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is the most commonly used [33] and
predictive [21] theory to explain entrepreneurial intention. The TPB states that behaviour
can be predicted by intention which in turn, is predicted by (1) attitude towards the be-
haviour, (2) subjective norm, and (3) perceived behavioural control. Perceived behavioural
control is essentially self-efficacy placed within the TPB framework [25]. Here, it refers to
the individual’s perceived ease or difficulty in becoming an entrepreneur. On the other
hand, subjective norm here refers to social pressures from family and friends and other
people important to the individual regarding entrepreneurship [31]. Finally, attitude refers
to one’s predisposition towards the creation of a company [33] and denotes the degree to
which one is favourable about the act of entrepreneurship [34].
Because entrepreneurial intention has been found to be the best predictor of en-
trepreneurial behaviour with reported correlations between entrepreneurial intention and
behaviour as high as 0.90 and 0.96 [33], it is commonly the target outcome variable for
studies examining entrepreneurship using the TPB. Aparicio et al.’s [26] summary of stud-
ies in a special issue of Sustainability on entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship reveals
that studies examining entrepreneurship focused primarily on entrepreneurial intentions.
Similarly, Su et al.’s [35] outline of research topics on TPB and entrepreneurship indicates
that a majority of studies have intention as the dependent variable. While research, includ-
ing Kautonen et al.’s [36] longitudinal study of Austrian and Finnish adults, have indeed
found consistent evidence that entrepreneurial intention predicts subsequent behaviour,
less attention has been devoted to the antecedents of intention, such as attitudes toward
entrepreneurship [34,37].
One reason to study attitudes toward entrepreneurship is that attitudes predict inten-
tions [33]. Gomes et al. [31] found that attitude was the statistically largest predictor, more so
than perceived behavioural control and social norm, of entrepreneurial intention. Similarly,
Paunescu et al. [37] found that attitude, or the perceived desirability of entrepreneurship,
predicted future entrepreneurial intentions among Romanian adults. Collectively, attitude,
perceived behavioural control, and social norm have been found to predict 39% to 59% of the
variance in entrepreneur intention [36,38]. Reviewing past research findings, Veciana et al. [34]
concluded that attitudes toward entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial activity are key determi-
nants of university students’ decision to become entrepreneurs.
Veciana et al.’s [34] and Paunescu et al.’s [37] studies are atypical in that they fo-
cus on attitudes, rather than intentions, toward entrepreneurship. There are two other
reasons for studying attitudes. The first is that attitudes predict other factors important
for entrepreneurship such as motivation. Martinez-Gonzalez et al.’s [33] study found
that Polish and Spanish university students who agreed with attitudinal statements such
as “Entrepreneurship has more advantages than disadvantages” also professed a greater
motivation to become an entrepreneur and indirectly, expressed greater entrepreneurial self-
efficacy. The second reason is that attitudes regarding occupations are malleable [39] and
can therefore be used to cultivate entrepreneurial intention—A key goal of entrepreneurial
education [40]. Su et al. [35] found that perceived support from their university for en-
trepreneurship led to students expressing more positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship.
The increase was far greater for attitudes toward entrepreneurship than for perceptions of
behavioural control.
This malleability in attitudes toward entrepreneurship was exploited by Jakob et al. [27]
who, in a pre-COVID-19 experiment, was able to change German university students’
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689 4 of 13

stereotypical beliefs about entrepreneurship by exposing them to vignettes which empha-

sised the communal, or prosocial value of entrepreneurship. This intervention partially
reversed the students’ underestimation of the communal value of entrepreneurship where
entrepreneurship is viewed primarily as a vehicle to fulfil agentic-type goals, not prosocial
ones. In turn, this heightened sense of the prosocial value of entrepreneurship led to
an increase in positive attitudes toward opportunity-motivated, pull entrepreneurship.
While the effects of COVID-19 on entrepreneurial intention has received some attention,
notably from Ruiz-Rosa et al. [21] who found a decrease in social entrepreneurial intention
during COVID-19, the effects of the pandemic on attitudes after lockdown restrictions are
eased, defined as the rolling back of any lockdown restrictions by any measure, has not
been studied.
There are reasons to expect that attitudes toward entrepreneurship may have changed
to include more emphasis on entrepreneurship’s capacity for prosociality because of
COVID-19 and lockdown restrictions. Syropoulos [41] refers to COVID-19 as a “real-
world test of prosociality” in that the behaviours of individuals are key to limiting the
spread of COVID-19. COVID-19 presents a social dilemma [42] where individuals have
to enact costly prosocial behaviours (e.g., endure social isolation and economic hardship
from quarantines and lockdowns) so as to benefit themselves and the larger community.
Van de Groep et al.’s [43] diary study of Dutch adolescents in lockdown found evidence
that the pandemic has led to the prioritising of needs and deservedness, over kinship and
familiarity, in the allocation of resources. It appears that COVID-19 has brought prosociality
and the pursuit of communal goals into attention and practice.
This has also occurred at the business level. Despite some contrary findings of reduced
corporate donations in China [44], a rise in corporate philanthropy and Corporate Social
Responsibility initiatives has been observed [45]. Manuel and Herron [46] note how
businesses, motivated by personal and social good, have engaged in a wide range of
COVID-19 CSR actions. Garcia-Sanchez and Garcia-Sanchez [47] report how large Spanish
companies have redoubled their CSR efforts because of the pandemic. Indeed, an increase
in CSR activities in response to previous disasters and pandemics has been documented [48].
This capacity for businesses and entrepreneurs to fulfil COVID-19 prosocial goals also
receives widespread attention with high profile business leaders such as Jack Ma, Jack
Dorsey, and Bill Gates leading such efforts [49].
Studies have found that COVID-19 prosocial behaviours are more likely to occur in
countries with higher trust in government. Han et al.’s [50] study of participants from
23 countries measured COVID-19 prosocial behaviours by asking participants questions
such as “I am willing to help others who suffer from coronavirus”. Their research found
higher rates of self-rated prosocial behaviours in countries where trust in government
is higher. Echoing Han et al.’s [50] findings is Lim et al.’s [51] Singapore study which
found an association between trust in government communication and greater likelihood
of adopting protective behaviour.
Singapore, which lifted major lockdown restrictions in December 2020 [29], offers the
opportunity to study the effects of COVID-19 on attitudes toward entrepreneurship after
the easing of lockdown measures. Such research could also address Jakob et al.’s [27] con-
cern about extrapolating their findings about German beliefs regarding entrepreneurship to
other nations, such as Singapore which Hofstede [52] found to differ considerably from Ger-
many. Indeed, some studies have found differences across countries for entrepreneurship
beliefs. For instance, Veciana et al. [34] found several significant differences between Puerto
Ricans and Catalonians when asked about the desirability of engaging in entrepreneurship,
and characteristics of entrepreneurs (e.g., Catalonians’ ratings of the financial and manage-
ment skills of entrepreneurs were higher than ratings given by Puerto Ricans). Similarly,
Margaca et al. [53] found that Portuguese university students had higher perceived be-
havioural control for entrepreneurship than Spanish students. There are contrary findings
though. For example, Nikolaev et al. [54] analyse data from 73 countries and found that
cultural values, geography, and legal origins were not significant predictors of opportunity-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689 5 of 13

and necessity-motivated entrepreneurship. Indeed, Martinez-Gonzalez et al. [33] argue

that generational differences are more important for entrepreneurship than international
differences. That is, members of the same generation from different countries should
share more similarities among themselves than with other generational members of the
same country.
Another question regarding entrepreneurship is the effect of gender. Despite the
positive role of entrepreneurship in ameliorating gender inequality [11,12] and therefore
achieving the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal 5 of empowering women
and girls, males have been documented to have greater entrepreneurial intentions [23].
Though it should be noted that a recent meta-analysis has found such differences to be
small [55]. Indeed, other studies such as Veciana et al.’s [34] report no clear and consistent
gender differences. Similar mixed findings were reported by Jakob et al. [27] who found no
gender differences in the belief that entrepreneurship allows for the fulfilment of agentic-
type goals such as achievement, power, and excitement. On the other hand, significantly
lower ratings were provided by women for entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfilment
communal-type goals such as interaction with others, and prosocial behaviour. That
is, Jakob et al. [27] found that women were more sceptical than men in believing that
entrepreneurship can lead to the fulfilment of prosocial goals. Such findings can inform
efforts to promote entrepreneurship to women. In this case, for example, entrepreneurial
education programmes can focus on remedying this scepticism.

2.2. Hypotheses
Before examining how attitudes toward entrepreneurship may have changed after the
easing of lockdown measures, we first seek to extend Jakob et al.’s [27] findings regarding
German young adults’ entrepreneurship beliefs in a Singaporean context. Accordingly,
we hypothesise:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Entrepreneurship is perceived to be better at fulfilling agentic-type goals than

communal-type, prosocial goals.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Females rate entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil communal-type, prosocial

goals lower than males.

Examining the effects of easing lockdown measures, and based on findings of increased
interest and participation in post-crisis entrepreneurship [23,32,56], we expect an increase in
positive attitudes toward opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship after the easing of COVID-
19 lockdown restrictions. We chose to focus on opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship
because (1) opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship is the prevalent motivation worldwide
(74% of early-stage entrepreneurs [56]) and in Singapore (6.2 times more opportunity-motivated
than necessity-motivated early-stage entrepreneurs [57]), and (2) opportunity-motivated en-
trepreneurs are more successful than necessity entrepreneurs especially during periods of
crises such as during recessions [18]. Accordingly, we hypothesise:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Attitudes toward opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship is more positive

after the easing of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.

Entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment, along-

side emotional valence and self-efficacy, predicts attitudes toward entrepreneurship [27].
Pre- implementation of lockdown restrictions, we expect entrepreneurship’s capacity for
agentic-type goal fulfilment to be predictive of positive attitudes toward entrepreneur-
ship. Post-implementation of lockdown measures requiring prosocial behaviours such
as social isolation [41], we expect entrepreneurship’s capacity for both agentic-type and
prosocial goal fulfilment to be predictive of positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship. We
hypothesise (Figure 1):
 Hypothesis 4 (H4). Pre-COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, entrepreneurship’s capacity for
agentic-type goal fulfilment predicts positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Post-COVID-19 easing of lockdown restrictions, entrepreneurship’s capacity 6 of 13
for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment predict positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship.

Figure
Figure 1. Comparing
1. Comparing Hypotheses
Hypotheses 4 and
4 and 5. 5.

3. Materials
Hypothesis and Methods
4 (H4). Pre-COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-
type
To test our hypotheses,positive
goal fulfilment predicts attitudes
we recruited 522toward entrepreneurship.
undergraduate students at a Singaporean
university. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated
in Hypothesis
the study. The5 (H5).
studyPost-COVID-19
was conducted easing of lockdown restrictions,
in accordance entrepreneurship’s
with the Declaration capacity
of Helsinki,
for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment predict positive attitudes
and the protocol was approved by the Singapore University of Social Sciences’s toward entrepreneurship.
Institutional Review Board (Approval Number: APR-0078-V1.0-10022020). After
3. Materials and Methods
removing responses that were invariant or failed to follow instructions, responses from
203 (MeanTo test
age our hypotheses,
= 28.17; we recruited
66% females) 522 undergraduate
and 253 (Mean age = 29.95; 70% students at aparticipants
females) Singaporean
university. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion
at Time 1 (between February and March 2020) and Time 2 (between February and before they participated
March
in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
2021) were obtained respectively. Time 1 testing occurred before 7 April 2020, the of Helsinki, and
the protocol was approved by the Singapore University of Social Sciences’s
implementation of the first COVID-19 lockdown measures in Singapore [28]. Time 1 was Institutional
Review Board (Approval Number: APR-0078-V1.0-10022020). After removing responses
marked by a period of fear and concern in Singapore about rising COVID-19 infections
that were invariant or failed to follow instructions, responses from 203 (Mean age = 28.17;
[58]. Time 2 testing occurred after periods of low or no infections in the community [59],
66% females) and 253 (Mean age = 29.95; 70% females) participants at Time 1 (between
and the easing of lockdown measures [29].
February and March 2020) and Time 2 (between February and March 2021) were obtained
All participants were asked their gender and age, and were administered two sets of
respectively. Time 1 testing occurred before 7 April 2020, the implementation of the first
questions from Jakob et al. [27]. The first set of questions required participants to rate, on
COVID-19 lockdown measures in Singapore [28]. Time 1 was marked by a period of fear
a 7-point Likert scale, the capacity of eleven different careers to fulfil agentic-type (power,
and concern in Singapore about rising COVID-19 infections [58]. Time 2 testing occurred
achievement, seeking new experiences or excitement) or prosocial (intimacy, affiliation,
after periods of low or no infections in the community [59], and the easing of lockdown
altruism) goals. The eleven careers represented entrepreneurial careers (founder of a start-
measures [29].
up business, entrepreneur, self-employed person), agency-stereotypic careers (CEO,
All participants were asked their gender and age, and were administered two sets of
questions from Jakob et al. [27]. The first set of questions required participants to rate, on a
7-point Likert scale, the capacity of eleven different careers to fulfil agentic-type (power,
achievement, seeking new experiences or excitement) or prosocial (intimacy, affiliation,
altruism) goals. The eleven careers represented entrepreneurial careers (founder of a
start-up business, entrepreneur, self-employed person), agency-stereotypic careers (CEO,
senior HR manager, engineer, lawyer), and prosocial or communion-stereotypic careers
(social worker, teacher, nurse, nursery teacher). The second set of questions measured
attitudes toward entrepreneurship by asking participants to rate entrepreneurship on a
semantic differential scale, from −3 to 3, for boring versus exciting, uninteresting versus
interesting, and annoying versus attractive. These questions assess opportunity-motivated
entrepreneurship by asking about the desirability and pull of entrepreneurship, as opposed
to the push-nature of necessity-motivated entrepreneurship [56].

4. Results
A one-way ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted to test Hypothesis 1. This
analysis combined Time 1 and Time 2 data because no differences in conclusions were found
 motivated entrepreneurship by asking about the desirability and pull of
entrepreneurship, as opposed to the push-nature of necessity-motivated
entrepreneurship [56].

4. Results
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689 7 of 13
A one-way ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted to test Hypothesis 1.
This analysis combined Time 1 and Time 2 data because no differences in conclusions
were found when Time 1 and Time 2 data were analysed separately. Figure 2 displays the
when Time
means 1 and
for the Timeto2 data
extent whichwere analysed separately.
entrepreneurial, Figure 2 displays
agency-stereotypic, thecommunion-
and means for the
extent to which entrepreneurial, agency-stereotypic, and communion-stereotypic
stereotypic careers fulfil agentic-type and prosocial goals. Entrepreneurial careers careerswere
fulfil
agentic-type and prosocial goals. Entrepreneurial careers were judged to better
judged to better fulfil agentic-type than prosocial goals (Mean difference = 1.96, p < 0.01, fulfil agentic-
type than
Cohen’s d prosocial goals (Mean difference
= 1.57). Entrepreneurial 1.96, palso
careers=were < 0.01, Cohen’s
judged d = 1.57).
to better fulfilEntrepreneurial
agentic-type
careers were also judged to better fulfil agentic-type goals than agency-stereotypic
goals than agency-stereotypic (Mean difference = 0.82, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.06), (Mean dif-
and
ference = 0.82, p < 0.01, Cohen’s
communion-stereotypic d = 1.06), and
(Mean difference communion-stereotypic
= 1.15, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d =(Mean difference
1.13) careers. = 1.15,
Finally,
p 0.01, Cohen’s d
entrepreneurial careers were judged to be poorer at fulfilling prosocial goals than agency-at
< = 1.13) careers. Finally, entrepreneurial careers were judged to be poorer
fulfilling prosocial goals than agency-stereotypic (Mean difference = −0.34, p < 0.01, Cohen’s
stereotypic (Mean difference = −0.34, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.35), and communion-
d = 0.35), and communion-stereotypic (Mean difference = −1.58, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.32)
stereotypic (Mean difference = −1.58, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.32) careers. Our results support
careers. Our results support Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 1.

Extenttotowhich
Figure2.2.Extent
Figure whichdifferent
differentcareer
careertypes
typesfulfil
fulfilagentic-type
agentic-typeand
andprosocial
prosocialgoals.
goals.

Hypothesis 2 was tested using a one-way independent ANOVA comparing males

Hypothesis 2 was tested using a one-way independent ANOVA comparing males
and females on the extent to which they felt entrepreneurial, agency-stereotypic, and
and females on the extent to which they felt entrepreneurial, agency-stereotypic, and
communion-stereotypic careers fulfil agentic-type and prosocial goals. This analysis com-
communion-stereotypic careers fulfil agentic-type and prosocial goals. This analysis
bined Time 1 and Time 2 data because no differences in conclusions were found when
combined Time 1 and Time 2 data because no differences in conclusions were found when
Time 1 and Time 2 data were analysed separately. No gender differences were found for
Time 1 and Time 2 data were analysed separately. No gender differences were found for
agency-stereotypic and communion-stereotypic careers. Contrary to Hypothesis 2, females
agency-stereotypic and communion-stereotypic careers. Contrary to Hypothesis 2,
(M = 4.11, SD = 1.11) and males (M = 4.09, SD = 1.19) did not differ in their perception
females (M = 4.11, SD = 1.11) and males (M = 4.09, SD = 1.19) did not differ in their
of entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil communal-type, prosocial goals. It is notewor-
perception of entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil communal-type, prosocial goals. It is
thy though that females (M = 6.10, SD = 0.79) gave higher ratings than males (M = 5.92,
noteworthy
SD = 0.86) forthough that females (M capacity
entrepreneurship’s = 6.10, SDto= fulfil
0.79) gave higher ratings
agentic-type goals than males
(F(1,401) (M
= 4.18,
=p5.92, SD = 0.86) for entrepreneurship’s
< 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.22). capacity to fulfil agentic-type goals (F(1,401) =
4.18, pHypotheses
< 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.22).
3, 4, and 5 examine changes in attitudes toward entrepreneurship because
of COVID-19 and lockdown measures. Time 1 testing occurred before the implementation
of lockdown measures, while Time 2 testing was conducted in a period of low or no
community infections and after the easing of lockdown measures. In support of Hypothesis
3, entrepreneurship was rated more positively (t(453) = −2.073, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.20)
at Time 2 (M = 5.11, SD = 1.23) than at Time 1 (M = 4.84, SD = 1.46).
To test Hypotheses 4 and 5, attitudes toward entrepreneurship were regressed onto
entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment. Table 1 displays
the results of two multiple regression, one each for Time 1 and Time 2. While significant,
perceived entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment only
accounted for 5% (Time 1) and 9% (Time 2) of variance in attitudes toward entrepreneurship.
At Time 1, in support of Hypothesis 4, entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil agentic-type
goals (β = 0.21, t199 = 2.87, p < 0.01) was found to be a significant predictor of positive
attitudes toward entrepreneurship. In support of Hypothesis 5, entrepreneurship’s capacity
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689 8 of 13

to fulfil agentic-type goals (β = 0.14, t250 = 2.35, p < 0.05) and prosocial goals (β = 0.23,
t250 = 3.81, p < 0.01) significantly predicted positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship. It
should be noted that while not significant at Time 1 (β = 0.02, t199 = 0.25, p > 0.05), at Time
2, entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil prosocial goals was now a significant and larger
predictor of positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship than entrepreneurship’s capacity
to fulfil agentic-type goals.

Table 1. Results from regression models predicting positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship from entrepreneurship’s
capacity for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment.

Entrepreneurship’s Time 1 Time 2

Capacity for: b β r b β r
Agentic-type goal fulfilment 0.35 ** 0.21 ** 0.21 0.24 * 0.14 * 0.18
Prosocial goal fulfilment 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.25 ** 0.23 ** 0.26
Total R2 0.05 * 0.09 **
r = Zero-order correlations. b = Unstandardised Betas. β = Standardised Betas. * p < 0.05 (two-tailed). ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

5. Discussion
5.1. Main Findings
We have established that entrepreneurship can be an important engine of economic
growth and sustainable social good in the wake of COVID-19 [10]. Attitudes are an impor-
tant determinant of intentions, and subsequent behaviours to become entrepreneurs [31].
Yet, research studying entrepreneurship, such as those using the theory of planned be-
haviour, has largely focused on intentions, not its antecedents, such as attitudes [35].
Additionally, there is a gap in our understanding of attitudes toward entrepreneurship in
times of crises. Understanding how attitudes may have changed because of crises, such as
COVID-19, is important because attitudes toward entrepreneurship are malleable [27] and
can be used to cultivate entrepreneurial intention [40].
Consistent with Jakob et al. [27], entrepreneurship is perceived to be better at fulfilling
agentic-type goals than prosocial ones (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, entrepreneurship
careers (e.g., founder of a start-up business) were rated to be better than agency-stereotypic
(e.g., CEO) and communion-stereotypic (e.g., teacher) careers at fulfilling agentic-type goals
(e.g., obtaining power). Conversely, communion-stereotypic careers, followed by agency-
stereotypic careers, were regarded as better than entrepreneurship careers at fulfilling
prosocial goals. These findings were observed before the implementation, and after the
easing, of lockdown measures. COVID-19 does not appear to have changed stereotypical
beliefs of entrepreneurship as a vehicle to primarily fulfil agentic-type goals.
Despite some past studies finding cross-cultural differences in terms of attitudes
toward entrepreneurship (e.g., [34,53]), including differences between prospective Singa-
porean entrepreneurs and others elsewhere [60], our results support Nikolaev et al.’s [54]
finding, based on data from 73 countries, that cultural values are not significant predictors
of pull and push entrepreneurship. Our results extend Jakob et al.’s [27] findings beyond a
Western sample suggesting that across cultures, entrepreneurship is regarded as better at
fulfilling agentic-type goals than prosocial goals.
Unlike Jakob et al. [27], female study participants did not rate entrepreneurship’s
capacity to fulfil communal-type, prosocial goals to be lower than males (Hypothesis 2).
Instead, we found that women rated entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil agentic-type goals
to be higher than men. That is, whereas Jakob et al. [27] found that women were more
sceptical than men in believing that entrepreneurship can lead to the fulfilment of prosocial
goals, in this study, women believed more strongly than men that entrepreneurship can lead
to the fulfilment of agentic-type goals such as the acquisition of power and achievements.
Because we did not set out to study why gender differences may have occurred, we can
only posit that this difference may be due to changing associations between traditional gen-
der roles and entrepreneurship [27], and the differential effects of COVID-19 on (especially
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689 9 of 13

married) women—for example, Yidirim and Eslen-ZIya [61] found a jump in housework
hours for married women, as opposed to almost no increase for married men. It should be
noted though that this gender difference, while significant, is small (Cohen’s d = 0.22). This
is consistent with past studies finding small [23,55,62] or mixed [34] gender differences in
entrepreneurial motivation, attitude, and intent.
Focusing on COVID-19-linked changes in attitudes toward entrepreneurship, we
found that attitudes toward opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship became more pos-
itive after the easing of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions (Hypothesis 3). That attitudes
toward entrepreneurship become more positive after the easing of lockdown restrictions
is consistent with past studies finding an uptick in entrepreneurship activity and interest
after a crisis. This increase in post-crisis entrepreneurship has been observed for both push
entrepreneurship [18,32] and pull, or opportunity-motivated, entrepreneurship [22,24]. For
example, Zhang and Huang [23] reported a post-pandemic increase in Chinese college
students’ inclination to start an online business. Our results, recorded after the easing of
lockdown restrictions, also contrast with studies such as Ruiz-Rosa et al. [21] who found
a small but significant drop in social entrepreneurial intention during lockdown restric-
tions. This change in positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship is significant but small
(Cohen’s d = 0.20). This may be due to the varied effects of COVID-19 on entrepreneurship
and work-life [30]. COVID-19, as a career shock, can have both positive and negative effects
on entrepreneurship [15]. Crucially too, we take the easing of lockdown measures as an
indicator of “after a crisis”. Yet, for many people, especially those in presently still affected
industries such as tourism, the easing of lockdown measures may not signal the end of the
crisis. This variability in COVID-19 effects is a plausible explanation for the small effect
size observed.
Exploring the antecedents to attitudes toward entrepreneurship, we found that pre-
COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type goal fulfil-
ment predicts positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship (Hypothesis 4). This, alongside
entrepreneurship’s capacity for prosocial goal fulfilment, continued to predict positive
attitudes toward entrepreneurship after lockdown restrictions were eased (Hypothesis 5).
Interesting, post-COVID-19 easing of lockdown restrictions, entrepreneurship’s capacity for
prosocial goal fulfilment was a larger predictor of positive attitudes toward entrepreneur-
ship than entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil agentic-type goals. It should be noted that
while significant, the variance in attitudes toward entrepreneurship that is accounted for by
entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment is small at less
than 10%. Because attitudes to entrepreneurship are formed through a broad set of beliefs,
including emotional and self-efficacy beliefs [27], this finding is not unexpected. Future
studies can examine a broader set of antecedents for attitudes toward entrepreneurship.
Our finding that entrepreneurship is now evaluated too for its capacity for prosocial
goal fulfilment supports Kramer and Kramer’s [39] hypothesis that positive changes in the
status of some occupations may have occurred as a result of COVID-19. This finding is also
a positive outcome that Jakob et al. [27] were trying to achieve through their experimental
manipulation. COVID-19 has led to the emphasis of prosociality at an individual level—be
it through our personal sacrifices in this social dilemma [42] or our allocation of resources
based on needs and deservedness [43]. Likewise, this emphasis on prosociality is observed
at an organisational and entrepreneurship level [45,46,49].

5.2. Implications and Conclusions

Our study yields two practical implications. The first is that attitudes and intentions
toward opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship may become more positive as lockdown
measures are eased. COVID-19 then presents an opportunity to spur entrepreneurship. An
example comes from Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business which organised a
pandemic “virtual idea blitz” bringing together more than 200 international participants
who collectively produced 21 social enterprise pitches in just seven days [60]. Policymakers,
especially those from countries with a poor entrepreneurial culture and low entrepreneur-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689 10 of 13

ship participation rates such as Singapore [61] and Germany [27], should see COVID-19 as
an opportunity to encourage entrepreneurship.
How then can educators of entrepreneurship education programmes and policymak-
ers spur entrepreneurship? The second study implication provides a clue. Our findings
suggest that more positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship may be promoted by empha-
sising the prosocial value of entrepreneurship. Because of COVID-19, entrepreneurship
education is in urgent need of change [62] and this can include how entrepreneurship is
portrayed [27]. Entrepreneurship, promoted as a force for social good, may also attract
more sources of seed financing which has declined markedly because of the pandemic [63].
In sum, entrepreneurship should be promoted as a way to achieve both agentic-type and
prosocial goals so as to increase subsequent entrepreneurship rates.
Increasing entrepreneurship rates among women can help tackle gender inequal-
ity [11,12] and achieve the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal 5 of empow-
ering women and girls. Our finding that women believed more strongly than men that
entrepreneurship can lead to the fulfilment of agentic-type goals (e.g., the acquisition of
power and achievements) needs to be verified because such beliefs can guide policymaking
and entrepreneurship education programmes. Already, we know of the differential effects
of COVID-19 on female professionals [64] and entrepreneurs [65,66]. Our finding of gender
differences in terms of beliefs about entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type goal
fulfilment merits further investigation.
This study has two noteworthy limitations. Both limitations centre on the idea that
COVID-190 s effect on individuals has been uneven (e.g., compare eCommerce business
owners versus nightclub operators) and that this affects entrepreneurship-related outcomes.
For example, Zhang and Huang [23] found a positive correlation between entrepreneurial
self-efficacy and how the post-pandemic entrepreneurial environment is subjectively per-
ceived. Yet, this study did not measure the idiosyncratic effects of COVID-19 on individual
participants. This should be remedied in future research through, for example, a self-
reported questionnaire such as the COVID Stress Scales [67]. The second limitation relates
to the varied and dynamic nature of COVID-19 and lockdown restrictions. Future changes
in lockdown restrictions are expected and different degrees of easing of lockdown measures
will occur. More follow-up studies, especially longitudinal ones, tracking these dynamic
and varied changes, will provide a more nuanced understanding.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Singapore University of Social Sciences’s Institutional
Review Board on 10 February 2020 (Approval Number: APR-0078-V1.0-10022020).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are openly available in FigShare at
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14837511 (accessed on 23 June 2021).
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. The World Bank. COVID-19 to Plunge Global Economy into Worst Recession since World War II [Press Release]. 2020. Available
online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/06/08/covid-19-to-plunge-global-economy-into-worst-
recession-since-world-war-ii (accessed on 8 June 2020).
2. Barykin, S.Y.; Kapustina, I.V.; Kalinina, O.V.; Dubolazov, V.A.; Esquivel CA, N.; Alyarovna, N.E.; Sharapaev, P. The sharing
economy and digital logistics in retail chains: Opportunities and threats. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2021, 20, 1–14.
3. Wang, Y.; Di, Y.; Ye, J.; Wei, W. Study on the public psychological states and its related factors during the outbreak of coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some regions of China. Psychol. Health Med. 2020, 26, 13–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Keshky, E.; El Sayed, M.; Basyouni, S.S.; Al Sabban, A.M. Getting through COVID-19: The Pandemic’s Impact on the Psychology
of Sustainability, Quality of Life, and the Global Economy—A Systematic Review. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 3188. [CrossRef]
5. Pieh, C.; Budimir, S.; Probst, T. The effect of age, gender, income, work, and physical activity on mental health during coronavirus
disease (COVID-19) lockdown in Austria. J. Psychosom. Res. 2020, 136, 110186. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689 11 of 13

6. Cowling, M.; Brown, R.; Rocha, A. Did you save some cash for a rainy COVID-19 day? The crisis and SMEs. Int. Small Bus. J. Res.
Entrep. 2020, 38, 593–604. [CrossRef]
7. International Labour Organization. The Power of Small: Unlocking the Potential of SMES. 2019. Available online: https:
//www.ilo.org/infostories/en-GB/Stories/Employment/SMEs#intro (accessed on 10 June 2020).
8. Kraus, P.; Stokes, P.; Cooper, S.C.; Liu, Y.; Moore, N.; Britzelmaier, B.; Tarba, S. Cultural Antecedents of Sustainability and Regional
Economic Development–A Study of SME ‘Mittelstand’ Firms in Baden-Württemberg (Germany). Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2020, 32,
629–653. [CrossRef]
9. Kerr, I.R. Leadership strategies for sustainable SME operation. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2005, 15, 30–39. [CrossRef]
10. Maritz, A.; Perenyi, A.; De Waal, G.; Buck, C. Entrepreneurship as the Unsung Hero during the Current COVID-19 Economic
Crisis: Australian Perspectives. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4612. [CrossRef]
11. Bianco, M.E.; Lombe, M.; Bolis, M. Challenging gender norms and practices through women’s entrepreneurship. Int. J.
Gend. Entrep. 2017, 9, 338–358. [CrossRef]
12. Gabarret, I.; D’Andria, A. Improving gender equality through entrepreneurship: The role of women-dedicated business incubators.
J. Int. Counc. Small Bus. 2021, 1–11. [CrossRef]
13. Mahmoud, Y.; Makoond, A.; Naik, A. Entrepreneurship for Sustaining Peace; International Peace Institute: New York, NY, USA,
2017. Available online: http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep17507.7 (accessed on 12 June 2020).
14. Moya-Clemente, I.; Ribes-Giner, G.; Pantoja-Díaz, O. Configurations of sustainable development goals that promote sustainable
entrepreneurship over time. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 28, 572–584. [CrossRef]
15. Rummel, S.; Akkermans, J.; Blokker, R.; Van Gelderen, M. Shocks and entrepreneurship: A study of career shocks among newly
graduated entrepreneurs. Career Dev. Int. 2019. [CrossRef]
16. Nummela, N.; Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E.; Harikkala-Laihinen, R.; Raitis, J. When all doors close: Implications of COVID-19 for
cosmopolitan entrepreneurs. Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep. 2020, 38, 711–717. [CrossRef]
17. Ratten, V. Coronavirus (covid-19) and entrepreneurship: Changing life and work landscape. J. Small Bus. Entrep. 2020,
32, 503–516. [CrossRef]
18. Devece, C.; Peris-Ortiz, M.; Rueda-Armengot, C. Entrepreneurship during economic crisis: Success factors and paths to failure.
J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5366–5370. [CrossRef]
19. Melugbo, D.U.; Ogbuakanne, M.U.; Jemisenia, J.O. Entrepreneurial potential self-assessment in times of COVID-19: Assessing
readiness, engagement, motivations and limitations among young adults in Nigeria. Ianna J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2020, 2, 12–28.
20. Cepel, M.; Gavurova, B.; Dvorsky, J.; Belas, J. The impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the perception of business risk in the SME
segment. J. Int. Stud. 2020, 13, 248–263. [CrossRef]
21. Ruiz-Rosa, I.; Gutiérrez-Taño, D.; García-Rodríguez, F. Social Entrepreneurial Intention and the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic:
A Structural Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6970. [CrossRef]
22. Shepherd, D.A. COVID 19 and Entrepreneurship: Time to Pivot? J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 57, 1750–1753. [CrossRef]
23. Zhang, J.; Huang, J. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Mediates the Impact of the Post-pandemic Entrepreneurship Environment on
College Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 643184. [CrossRef]
24. Nuringsih, N.M.K. The Propensity for Social Entrepreneurship during the Coronavirus Outbreak. J. Manaj. 2020,
24, 174–193. [CrossRef]
25. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
26. Aparicio, S.; Turro, A.; Noguera, M. Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship in Social, Sustainable, and Economic Development:
Opportunities and Challenges for Future Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8958. [CrossRef]
27. Jakob, E.A.; Isidor, R.; Steinmetz, H.; Wehner, M.C.; Kabst, R.; Schmitz, E.A. The other side of the same coin—How communal
beliefs about entrepreneurship influence attitudes toward entrepreneurship. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019, 112, 431–445. [CrossRef]
28. Goh, T. Six Months of Covid-19 in Singapore: A Timeline. The Strait Times. Available online: https://www.straitstimes.com/
singapore/six-months-of-covid-19-in-singapore-a-timeline (accessed on 26 July 2020).
29. Chong, C. Panic Buying, Circuit Breaker and Reopening: A Timeline of S’pore’s Covid-19 Fight. The Strait Times. Available
online: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/panic-buying-circuit-breaker-and-reopening-a-timeline-of-spores-covid-19
-fight (accessed on 23 January 2021).
30. Akkermans, J.; Richardson, J.; Kraimer, M.L. The Covid-19 crisis as a career shock: Implications for careers and vocational
behavior. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 119, 103434. [CrossRef]
31. Gomes, S.; Sousa, M.; Santos, T.; Oliveira, J.; Oliveira, M.; Lopes, J. Opening the “Black Box” of University Entrepreneurial
Intention in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 181. [CrossRef]
32. Liñán, F.; Jaén, I. The Covid-19 pandemic and entrepreneurship: Some reflections. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2020. [CrossRef]
33. Martínez-González, J.A.; Kobylinska, U.; García-Rodríguez, F.J.; Nazarko, L. Antecedents of Entrepreneurial Intention among
Young People: Model and Regional Evidence. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6993. [CrossRef]
34. Veciana, J.M.; Aponte, M.; Urbano, D. University Students’ Attitudes Towards Entrepreneurship: A Two Countries Comparison.
Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2005, 1, 165–182. [CrossRef]
35. Su, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Chen, J.; Jin, Y.; Wang, T.; Lin, C.-L.; Xu, D. Factors Influencing Entrepreneurial Intention of University Students in
China: Integrating the Perceived University Support and Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4519. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689 12 of 13

36. Kautonen, T.; van Gelderen, M.; Fink, M. Robustness of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions
and Actions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2015, 39, 655–674. [CrossRef]
37. Păunescu, C.; Popescu, M.C.; Duennweber, M. Factors Determining Desirability of Entrepreneurship in Romania. Sustainability
2018, 10, 3893. [CrossRef]
38. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40,
471–499. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Kramer, A.; Kramer, K.Z. The potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on occupational status, work from home, and
occupational mobility. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 119, 103442. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Jung, E.; Lee, Y. College Students’ Entrepreneurial Mindset: Educational Experiences Override Gender and Major. Sustainability
2020, 12, 8272. [CrossRef]
41. Syropoulos, S.; Markowitz, E.M. Prosocial responses to COVID-19: Examining the role of gratitude, fairness and legacy motives.
Pers. Individ. Differ. 2020, 171, 110488. [CrossRef]
42. Jin, S.; Balliet, D.; Romano, A.; Spadaro, G.; van Lissa, C.J.; Agostini, M.; Bélanger, J.J.; Gützkow, B.; Kreienkamp, J.; Lean-
der, N.P.; et al. Intergenerational conflicts of interest and prosocial behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pers. Individ. Differ.
2021, 171, 110535. [CrossRef]
43. Van De Groep, S.; Zanolie, K.; Green, K.H.; Sweijen, S.W.; Crone, E.A. A daily diary study on adolescents’ mood, empathy, and
prosocial behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0240349. [CrossRef]
44. Chen, H.; Liu, S.; Liu, X.; Yang, D. Adversity Tries Friends: A Multilevel Analysis of Corporate Philanthropic Response to the
Local Spread of COVID-19 in China. J. Bus. Ethic 2021, 1–28. [CrossRef]
45. Bacq, S.; Lumpkin, G.T. Social Entrepreneurship and COVID-19. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 58, 285–288. [CrossRef]
46. Manuel, T.; Herron, T.L. An ethical perspective of business CSR and the COVID-19 pandemic. Soc. Bus. Rev. 2020,
15, 235–253. [CrossRef]
47. García-Sánchez, I.-M.; García-Sánchez, A. Corporate Social Responsibility during COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Open Innov. Technol.
Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 126. [CrossRef]
48. Mahmud, A.; Ding, D.; Hasan, M. Corporate Social Responsibility: Business Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic.
SAGE Open 2021, 11. [CrossRef]
49. He, H.; Harris, L. The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy. J. Bus. Res.
2020, 116, 176–182. [CrossRef]
50. Han, Q.; Zheng, B.; Cristea, M.; Agostini, M.; Bélanger, J.J.; Gützkow, B.; Kreienkamp, J.; Leander, N.P.; PsyCorona Collaboration.
Trust in government regarding COVID-19 and its associations with preventive health behaviour and prosocial behaviour during
the pandemic: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Psychol. Med. 2021, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Lim, V.W.; Lim, R.L.; Tan, Y.R.; Soh, A.S.; Tan, M.X.; Othman, N.B.; Dickens, S.B.; Thein, T.-L.; Lwin, M.O.; Ong, R.T.-H.; et al.
Government trust, perceptions of COVID-19 and behaviour change: Cohort surveys, Singapore. Bull. World Health Organ. 2020,
99, 92–101. [CrossRef]
52. Hofstede, G. Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 1984, 1, 81–99. [CrossRef]
53. Margaça, C.; Hernández-Sánchez, B.R.; Cardella, G.M.; Sánchez-García, J.C. Impact of the Optimistic Perspective on the Intention
to Create Social Enterprises: A Comparative Study Between Portugal and Spain. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12. [CrossRef]
54. Nikolaev, B.N.; Boudreaux, C.J.; Palich, L. Cross-Country Determinants of Early-Stage Necessity and Opportunity-Motivated
Entrepreneurship: Accounting for Model Uncertainty. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2018, 56, 243–280. [CrossRef]
55. Steinmetz, H.; Isidor, R.; Bauer, C. Gender Differences in the Intention to Start a Business. Z. Psychol. 2021, 229, 70–84. [CrossRef]
56. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. GEM 2017/2018 Global Report. 2018. Available online: https://gemconsortium.org/report/
gem-2017-2018-global-report (accessed on 8 June 2020).
57. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Entrepreneurship in Singapore. 2014. Available online: https://www.gemconsortium.org/
economy-profiles/singapore (accessed on 9 January 2021).
58. Shorey, S.; Ang, E.; Yamina, A.; Tam, C. Perceptions of public on the COVID-19 outbreak in Singapore: A qualitative content
analysis. J. Public Health 2020, 42, 665–671. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Tan, S. First Case of Likely Covid-19 Reinfection in Singapore Detected, Located in Dormitory. The Strait Times. Avail-
able online: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/first-case-of-likely-covid-19-reinfection-in-singapore-located-
in-dormitory (accessed on 6 February 2021).
60. Bacq, S.; Geoghegan, W.; Josefy, M.; Stevenson, R.; Williams, T.A. The COVID-19 Virtual Idea Blitz: Marshaling social en-
trepreneurship to rapidly respond to urgent grand challenges. Bus. Horiz. 2020, 63, 705–723. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Chua, H.S.; Bedford, O. A Qualitative Exploration of Fear of Failure and Entrepreneurial Intent in Singapore. J. Career Dev. 2015,
43, 319–334. [CrossRef]
62. Liguori, E.; Winkler, C. From Offline to Online: Challenges and Opportunities for Entrepreneurship Education Following the
COVID-19 Pandemic. Entrep. Educ. Pedagog. 2020, 3, 346–351. [CrossRef]
63. Brown, R.; Rocha, A.; Cowling, M. Financing entrepreneurship in times of crisis: Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on the
market for entrepreneurial finance in the United Kingdom. Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep. 2020, 38, 380–390. [CrossRef]
64. Yildirim, T.M.; Eslen-Ziya, H. The differential impact of COVID-19 on the work conditions of women and men academics during
the lockdown. Gend. Work. Organ. 2020, 28, 243–249. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8689 13 of 13

65. Haus, I.; Steinmetz, H.; Isidor, R.; Kabst, R. Gender effects on entrepreneurial intention: A meta-analytical structural equation
model. Int. J. Gend. Entrep. 2013, 5, 130–156. [CrossRef]
66. Reuschke, D.; Henley, A.; Daniel, E.; Price, V. Testing the Differential Impact of COVID-19 on Self-Employed Women and Men in
the United Kingdom. IZA Discussion Paper No. 14216. 2021. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3813642 (accessed on
10 June 2020).
67. Taylor, S.; Landry, C.; Paluszek, M.M.; Fergus, T.A.; McKay, D.; Asmundson, G.J. Development and initial validation of the
COVID Stress Scales. J. Anxiety Disord. 2020, 72, 102232. [CrossRef] [PubMed]