Journal of Social Entrepreneurship

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjse20

Intention Towards Digital Social Entrepreneurship:

An Integrated Model

Arpita Ghatak, Swagato Chatterjee & Bhaskar Bhowmick

To cite this article: Arpita Ghatak, Swagato Chatterjee & Bhaskar Bhowmick (2023)
Intention Towards Digital Social Entrepreneurship: An Integrated Model, Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship, 14:2, 131-151, DOI: 10.1080/19420676.2020.1826563

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2020.1826563

Published online: 12 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1441

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 18 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjse20
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
2023, VOL. 14, NO. 2, 131–151
https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2020.1826563

Intention Towards Digital Social Entrepreneurship:

An Integrated Model
Arpita Ghataka, Swagato Chatterjeeb and Bhaskar Bhowmicka
a
Rajendra Mishra School of Engineering Entrepreneurship, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur,
Kharagpur, India; bVinod Gupta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur,
Kharagpur, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The purpose of this paper is to develop an integrated model find- Digital; social
ing the antecedents of intention towards digital social entrepre- entrepreneurship; feasibility;
neurship (IDSE). Based on the basic frameworks of entrepreneurial desirability; self-efficacy
intention theory, the theory of planned behaviour, and expect-
ancy theory the paper proposes that experiences in social organ-
isation and digital organisation lead to IDSE. Empathy, moral
obligation, self-efficacy, perceived social support, perceived feasi-
bility and perceived desirability act as mediating variables in the
above relationships. The study validates the hypotheses by testing
a series of possible empirical models on survey data with 482
responses. The theoretical and policy implications have been dis-
cussed in detail.

Introduction
Social entrepreneurship has received quite a bit of interest from academicians, policy-
makers and entrepreneurs in the last decade. It not only ensures efforts towards social
purposes through social innovation and management of social organisations but also
focuses on income generation which gives sustainability of such efforts (Thompson,
Alvy, and Lees 2000). Social entrepreneurship behaviour can be defined as a market
and nonmarket activities that can lead to the creation of opportunities inducing social
impacts (Hockerts 2007, 2010, 2017). Therefore, social entrepreneurship plays an
important aspect in social welfare and a noble career choice. A rise in the availability
and affordability of technology has resulted in increased usage of digital technology
in the operations of such social entrepreneurship. The digital social entrepreneurship
(DSE), which is described as the form of entrepreneurship that uses digital technology
as an inevitable part of its business model and uses the advantage of digital technol-
ogy for social impact, and is the future of social entrepreneurship (Short, Moss, and
Lumpkin 2009). This article focuses on the antecedents of intentions towards digital
social entrepreneurship (IDSE).

CONTACT Arpita Ghatak arpitaghatak@iitkgp.ac.in Rajendra Mishra School of Engineering Entrepreneurship,

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302, India
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
132 A. GHATAK ET AL.

The study of intentions of IDSE is important for academicians, practitioners and pol-
icymakers. With the boom of the internet of things (IoT), business models with digital
technology as the main driver have become very common in the last decade (Richter,
Kraus, and Syrj€a 2015; Nambisan 2017). However, it has been also noticed that a sig-
nificant proportion of such digital entrepreneurial initiatives fail, mostly due to a lack
of business acumen (Patel 2015). Similar patterns can also be seen in the context of
social entrepreneurship which is digitally driven (Catin 2014). This makes knowledge
about the following important: Who is coming to DSE and why? What leads to digital
social entrepreneurial intentions? Answers to the above questions will not only help
the policymakers to understand motivations for DSE but also has a better policy that
can promote DSE and reduce failures of DSE.
Based on responses from 482 students of post-graduate courses in various manage-
ment schools in India, the study has analysed and compared multiple models and
finally created an integrated model of IDSE which finds the impact of prior social
experience and digital experience on the intentions. It has also found the mediating
effects of empathy, moral obligation, self-efficacy and perceived social support on the
effect of prior social experience on entrepreneurial intentions. Further, it found the
mediating impact of perceived feasibility and perceived desirability on the effect of
prior digital experience on entrepreneurial intentions.
The study contributes towards the literature of antecedents of entrepreneurship by
introducing an integrated model for IDSE. Although a few studies in the extant litera-
ture has focussed on the antecedents of social entrepreneurship (Hockerts 2017), it is
important to understand that DSE is different from other forms of social entrepreneur-
ship and so are the antecedents (Davidson and Vaast 2010; Hafezieh, Akhavan, and
Eshraghian 2011). The paper also contributes towards the literature on gendered view
of entrepreneurship and contribute to the gender–pro-social attitude link (Wilson,
Kickul, and Marlino 2007; Eagly 2009). Moreover, the study contributes towards the
extant literature on age–entrepreneurial intention relationships as social empathy and
perceived feasibility along with risk-seeking behaviour can be influenced by age
(Smith and McSweeney 2007; Schwarz et al. 2009; Bekkers 2010). While a study on
such antecedents is a contribution to the theory, it also helps the policymakers to
have an empirical understanding of the antecedents so that they can make policies
that can encourage the right set of people in the right way in choosing DSE.
In the next parts of the paper first, the literature gap is discussed along with how
the study fills the same. This is followed by the creation of the theoretical model and
the empirical establishment of the model. The paper ends with discussions of the find-
ings, theoretical contributions and managerial implications of the paper followed by
limitations and conclusions.

Literature Review
The studies on entrepreneurial intention have been a topic of research for years. While
studies on entrepreneurial intentions were ample in extant literature; based on the
entrepreneurial intention theory (Krueger 1993; Krueger et al. 2006) and theory of
planned behaviour (Ajzen 1985), Mair and Noboa (2006) have proposed a model of
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 133

social entrepreneurship first. According to them, the four major antecedents of social
entrepreneurship are:

a. Empathy as a proxy for attitudes towards behaviour,

b. Moral judgement as a proxy for social norms,
c. Self-efficacy as a proxy for internal behavioural control, and
d. Perceived presence of social support as a proxy for external behavioural control.

Out of all these, empathy, moral judgement, pro-social attitude and pro-social
motivation are found to be the strongest driver of social entrepreneurship (Douglas
and Prentice 2019; Yamini, Soloveva, and Peng 2020). The impact of the above antece-
dents on intention towards social entrepreneurship is mediated by perceived desirabil-
ity and perceived feasibility (Mair and Noboa 2006). Later, a few researchers have tried
to validate the Mair and Noboa (2006) model in various contexts such as international
social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship by corporate volunteers, etc.
(Tukamushaba, Orobia, and George 2011; Forster and Grichnik 2013; Hockerts 2017).
Another stream of literature that also focussed on the application of TPB on social
entrepreneurial intention was done by Ernst (2011) where she found partial support.
On the other hand, concepts of digital entrepreneurship, although new, are getting
importance in academia in recent times (Nambisan 2017). With the advancement of
internet and information technology and its application in business, digital entrepre-
neurship has become an area of interest. While certain advantages of digital entrepre-
neurship are reduced transaction and administration costs, increased agility,
internationalisation and increased customer participation, disadvantages include diffi-
culties with protecting Intellectual Property, creating a corporate culture, employee
loyalty and inter-company communication (Asghari and Gedeon 2010). However, the
authors could not find any study that specifically focuses on the antecedents of inten-
tions towards digital entrepreneurship.
In this study, the authors try to extend the literature of social entrepreneurial inten-
tions by bringing in the context of digital business in it. The authors try to model the
antecedents of DSE from the models of Mair and Noboa (2006). This study is also
probably the first study which tries to validate the classical intention towards entrepre-
neurship models in the context of digital entrepreneurship. Thus, the current study is
unique and has huge significance towards literature.
Table 1 gives the relative position of this paper in comparison to extant literature.

Hypotheses Development
The study starts with four social entrepreneurial antecedents as proposed by Mair and
Noboa (2006). The following paragraphs first discuss the same.

Empathy
Empathy, as proposed by Mair and Noboa (2006), is a proxy of an individual’s attitude
towards social entrepreneurship. This means that empathy is more of a personal
134 A. GHATAK ET AL.

Table 1. Comparative position of the current study in extant literature.

Intention Intention
towards social towards digital Perceived Perceived
Paper Theoretical background entrepreneurship entrepreneurship feasibility desirability
Mair and Entrepreneurial intention Yes No No No
Noboa (2006) theory (Krueger 1993;
Krueger et al. 2006)
and theory of planned
behaviour (Ajzen 1985)
Tukamushaba, The theory of Yes No No No
Orobia, and entrepreneurial event
George (2011) (Shapero 1982) and
theory of planned
behaviour (Ajzen 1985)
Ernst (2011) Theory of planned Yes No No No
behaviour (Ajzen 1985)
Forster and Entrepreneurial intention Yes No No No
Grichnik theory (Krueger 1993;
(2013) Krueger et al. 2006)
and theory of planned
behaviour (Ajzen 1985)
Hockerts (2017) Entrepreneurial intention Yes No No No
theory (Krueger 1993;
Krueger et al. 2006)
and theory of planned
behaviour (Ajzen 1985)
Douglas and Theory of planned Yes No No No
Prentice behaviour (Ajzen 1985)
(2019) and “prosocial attitude”
Yamini, Soloveva, “Prosocial attitude” Yes No No No
and
Peng (2020)
Our study Entrepreneurial intention Yes Yes Yes Yes
theory (Krueger 1993;
Krueger et al. 2006),
theory of planned
behaviour (Ajzen 1985),
expectancy theory
(Vroom 1964)

attitude than behaviour. Empathy can be defined as an individual’s ability to under-

stand other’s mental state and feelings and to respond the same emotionally and
compassionately (Goetz, Keltner, and Simon-Thomas 2010). High empathy leads to vol-
unteer services and thus empathy has been established as a predictor of intentions
towards social entrepreneurship by various researchers. Hockerts (2017) has focussed
on cognitive and affective empathy and how that impacts social entrepreneurial inten-
tions. The above relationships should also hold in the context of DSE. This leads to
the first hypotheses:
H1: Empathy is positively related to IDSE

Moral Obligation
Perceived moral belief is one of the major characteristics of social entrepreneurs
(Bornstein 1996; Hemingway 2005; Yiu et al. 2014). Moral obligation exerts social pres-
sure which strengthens the intentions towards social entrepreneurship (Schlaegel and
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 135

Koenig 2014). There is a debate on the background theory on how moral judgement
impacts social entrepreneurial intentions. While Mair and Noboa (2006) follow the
models of Kohlberg (1981) while creating the explanation of the impact of moral
judgement, Hockerts (2015) follows the model of Haines, Street, and Haines (2008)
and suggests that the sense of social norm saying that helping marginalised people is
a moral obligation leads to higher social entrepreneurial intentions. The Hockerts
(2015) model is extended in the case of IDSE.
H2: A perception that societal norms imply a moral obligation to help marginalised
people is positively related to IDSE

Self-Efficacy for Social Problems

Self-efficacy has been defined as one’s appreciation of his ability to successfully act
(Bandura 1977). Extant literature often found self-efficacy as a predictor of various vol-
unteer behaviour (Giles et al. 2004) such as blood donation, relief collection, etc. and
entrepreneurial behaviour both in social (Mair and Noboa, 2006; Hockerts 2017) and
not social contexts (Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005). Here, the authors have theorised
self-efficacy as an individual’s belief that he can contribute towards social problems
using digital media.
H3: Self-efficacy for DSE is positively related to IDSE.

Perceived Social Support

Mair and Noboa (2006) model also focuses on a person’s perception of external con-
trol which is an important antecedent of intentions. They hypothesise the expected
supports from the surroundings can be one of the proxies of such external control.
Therefore, if a social entrepreneur can expect social support for his entrepreneurship,
such as funding, environment, availability of volunteers, etc., his intention towards
social entrepreneurship increases (Hockerts 2017). The impact of social networks on
the success of entrepreneurship has been empirically established by researchers
(Greve and Salaff 2003). The authors extend a similar hypothesis in the context of DSE.
H4: Perceived availability of social support is positively related to IDSE.

Perceived Feasibility and Desirability

According to expectancy theory, individuals will act in a certain way based on the fol-
lowing two things, (a) their expectation that the action will lead to some results and
(b) the valence associated with such results (Vroom 1964). Extant literature on entre-
preneurial intentions has suggested that the above-mentioned expectancy theory can
be applied in the context of entrepreneurial decision making. In this context, the per-
ceived feasibility of having successful entrepreneurship acts as a proxy of the expect-
ation of results. Moreover, the perceived desirability of the entrepreneurial actions will
act as a proxy of the valence associated with the results (Steel and Konig 2006;
136 A. GHATAK ET AL.

Fitzsimmons and Douglas 2011). The authors extend the above in the context of DSE
and suggest the following hypotheses.
H5: Perceived feasibility of DSE is positively related to IDSE
H6: Perceived desirability of DSE is positively related to DSE

Social Experience
This paper extends the Mair and Noboa (2006) study by following the Hockerts (2017)
study, where the concept of prior social experience and its impact on intention
towards social entrepreneurship is discussed. It has been found that prior work experi-
ence and family exposure leads to positive entrepreneurial intentions (Carr and
Sequeira 2007; Chlosta et al. 2012; Kautonen, Luoto, and Tornikoski 2010). Moreover,
prior personal experience about solving social problems or prior knowledge about the
degree of social issues leads to voluntary behaviour, pro-social initiatives and social
entrepreneurship (Vining and Ebreo 1989; Ernst 2011; Yiu et al. 2014; Hockerts 2017).
The authors try to extend these results in the context of DSE.
H7: Prior experience with social organisations is positively related to IDSE

The above link between prior social experience and IDSE can take five paths, some
of which are suggested by Hockerts (2017). Empathy towards a needy person comes
from the closeness of the person in need and prior experience with a certain type of
need (Batson et al. 1997; Tukamushaba, Orobia, and George 2011). Therefore, social
experience can lead to higher empathy which in turn impacts IDSE. Moreover, expos-
ure towards social problems can also lead to an increased sense of moral obligation
towards the affected which may impact IDSE (Comunian and Gielen 1995; Mair and
Noboa 2006; Hockerts 2017). Thirdly, personal experience with social organisations
may lead to better availability of information about social problems and potential sol-
utions, leading to task familiarity which is a predictor of self-efficacy (Gist and Mitchell
1992). Experience and job duration have also been found to be predictors of self-effi-
cacy (Tierney and Farmer 2002; Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005). This in turn can impact
IDSE. Additionally, prior experience with a social organisation will also help an individ-
ual know about the potential sources of social support that can impact IDSE (Hockerts
2017). Lastly, prior job experience positively impacts the desirability of a job or a ven-
ture (Krueger 1993). Similarly, the prior social experience can also positive impact on
the desirability of DSE. Such an increased perception of desirability can impact IDSE.
Therefore, the authors propose the following hypotheses.
H8: The relationship between prior experience with social organisation and IDSE is
mediated by empathy

Experience with social organisation leads to a pro-social attitude in the minds of

the individuals. It helps them develop a moral obligation towards solving social prob-
lems and taking pro-social initiatives (Comunian and Gielen 1995; Mair and Noboa
2006; Hockerts 2017). Past research in allied areas has confirmed the above sequence.
Previous experience with organic products leads to the higher choice intention of
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 137

organic wine (Thogersen 2002) or experience with reservation parks leading to pro-
environmental intentions (Coff 1999) are examples of such associations.
H9: The relationship between prior experience with social organisation and IDSE is
mediated by moral obligation

Personal experience with the social organisation will lead to information availabil-
ity about social entrepreneurship and will help individuals correctly assess their skills
and abilities about DSE (Hockerts 2017). Past research has also supported such rela-
tionships where task familiarity, prior work experience, and job tenure predicted the
self-efficacy of a person for a job (Gist and Mitchell 1992; Tierney and Farmer 2002;
Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005). Such information and assessment lead to self-efficacy
for DSE which in turn impacts the entrepreneurial intentions. Self-efficacy increases
the controllability of behaviour leading to increased intention (Ajzen 1985).
H10: The relationship between prior experience with social organisation and IDSE is
mediated by self-efficacy for DSE

Social support increases the ability to control the success of behaviour which leads
to behavioural intention (Ajzen 1985). Therefore, along with self-efficacy, perceived
social support also impacts entrepreneurial intentions. Individuals who have experi-
ence with the social organisation also have fast hand experience of availability and
source of social support (Hockerts 2017). Therefore, perceived social support mediates
the impact of prior experience on digital social entrepreneurial intentions.
H11: The relationship between prior experience with social organisation and IDSE is
mediated by the perceived availability of social support

Prior experience with a job helps individuals to measure the perceived desirability
of the job (Pounder and Merrill 2001). It also helps them to judge how intrinsic and
extrinsic rewarding the job is (Courtright and Mackey 2004). Highly rewarding jobs
lead to higher intentions towards them. Similar relations will apply in the case of
DSE too. Experience with social organisations will help individuals to gauge how
attractive and how good a fit DSE is. This perceived desirability will lead to
higher IDSE.
H12: The relationship between prior experience with social organisation and IDSE is
mediated by the perceived desirability of DSE

Digital Experience
As suggested before, prior work experience and family exposure lead to positive entre-
preneurial intentions. Similarly, prior experience with a digital organisation will lead to
a better idea of how a given problem can be solved using digital technologies
(Scuotto and Morellato 2013). This will also give the individual an idea of whether it is
feasible to solve a social problem digitally, or what has to be done to make it digitally
feasible. Such knowledge will also positively impact the IDSE. Therefore, the authors
propose the following hypotheses. The authors also propose that the above effect will
further increase when the individuals have experienced both in social and digital
138 A. GHATAK ET AL.

organisations because the cross-industry experience will help them build out-of-the-
box solutions to social problems using digital technologies.
H13: Prior experience with digital organisations is positively related to IDSE

H14: The interaction of prior experiences with social and digital organisations is positively
related to IDSE

While self-efficacy and social support lead to higher control towards DSE through
internal capability and external assistance, following psychological studies the authors
can suggest that, control can be further affected by the perceived feasibility of the
entrepreneurial solution (Sheeran et al. 2002). Not all social problems or entrepreneur-
ial solutions can be provided by using digital technology or by creating a digital
organisation. Therefore, whether the feasibility of DSE will be one of the major predic-
tors of the intentions (Guerrero, Rialp, and Urbano 2008). However, such feasibility can
be assessed better by the individuals having prior experience with digital organisa-
tions (Krueger 1993). Therefore, perceived feasibility mediates the relationship between
prior experience with the digital organisation and IDSE.
H15: The relationship between prior experience with the digital organisation and IDSE is
mediated by the perceived feasibility of DSE

While experience in the social organisation will help individuals to gauge the desir-
ability in the social aspects of DSE, experience in the digital organisation will also help
them to get an idea about the desirability of the digital aspects of the entrepreneur-
ship. Therefore, the perceived desirability of DSE will mediate the relationship between
prior experience with the digital organisation and IDSE too.
H16: The relationship between prior experience with the digital organisation and IDSE is
mediated by the perceived desirability of DSE

Perceived desirability will further increase when both social and digital aspects of
the job become desirable. Therefore, individuals having prior experiences in both
social and digital organisations will feel DSE further desirable which will lead to posi-
tive IDSE.
H17: The relationship between the interaction of prior experiences with digital and social
organisations and IDSE is mediated by the perceived desirability of DSE

Figure 1 gives a graphical representation of the hypotheses and the pro-

posed model.

Empirical Analysis
Sample
The authors have used survey-based data for the analysis. Following Krueger (1993)
who suggested that the data related to entrepreneurial choice should be collected
from the sample who are also facing similar choices in their life, the authors have
decided to collect data from post-graduate students currently studying in manage-
ment colleges in India. This choice of sample is in line with existing studies in a similar
area (Hockerts 2017). The survey was sent to 837 students out of which 512 replied.
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 139

Figure 1. The theoretical model for intent for digital social entrepreneurship.

Four hundred and eighty-two (482) data points were usable for analysis and the rest
has to be removed due to incomplete data. Fifty-three percent of the respondents are
female. The average age of the respondents was 24.3 years. Respondents had 1.3 years
of average experience in digital technology and 0.7 years of average experience in
social aspects. The authors also considered part-time experiences (internships, etc.)
while calculating the experience of the students.

Measures
The respondents were asked about their demographics first. Then they were asked to
think about their career choice in the next two years and respond to the statements,
as given in Table 2, how much they agree or disagree with them. The response was
collected on a seven-point Likert scale (one meaning strongly disagree and seven
meaning strongly agree). The statements marked as
are reverse coded and the
responses were reversed before analysis. The mean and standard deviation of the
responses are also given in Table 2. The scale of social experience has been adopted
from Hockerts (2017). The scale of digital experience has been an adapted version of
that of social experience. Other scales that are adopted from Hockerts (2017) are
empathy, moral obligations, self-efficacy for social problems, perceived social support
and IDSE. Perceived Feasibility for Digital Solutions has also been adapted from the
perceived feasibility scale of Hockerts (2017). The perceived desirability scale has been
adapted from Audet (2002) and Veciana et al. (2005).
140 A. GHATAK ET AL.

Table 2. The items used in the survey.

Item Standard
Latent variable code Statements Mean deviation Source
Social experience SE1 I have some experience working with 4.340 1.788 Hockerts (2017)
social problems
SE2 I have volunteered or otherwise worked with 4.405 1.728
social organisations
SE3 I know a lot about social organisations 4.093 1.777
Digital experience DE1 I have some experience working with 4.759 0.912 Inspired by
digital technology Hockerts (2017)
DE2 I have worked with organisations or in project 4.734 0.886
related to digital technology
DE3 I know a lot about digital technology 4.616 0.868
Empathy E1 When thinking about socially disadvantaged 4.390 1.704 Hockerts (2017)
people, I try to put myself in their shoes
E2 Seeing socially disadvantaged people triggers 4.371 1.610
an emotional response in me
E3 I feel compassion for socially 4.129 1.629
marginalised people
Moral obligation MO1 It is an ethical responsibility to help people less 4.423 1.573
fortunate than ourselves
MO2 The authors are morally obliged to help socially 4.002 1.344
disadvantaged people
MO3 Social justice requires that the authors help 3.836 1.606
those who are less fortunate than ourselves
MO4 It is one of the principles of our society that 3.863 1.604
the authors should help socially
disadvantaged people
Self-efficacy for SES1 I am convinced that I personally can make a 4.245 1.614
social problems contribution to address societal challenges if
I put my mind to it
SES2 I could figure out a way to help solve the 4.095 1.636
problems that society faces
SES3 Solving societal problems is something each of 4.239 1.355
us can contribute to
Perceived social Support PSS1 People would support me if I wanted to start 3.954 2.044
an organisation to help socially
marginalised people.
PSS2 If I planned to address a significant societal 4.044 2.031
problem people would back me up.
PSS3 It is possible to attract investors for an 3.946 2.047
organisation that wants to solve
social problems
Perceived feasibility for PF1 I am convinced that I can solve societal 3.371 1.644 Inspired by
digital solutions challenges using digital technology if I put Hockerts (2017)
my mind to it
PF2 I could figure out a digital way to help solve 3.390 1.625
the problems that society faces
PF3 Solving societal problems is something digital 3.369 1.648
technology can contribute to
Perceived desirability PD1 I find the idea of own business in the area of 4.898 1.443 Audet, (2002),
digital technology in social problems Veciana
very attractive et al. (2005)
PD2 I find digital social entrepreneurship as a highly 4.971 1.443
desirable career option
Intent for digital social IDSE1 I expect that at some point in the future I will 4.305 1.260 Hockerts (2017)
entrepreneurship be involved in launching an organisation
that aims to solve social problems using
digital technology
IDSE2 I have a preliminary idea for a digital social 4.384 1.298
enterprise on which I plan to act in
the future
IDSE3 I do not plan to start a digital social enterprise
4.344 1.373
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 141

Table 3. Weighted factor scores of survey scale items.

Item code SE DE E MO SES PSS PF PD IDSE
SE1 0.936
SE2 0.938
SE3 0.937
DE1 0.962
DE2 0.967
DE3 0.953
E1 0.707
E2 0.747
E3 0.776
MO1 0.812
MO2 0.915
MO3 0.892
MO4 0.812
SES1 0.877
SES2 0.923
SES3 0.902
PSS1 0.924
PSS2 0.828
PSS3 0.890
PF1 0.897
PF2 0.912
PF3 0.812
PD1 0.894
PD2 0.940
IDSE1 0.922
IDSE2 0.851
IDSE3 0.785
SE: social experience; DE: digital experience; E: empathy; MO: moral obligation; SES: self-efficacy for social problems;
PSS: perceived social support; PF: perceived feasibility for digital solutions; PD: perceived desirability; IDSE: intent for
digital social entrepreneurship.

Analysis and Results

Measurement Model
The measurement model shows a good fit. The Chi-square/Dof ratio is 2.263 (Chi-
square ¼ 647.385, Dof ¼ 286) which is lower than 3, the cut-off value for a good fit as
suggested by (Kline 2011). Moreover, CFI (0.981), GFI (0.907) and NFI (0.966) are higher
than the cut-off value of good-fit, that is, 0.9, as suggested by researchers (Segars and
Grover 1993; Hu and Bentler 1999; Mendy and Rahman 2019; Mendy, Rahman, and Bal
2020). The RMSEA (0.051) score is also lower than 0.08 suggesting moderate fit (Segars
and Grover 1993; Hu and Bentler 1999; Mendy and Rahman 2019; Mendy, Rahman,
and Bal 2020).
Table 3 gives the weighted factor scores of each item to the corresponding latent
variable. Also, Table 4 gives the values of composite reliability, average variance
explained and inter-construct correlations. As seen in Table 4, the composite reliability
of all the constructs is higher than 0.7 suggesting the constructs are reliable (Hair
et al. 2010).
As per Table 3, all the weighted factor loadings are higher than 0.7 suggesting high
convergent validity. Also, as seen in Table 4, the average variance explained for all the
constructs is higher than 0.5 suggesting convergent validity (Hair et al. 2010).
Additionally, the mean square variance is smaller than the average variance
explained for all the constructs. Moreover, the inter-construct correlations are lower
142 A. GHATAK ET AL.

Table 4. Composite reliability, average variance explained and inter-construct correlations.

Item Code CR AVE MSV SE DE E MO SES PSS PF PD IDSE
SE 0.772 0.659 0.358 0.812
DE 0.712 0.732 0.423 0.353 0.856
E 0.796 0.616 0.396 0.485 0.586 0.785
MO 0.845 0.550 0.411 0.256 0.386 0.511 0.742
SES 0.786 0.771 0.387 0.311 0.426 0.357 0.425 0.878
PSS 0.811 0.613 0.185 0.458 0.511 0.385 0.258 0.188 0.783
PF 0.715 0.567 0.256 0.577 0.323 0.289 0.158 0.193 0.287 0.753
PD 0.898 0.658 0.311 0.582 0.278 0.163 0.365 0.458 0.489 0.544 0.811
IDSE 0.853 0.755 0.398 0.473 0.396 0.389 0.378 0.172 0.389 0.437 0.473 0.869
CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance explained; SE: social experience; DE: digital experience; E: empathy;
MO: moral obligation; SES: self-efficacy for social problems; PSS: perceived social support; PF: perceived feasibility for
digital solutions; PD: perceived desirability; IDSE: intent for digital social entrepreneurship.

than the square root of the average variance explained for each construct, suggesting
divergent validity (Hair et al. 2010).

Structural Model
The hypotheses were tested using a series of structural equation models and the
results of such models are listed in Table 5. In Model 1, the authors have tested the
direct impact of social experience (SE) and digital experience (DE) on IDSE. The result
shows that both SE (b ¼ 0.550, p < .001) and DE (b ¼ 0.701, p < .001) has positive and
significant impact on IDSE. In Model 2, the authors have also tested the interaction
effect of SE and DE on IDSE and found it to be significant, but negative
(b ¼ 0.241, p < .001).
In Model 3, the authors introduced the mediation effect of perceived feasibility (PF).
The authors have seen that DE has a significant positive impact of PF (b ¼ 0.973,
p < .001), and PF has a significant positive impact on IDSE (b ¼ 0.537, p < .001).
However, the impact of DE on IDSE (b ¼ 0.339, p < .001) has become lower than that
in Model 1 or Model 2. This suggests that PF acts as a mediating variable between the
relationship of DE and IDSE.
In Model 4, the authors have introduced the mediation effect of perceived desirabil-
ity (PD) within the existing relationships as shown in Model 3. The authors notice that
both SE (b ¼ 0.115, p < .001) and DE (b ¼ 0.147, p < .001) has positive impact on PD.
However, the interaction between SE and DE has a negative relationship with PD
(b ¼ 0.079, p < .05). Moreover, PD has a significant positive impact on IDSE
(b ¼ 0.296, p < .001). The authors also notice, that introduction of the mediation effect
of PD further reduces the direct impact of SE (b ¼ 0.422, p < .001), DE (b ¼ 0.031, NS)
and the interaction of SE and DE (b ¼ 0.019, NS) on IDSE or makes them insignificant.
This suggests that PD acts as a mediating variable between the impact of SE, DE and
their interaction on IDSE.
In Model 5, the authors have introduced the mediating variables as explained by
Mair and Noboa (2006). The authors notice that SE has positive significant impacts on
empathy (b ¼ 0.812, p < .001), moral obligation (b ¼ 0.763, p < .001), self-efficacy
(b ¼ 0.95, p < .001) and perceived social support (b ¼ 0.535, p < .001). The authors also
notice that empathy (b ¼ 0.041, p < .05), moral obligation (b ¼ 0.078, p < .05), self-effi-
cacy (b ¼ 0.126, p < .05) and perceived social support (b ¼ 0.083, p < .05) also has posi-
tive significant impact on IDSE. However, the direct effect of SE on IDSE (b ¼ 0.231,
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 143

NS) becomes insignificant in Model 5. This suggests that empathy, moral obligation,
self-efficacy and perceived social support act as mediating variables in the impact of
SE on IDSE.
All the models present acceptable goodness of fit based on v2/df, RMSEA, CFI and
NFI. However, Model 5 has the best goodness of fit and can be explained to be more
complete. It also supports the hypotheses suggested.

General Discussion
The authors have analysed and compared multiple models and finally created an inte-
grated model of intention towards DSE which finds the impact of prior social experi-
ence and digital experience on the intentions. The authors have also found the
mediating effects of empathy, moral obligation, self-efficacy and perceived social sup-
port in the effect of prior social experience on entrepreneurial intentions. Further, the
authors found the mediating impact of perceived feasibility and perceived desirability
in the effect of prior digital experience on entrepreneurial intentions.

Theoretical Contribution
The study contributes towards the literature of antecedents of entrepreneurship by
introducing an integrated model for IDSE. While a few studies in the extant literature
has focussed on the antecedents of social entrepreneurship (Mair and Noboa 2006;
Hockerts 2017), no study in extant literature has focussed on the IDSE even though
such initiatives are becoming more and more common in the global economy. The
study of IDSE is important as one can expect a wide range of factors interplaying with
each other while forming such intentions. There are several motivations, such as altru-
ism, self-interest, traditionalism, reciprocity, etc., which have an impact on the pro-
social behaviour of individuals (Dietz, Kalof, and Stern 2002). Moreover, intentions
towards digital initiatives will also depend on attitude and control over such initiatives
(Cronan and Al-Rafee 2008). Lastly, entrepreneurial intentions are also governed by
motivations such as perceived desirability and control factors such as perceived feasi-
bility (Guerrero, Rialp, and Urbano 2008). Bringing all these under a single integrated
model is important and contributory to existing literature which the authors have
done in this study.
To be precise, the study suggests how attitudinal elements such as empathy, per-
ceived desirability and subjective norms such as moral obligation impact the IDSE. The
study also focuses on control elements such as self-efficacy, perceived social support
and perceived feasibility. The role of experience in the social and digital organisation
has also been studied. Such an integrated view extends the past work on entrepre-
neurial intention theory (Krueger 1993; Krueger et al. 2006), the theory of planned
behaviour (Ajzen 1985) and feasibility–desirability theory (Guerrero, Rialp, and
Urbano 2008).
Our study also suggests the impact of demographic factors in the integrated model of
IDSE. The authors find that the respondents are more optimistic as their age increases as,
according to the results, age has a significant positive relationship with perceived
144 A. GHATAK ET AL.

Table 5. Comparison of alternative structural models.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
v2/df 2.96 2.75 2.15 2.19 1.93
RMSEA 0.063 0.059 0.043 0.043 0.039
CFI 0.907 0.911 0.924 0.919 0.926
NFI 0.901 0.904 0.914 0.911 0.920
IDSE R2 0.760 0.777 0.793 0.794 0.817
Age 0.357 0.274 0.115 0.098 0.088
Gender 0.145 0.115 0.093 0.075 0.063
SE 0.550


0.691


0.688


0.422


0.231
DE 0.701


0.874


0.339


0.031 0.08
SE  DE 0.241


0.218


0.019 0.04
PF 0.537

0.495


0.491



PD 0.296


0.273



E 0.041

MO 0.078

SES 0.126

PSS 0.083

PF R2 0.832 0.833 0.831
Age 0.124
0.115
0.118

Gender 0.352 0.352 0.352
DE 0.973


0.966


0.966



PD R2 0.621 0.621
Age 0.005 0.005
Gender 0.018 0.017
SE 0.115


0.113



DE 0.147


0.151



SE  DE 0.079
0.081

E R2 0.661
Age 0.015
Gender 0.003
SE 0.812


MO R2 0.821
Age 0.114

Gender 0.069
SE 0.763


SES R2 0.901
Age 0.056
Gender 0.185

SE 0.95



PSS R2 0.653
Age 0.065
Gender 0.387
SE 0.535



SE: social experience; DE: digital experience; E: empathy; MO: moral obligation; SES: self-efficacy for social problems;
PSS: perceived social support; PF: perceived feasibility for digital solutions; PD: perceived desirability; IDSE: intent for
digital social entrepreneurship.





Means <0.05.




Means <0.01.
Means <0.001.

feasibility. Extant literature has found young people to be more optimistic and risk-seeking
in the context of organisational behaviour and entrepreneurship (Vroom and Pahl 1971;
Schwarz et al. 2009). In other contexts, it has been found that risk-taking behaviour
increases with age and starts dropping in early adulthood (Eisner 2002). Such an inverted
U shape in the relationship between age and aggregate entrepreneurship has also been
observed by past researchers (Levesque and Minniti 2011). Thus, there is mixed evidence
on how age will have an impact on entrepreneurial activity. The current study extends this
conversation by stating that age is positively related to perceived feasibility and this IDSE.
This can be because of relatively more social connections and higher knowledge about
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 145

business processes that people with higher age possess. Such social connections and
higher knowledge are important for the success of the business initiative.
The authors have also found that the perceived moral obligation of the individuals
increases with age. Extant literature suggests that individuals become more socially
conscious and showcase more pro-social behaviour as their age increases (Smith and
McSweeney 2007; Bekkers 2010). This can be because of the impact of higher income
and endowment which may lead to higher intentions towards pro-social behaviour
(Smith and McSweeney 2007). However, studies that focussed on adolescence and
early adulthood found mixed reactions of age on pro-social attitude and behaviour
(Eisenberg, Eggum, and Di Giunta 2005). While moral reasoning increased with age,
helping showed an inverted U shape. The personal moral judgement also increased
over time and then levelled off or declined. Such mixed results make the impact of
age on pro-social attitude and behaviour more interesting. As the respondents of the
study fall in the age bracket of early adulthood (mean ¼ 24.3 years), the results con-
tribute to these mixed results.
Lastly, past results show that even after controlling for entrepreneurial knowledge,
gender will have a significant relationship with entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Wilson,
Kickul, and Marlino 2007). The results support the above finding and show that men
have higher self-efficacy for solving societal problems than women even after control-
ling for a social experience. The above finding also contributes to the literature that
focuses on gender and pro-social behaviour. Extant literature has mixed evidence on
the impact of gender on pro-social behaviour. Some suggest that both in short-term
interactions and long-term associations, men help more than women and women
receive helps more than men (Eagly and Crowley 1986). Others say that men and
women engage in different types of pro-social behaviour. While women engage in
pro-social behaviours that are more communal and relational, men engage in more
agentic, collectively oriented, strength intensive pro-social behaviours (Eagly 2009). In
the study, the authors found men have higher beliefs on themselves regarding the
ability to solve social problems. This will lead to higher pro-social digital entrepreneur-
ial initiatives by men than women.

Managerial Implications
Along with theoretical contributions, the study also gives several policy implications.
Firstly, it helps the policymakers to have an empirical understanding of the antece-
dents so that they can make policies that can encourage the right set of people in the
right way in choosing DSE.
Secondly, the integrated model gives an idea of how social experience and digital
experience interplay leading to IDSE. The authors have found that prior social experi-
ence and digital experience will lead to increased perceived feasibility and perceived
desirability of the DSE. This suggests that prior experience in running-related initiatives
will help potential entrepreneurs to be more interested in sustainably solving social
problems using digital technology. Such experience can also reduce the chances of
failure of DSE which is also a concern for the policymakers. Therefore, educational
organisations focussing on either of these areas should be encouraged to train their
146 A. GHATAK ET AL.

students in the other skills and capabilities too. For example, a technology school
should encourage their students to work in social organisations as interns so that they
can get first-hand knowledge about social problems, potential solutions, source of
support, etc. Optional volunteer programs, required service-learning components in
the curriculum, etc. will also help. These will lead to higher IDSE, which is the future
of social entrepreneurship.
Thirdly, the paper also helps policymakers understand the underlying path of how
experience impacts IDSE. Therefore, it also helps them decide what parameters one
should measure to find the root cause of policy failures if their policy initiatives do
not result in increased IDSE. Two important factors that promote DSE are perceived
feasibility and perceived desirability. While seed funds, technical and infrastructural
supports, tax structures, etc. can improve the perceived feasibility of DSE, awards and
recognitions to exemplary social entrepreneurs, absorption of failed social entrepre-
neurs in various government-run social initiatives can increase the perceived desirabil-
ity of DSE.
One should also notice that the measure used for self-efficacy focuses less on an
individual’s belief on her ability to start a new venture, as used in past literature, and
focus more on her belief that social problems can be solved sustainably using entre-
preneurial activities. Therefore, individual level encouragements that can help the
above-mentioned belief getting stronger will help IDSE further. It should also be noted
that women have less self-efficacy for solving social problems than men. Therefore,
the policies both in terms of encouragement and training should also be targeted
based on gender to have better results.
The results show that moral obligation and perceived feasibility, two important
antecedents of IDSE increases with age. Therefore, policymakers should make the
youngsters more aware of the social problems to ensure the sense of moral obligation
increases among them. Moral obligation can increase when individuals see a direct
connection between her benefits and other’s distress. For instance, government-
funded educational institutes should make students understand that they are getting
a quality education at the cost of various pro-social activity which can be done for the
betterment of the quality of life of the distressed. Workshops, programs and discussion
forums can help in creating such a moral obligation among the young generation.

Limitations and Future Scope

Our study has remained limited in assessing the impacts of the antecedents only on
the IDSE. How such an intention is translated towards the behaviour of the individuals
has not been tested in this paper. Such behaviour can be anything like attending con-
ferences on social entrepreneurship, registering in courses related to digital or social
organisations, or launching a digital social organisation. Attitude–behaviour linkage is
an important area of research (Friedkin 2010; Chatterjee, Shainesh, and Sravanan
2018). Future research should focus on how the antecedents of IDSE leads to behav-
ioural steps of individuals.
Outcome and process are two different aspects as suggested by past researchers
(Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Mohr and Bitner 1995; Tatavarthy and Chatterjee
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 147

2015). These lead to goal intentions and implementation intentions (Gollwitzer 1999).
One can further study what is the antecedents of these two different types of inten-
tions and how these two different types of intentions lead to social entrepreneurship.
As discussed before, gender is an important area of study both in the context of
social behaviour and entrepreneurship. Therefore, it is important to study what moti-
vates women in considering DSE which has both entrepreneurial, high technical and
pro-social aspects in it. In the context of environmentalism, researchers have found
that altruism motivation is more important among women than men in comparison to
other motivations such as self-interest, traditionalism, etc. (Dietz, Kalof, and Stern
2002). On the other hand, as stated before in the results and past studies, women
have lower self-efficacy than males (Wilson, Kickul, and Marlino 2007). Therefore, one
can argue, that women will have different motivations for DSE than men. Further
research should shed light on this difference thus helping practitioners and policy-
makers in creating gender-specific policies that can improve IDSE.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Ajzen, I. 1985. “From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior.” In Action Control,
edited by Julius Kuhl and J€urgen Beckmann, 11–39. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Asghari, R., and S. Gedeon. 2010. “Significance and Impact of Internet on the Entrepreneurial
Process: E-Entrepreneurship and Completely Digital Entrepreneurship.” In European Conference
on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 70. Reading, UK: Academic Conferences International
Limited.
Audet, J.. 2002. “A longitudinal study of the entrepreneurial intentions of university students.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Babson Kaufmann Entrepreneurship Research
Conference,” Boulder, CO (June).
Bandura, A. 1977. “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychological
Review 84 (2): 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.
Batson, C. D., M. P. Polycarpou, E. Harmon-Jones, H. J. Imhoff, E. C. Mitchener, L. L. Bednar, …
and L. Highberger. 1997. Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized
group improve feelings toward the group?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72
(1): 105.
Bekkers, R. 2010. “Who Gives What and When? A Scenario Study of Intentions to Give Time and
Money.” Social Science Research 39 (3): 369–381. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.08.008.
Bitner, M. J., B. H. Booms, and M. S. Tetreault. 1990. “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing
Favourable and Unfavourable Incidents.” Journal of Marketing 54 (1): 71–84. doi:10.2307/
1252174.
Bornstein, D. 1996. The Price of a Dream, The Story of the Grameen Bank. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Carr, J. C., and J. M. Sequeira. 2007. “Prior Family Business Exposure as Intergenerational
Influence and Entrepreneurial Intent: A Theory of Planned Behavior Approach.” Journal of
Business Research 60 (10): 1090–1098. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.016.
Catin, M. 2014. “Five reasons social enterprises fail.” The Guardian. Accessed February 5 2018.
https://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2013/jun/28/five-reasons-social-enter-
prises-fail-business
148 A. GHATAK ET AL.

Chatterjee, S., G. Shainesh, and C. N. S. Sravanan. 2018. “Does Intention Translate into Action?
Investigating the Impact of Loyalty Intention on Future Usage.” Journal of Indian Business
Research 10 (2): 151–169. doi:10.1108/JIBR-11-2017-0213.
Chlosta, S., H. Patzelt, S. B. Klein, and C. Dormann. 2012. “Parental Role Models and the Decision
to Become Self-Employed: The Moderating Effect of Personality.” Small Business Economics 38
(1): 121–138. doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9270-y.
Coff, R. W. 1999. “When Competitive Advantage Doesn’t Lead to Performance: The Resource-
Based View and Stakeholder Bargaining Power.” Organisation Science 10 (2): 119–133. doi:10.
1287/orsc.10.2.119.
Comunian, A. L., and U. P. Gielen. 1995. Moral reasoning and prosocial action in Italian culture.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 135 (6): 699–706.
Courtright, K. E., and D. A. Mackey. 2004. “Job Desirability among Criminal Justice Majors:
Exploring Relationships between Personal Characteristics and Occupational Attractiveness.”
Journal of Criminal Justice Education 15 (2): 311–326. doi:10.1080/10511250400086001.
Cronan, T. P., and S. Al-Rafee. 2008. “Factors That Influence the Intention to Pirate Software and
Media.” Journal of Business Ethics 78 (4): 527–545. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9366-8.
Davidson, E., and E. Vaast. 2010. “Digital Entrepreneurship and Its Sociomaterial Enactment.”
In 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 1–10. Hawaii: IEEE.
Dietz, T., L. Kalof, and P. C. Stern. 2002. “Gender, Values, and Environmentalism.” Social Science
Quarterly 83 (1): 353–364. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00088.
Douglas, E., and C. Prentice. 2019. “Innovation and Profit Motivations for Social
Entrepreneurship: A Fuzzy-Set Analysis.” Journal of Business Research 99: 69–79. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2019.02.031.
Eagly, A. H. 2009. “The His and Hers of Prosocial Behavior: An Examination of the Social
Psychology of Gender.” The American Psychologist 64 (8): 644–658. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.64.
8.644.
Eagly, A. H., and M. Crowley. 1986. “Gender and Helping Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of
the Social Psychological Literature.” Psychological Bulletin 100 (3): 283–308. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.100.3.283.
Eisner, M. 2002. “Crime, Problem Drinking, and Drug Use: Patterns of Problem Behavior in Cross-
National Perspective.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 580
(1): 201–225. doi:10.1177/000271620258000109.
Eisenberg, N., N. D. Eggum, and L. Di Giunta. 2010. “Empathy-related responding: Associations
with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup relations.” Social issues and policy review,
4 (1): 143–180.
Ernst, K. 2011. “Heart Over Mind – An Empirical Analysis of Social Entrepreneurial Intention
Formation on the Basis of the Theory of Planned Behaviour.” Unpublished diss., University
Wuppertal.
Fitzsimmons, J. R., and E. J. Douglas. 2011. “Interaction Between Feasibility and Desirability in
the Formation of Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Journal of Business Venturing 26 (4): 431–440.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.01.001.
Friedkin, N. E. 2010. “The Attitude–Behavior Linkage in Behavioral Cascades.” Social Psychology
Quarterly 73 (2): 196–213. doi:10.1177/0190272510369661.
Forster, F., and D. Grichnik, 2010. “Social Entrepreneurial Intention Formation of Corporate
Volunteers.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 4 (2), 153–181.
Giles, M., C. McClenahan, E. Cairns, and J. Mallet. 2004. “An Application of the Theory of Planned
Behaviour to Blood Donation: The Importance of Self-Efficacy.” Health Education Research 19
(4): 380–391. doi:10.1093/her/cyg063.
Gist, M. E., and T. R. Mitchell. 1992. “Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability.” Academy of Management review, 17 (2): 183–211.
Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. 2010 “Compassion: An Evolutionary Analysis and
Empirical Review.” Psychological Bulletin 136 (3), 351.
Gollwitzer, P. M. 1999. “Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans.” American
Psychologist 54 (7): 493–503. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493.
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 149

Greve, A., and J. W. Salaff. 2003. “Social Networks and Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 28 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1111/1540-8520.00029.
Guerrero, M., J. Rialp, and D. Urbano. 2008. “The Impact of Desirability and Feasibility on
Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Structural Equation Model.” International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal 4 (1): 35–50. doi:10.1007/s11365-006-0032-x.
Hafezieh, N., P. Akhavan, and F. Eshraghian. 2011. “Exploration of Process and Competitive
Factors of Entrepreneurship in Digital Space: A Multiple Case Study in Iran.” Education,
Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 4 (4): 267–279. doi:10.1108/
17537981111190051.
Haines, R., M. D. Street, and D. Haines. 2008. “The Influence of Perceived Importance of an
Ethical Issue on Moral Judgment, Moral Obligation, and Moral Intent.” Journal of Business
Ethics 81 (2): 387–399. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9502-5.
Hair, J., W. Black, B. Babin, and R. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hemingway, C. A. 2005. “Personal Values as a Catalyst for Corporate Social Entrepreneurship.”
Journal of Business Ethics 60 (3): 233–249. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-0132-5.
Hockerts, K. 2007. “Social Entrepreneurship.” In The A–Z of Corporate Social Responsibility, edited
by W. Visser, D. Matten, M. Pohl, and N. Tolhurst, 422. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hockerts, K. 2010. “Social Entrepreneurship between Market and Mission.” International Review of
Entrepreneurship 8 (2): 177–198.
Hockerts, K. 2015. “Antecedents of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Validation Study.” Social
Enterprise Journal 11 (3): 260–280. doi:10.1108/SEJ-05-2014-0026.
Hockerts, K. 2017. “Determinants of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Journal of
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41 (1): 105–130. doi:10.1111/etap.12171.
Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis:
Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1): 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Kautonen, T., S. Luoto, and E. T. Tornikoski. 2010. “Influence of Work History on Entrepreneurial
Intentions in “Prime Age” and “Third Age”: A Preliminary Study.” International Small Business
Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 28 (6): 583–601. doi:10.1177/0266242610368592.
Kline, R. B. 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kohlberg, L. 1981. The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice.
New York: HarperCollins.
Krueger, N. F. 1993. “The Impact of Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure on Perceptions of New
Venture Feasibility and Desirability.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18 (1): 5–21. doi:10.
1177/104225879301800101.
Krueger, N., J. Kickul, L. Gundry, F. Wilson, and R. Verma. 2006. “Discrete Choices, Trade-Offs, and
Advantages: Modeling Social Venture Opportunities and Intentions.” In 2nd International
Social Entrepreneurship Research Conference, New York, NY.
Levesque, M., and M. Minniti. 2011. “Age Matters: How Demographics Influence Aggregate
Entrepreneurship.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 5 (3): 269–284. doi:10.1002/sej.117.
Mair, J., and E. Noboa. 2006. “Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Venture
Get Formed.” In Social Entrepreneurship, edited by J. Mair, J. Robinson, and K. Hockerts,
121–136. New York: Palgrave MacMillan
Mendy, J., and M. Rahman. 2019. “Supporting SMEs’ Internationalisation Through a Deeper
Understanding of Human and Technology Barriers.” Journal of Organizational Effectiveness:
People and Performance 6 (4): 205–226. doi:10.1108/JOEPP-12-2018-0121.
Mendy, J., M. Rahman, and P. M. Bal. 2020. “Using the “Best-Fit” Approach to Investigate the
Effects of Politico-Economic and Social Barriers on SMEs’ Internationalization in an Emerging
Country Context: Implications and Future Directions.” Thunderbird International Business
Review 62 (2): 199–211. doi:10.1002/tie.22119.
Mohr, L. A., and M. J. Bitner. 1995. “The Role of Employee Effort in Satisfaction with Service
Transactions.” Journal of Business Research 32 (3): 239–252. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)00049-K.
150 A. GHATAK ET AL.

Nambisan, S. 2017. “Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of

Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41 (6): 1029–1055. doi:10.1111/etap.
12254.
Patel, N. 2015. “90% Of startups fail: Here’s what you need to know about the 10%.” FORBES.
Accessed February 5 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilpatel/2015/01/16/90-of-startups-
will-fail-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-10/#b53343966792
Pounder, D. G., and R. J. Merrill. 2001. “Job Desirability of the High School Principalship: A Job
Choice Theory Perspective.” Educational Administration Quarterly 37 (1): 27–57. doi:10.1177/
0013161X01371003.
Richter, C., S. Kraus, and P. Syrj€a. 2015. “The Shareconomy as a Precursor for Digital
Entrepreneurship Business Models.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business 25 (1): 18–35. doi:10.1504/IJESB.2015.068773.
Schlaegel, C., and M. Koenig. 2014. “Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intent: A Meta-Analytic Test
and Integration of Competing Models.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38 (2): 291–332.
doi:10.1111/etap.12087.
Schwarz, E. J., M. A. Wdowiak, D. A. Almer-Jarz, and R. J. Breitenecker. 2009. “The Effects of
Attitudes and Perceived Environment Conditions on Students’ Entrepreneurial Intent: An
Austrian Perspective.” Education þ Training 51 (4): 272–291. doi:10.1108/00400910910964566.
Scuotto, V., and M. Morellato. 2013. “Entrepreneurial Knowledge and Digital Competence: Keys
for a Success of Student Entrepreneurship.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 4 (3): 293–303.
doi:10.1007/s13132-013-0155-6.
Segars, A. H., and V. Grover. 1993. “Re-Examining Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness: A
Confirmatory Factor Analysis.” MIS Quarterly 17 (4): 517–525. doi:10.2307/249590.
Shapero, A.. 1982 “Social dimensions of entrepreneurship.” In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper
(Eds.),The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. pp. 72–90. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.
Sheeran, P., D. Trafimow, K. A. Finlay, and P. Norman. 2002. “Evidence That the Type of Person
Affects the Strength of the Perceived Behavioural Control–Intention Relationship.” The British
Journal of Social Psychology 41 (Pt 2): 253–270. doi:10.1348/014466602760060129.
Short, J. C., T. W. Moss, and G. T. Lumpkin. 2009. “Research in Social Entrepreneurship: Past
Contributions and Future Opportunities.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 3 (2): 161–194.
doi:10.1002/sej.69.
Smith, J. R., and A. McSweeney. 2007. “Charitable Giving: The Effectiveness of a Revised Theory
of Planned Behaviour Model in Predicting Donating Intentions and Behaviour.” Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology 17 (5): 363–386.
Steel, P., and C. J. Konig. 2006. “Integrating Theories of Motivation.” Academy of Management
Review 31 (4): 889–913. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.22527462.
Tatavarthy, A. D., and S. Chatterjee. 2015. “The Journey or the Destination: Asymmetric Impact
of Process and Outcome on Service Evaluations.” Volume 11. In AP – Asia-Pacific Advances in
Consumer Research, edited by Echo Wen Wan and Meng Zhang, 110–111. Duluth, MN:
Association for Consumer Research.
Thogersen, J. 2002. “Direct Experience and the Strength of the Personal Norm–Behavior
Relationship.” Psychology and Marketing 19 (10): 881–893.
Thompson, J., G. Alvy, and A. Lees. 2000. “Social Entrepreneurship – A New Look at the People
and the Potential.” Management Decision 38 (5): 328–338. doi:10.1108/00251740010340517.
Tierney, P., and S. M. Farmer. 2002. “Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relation-
ship to creative performance.” Academy of Management journal, 45 (6): 1137–1148.
Tukamushaba, E. K., L. Orobia, and B. P. George. 2011. Development of a conceptual model to
understand international social entrepreneurship and its application in the Ugandan context.
Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 9 (4): 282–298.
Veciana, J. M., M. Aponte, and D. Urbano. 2005. “University students’ attitudes towards entrepre-
neurship: A two countries comparison.” The International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 1 (2): 165–182.
Vining, J., and A. Ebreo. 1989. “An Evaluation of the Public Response to a Community Recycling
Education Program.” Society & Natural Resources 2 (1): 23–36.
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 151

Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

Vroom, V. H., and B. Pahl. 1971. “Relationship between age and risk taking among managers.”
Journal of applied psychology, 55 (5): 399.
Wilson, F., J. Kickul, and D. Marlino. 2007. “Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and
Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education.”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31 (3): 387–406. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00179.x.
Yamini, R., D. Soloveva, and X. Peng. 2020. “What Inspires Social Entrepreneurship? The Role of
Prosocial Motivation, Intrinsic Motivation, and Gender in Forming Social Entrepreneurial
Intention.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal. doi:10.1515/erj-2019-0129.
Yiu, D. W., W. P. Wan, F. W. Ng, X. Chen, and J. Su. 2014. “Sentimental Drivers of Social
Entrepreneurship: A Study of China’s Guangcai (Glorious) Program.” Management and
Organization Review 10 (1): 55–80.
Zhao, H., S. E. Seibert, and G. E. Hills. 2005. “The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the
Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (6):
1265–1272. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265.