Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:

http://ijep.hipatiapress.com

Revisiting the Antecedents of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

in Hong Kong

1 2 1 1
Ching Yin Ip , Shih-Chia Wu , Huei-Ching Liu , Chaoyun Liang

1) National Taiwan University

2) The Chinese University of Hong Kong

th
Date of publication: October 24 , 2017
Edition period: October 2017 - February 2018

To cite this article: Ip, C.Y.; Wu, S.-C.; Liu, H.-C. & Liang, C. (2017).
Revisiting the Antecedents of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions in Hong
Kong. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3), 301-323. doi:
10.17583/ijep.2017.2835

To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.2017.2835

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 3
October 2017 pp. 301-323

Revisiting the Antecedents of

Social Entrepreneurial
Intentions in Hong Kong
Ching Yin Ip Shih-Chia Wu
National Taiwan University The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Huei-Ching Liu Chaoyun Liang
National Taiwan University National Taiwan University

Abstract

This study examined how empathy, moral obligation, social entrepreneurial self-
efficacy, perceived social support, and prior experience with social problems are
associated with social entrepreneurial intentions. Through a survey, a sample of 252
Hong Kong students was used for analyses. Factor analyses supported that the
antecedents of social entrepreneurial intentions could be divided into dimensions of
empathy, moral obligation, social entrepreneurial self-efficacy, perceived social
support, and prior experience with social problems. Multiple regression analysis
results indicated that perceived social support was the most prominent antecedent of
social entrepreneurial intentions, followed by moral obligation, empathy, and prior
experience with social problems. Notably, moral obligation was revealed to be
negatively associated with social entrepreneurial intentions.

Keywords: Empathy, moral obligation, self-efficacy, social support, prior experience, social
enterprises

2017 Hipatia Press

ISSN: 2014-3591
DOI: 10.17583/ijep.2017.2835
IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 3
October 2017 pp. 301-323

Revisitando los Antecedentes

de las Intenciones de
Emprendimiento Social en
Hong Kong
Ching Yin Ip Shih-Chia Wu
National Taiwan University The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Huei-Ching Liu Chaoyun Liang
National Taiwan University National Taiwan University

Resumen

Este estudio examinó cómo la empatía, la obligación moral, la autoeficacia

empresarial social, el apoyo social percibido y la experiencia previa con problemas
sociales están asociados con las intenciones empresariales sociales. A través de una
encuesta, se utilizó una muestra de 252 estudiantes de Hong Kong. Los análisis
factoriales respaldaron que los antecedentes de las intenciones empresariales
sociales podrían dividirse en dimensiones de empatía, obligación moral, autoeficacia
empresarial social, apoyo social percibido y experiencia previa con problemas
sociales. Los resultados del análisis de regresión múltiple indicaron que el apoyo
social percibido fue el antecedente más prominente de las intenciones empresariales
sociales, seguido de la obligación moral, la empatía y la experiencia previa con
problemas sociales. En particular, se reveló que la obligación moral se asociaba
negativamente con las intenciones empresariales sociales.
Palabras clave: Empatía, obligación moral auto eficacia, apoyo social, experiencia previa,
empresas sociales.

2017 Hipatia Press

ISSN: 2014-3591
DOI: 10.17583/ijep.2017.2835
IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3) 303

S
everal problems in Hong Kong, such as the widening gap between
the rich and poor, the ageing population, and the volatile economy,
have facilitated the emergence of social enterprises. First, because of
the emphasis on acquiring land- and development-related tax revenue, the
high dependence on volatile financial and real estate industries has caused a
highly skewed wealth distribution, so that wealthy people have become
wealthier, whereas upward mobility for underprivileged people has
decreased (Wissink, Koh, & Forrest, 2017). Hence, alleviating poverty is a
major social aim of social enterprises in Hong Kong (Chan, Kuan, & Wang,
2011). Second, the Confucianism-based and collectivist culture of Hong
Kong has made elderly people adopt a self-restrained attitude to avoid
becoming a burden on the younger generation (Luo & Chui, 2016), thus
resulting in the demand for social enterprises that would employ elderly
people. Third, the financial crisis and economic downturn since 1997 have
caused an increase in welfare expenditure as well as a decrease in
government funding for nongovernmental organisations, which has
engendered a change in welfare philosophy and the rise of social enterprises
in the region (Ho & Chan, 2010).
Early research on ‘social entrepreneurship’ focused on the definitions and
functions of the term (Dees, 1998; Mort, Weerawardena, & Carnegie, 2003).
In recent years, scholars have been more interested in the theoretical
development of the causes of the intentions towards forming a social
enterprise (Hockerts, 2017; Mair & Noboa, 2006). Mair and Noboa (2006)
suggested that empathy, moral judgement, social entrepreneurial self-
efficacy, and perceived social support were the factors that could affect
social entrepreneurial intentions. Hockerts (2017) extended the model of
Mair and Noboa (2006) with the claim that prior experience with social
problems could also predict social entrepreneurial intentions. These studies
have provided a theoretical foundation for analysing social entrepreneurial
intentions, but further inquiries are required to test its generalisability across
contexts.
Scholars have emphasised the need for research on social
entrepreneurship in Asia to provide a comprehensive picture about this
concept in different cultural–geographical locations and in both
internationally and locally embedded situations (Chell, Spence, Perrini, &

304 Ip, Wu, Liu & Liang– Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

Harris, 2016; Liang, Chang, Liang, & Liu, 2017); this thus motivated the
current study. The aim of this study was to analyse the antecedents of social
entrepreneurial intentions and their influences on Hong Kong university
students. The research population is targeted because they are the future
generation of Hong Kong society, and with passion in exploring different
career options including social entrepreneurship. This the authors’ wish that
the present study can shed lights on the educational needs in encouraging
university students to establish social enterprises.

Literature Review

Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

Among the different conceptualisations of social enterprises, two major
types are mentioned herein. The first type conceptualises social enterprises
as nonprofit organisations (NPOs), adopting a market-oriented approach
(Defourny & Kim, 2011). The second type regards social enterprises as
profit-making enterprises whose objective is to address a social mission, and
two features are involved, namely emphasising the economic value of the
sustainability of social ventures and creating social value by providing
solutions to social problems (Dacin, Dacin, & Tracey, 2011). Although the
first conceptualisation provides a clear typology of social enterprises in East
Asia, it cannot clearly elucidate or distinguish between social enterprises and
NPOs. Hence, to distinguish social enterprises from NPOs, the second
conceptualisation was adopted in this study.
Intentional behaviours can help to understand the reasons of
entrepreneurs who plan to start up a venture before they search for
opportunities (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000; Wang, Chang, Yao, &
Liang, 2016). Although entrepreneurial intentions are defined as ‘a self-
acknowledged conviction by a person that they intend to set up a new
business venture and consciously plan to do so at some point in the future’
(Thompson, 2009, p. 676), social entrepreneurial intentions in this study are
defined as ‘the self-acknowledged conviction and preparation by a person
who intends to establish a new social venture’. When considering the
aforementioned studies, this study referred to Wang, Peng, and Liang’s

IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3) 305

(2014) scale of entrepreneurial intentions, which was based on the concepts

of entrepreneurial conviction and preparation.
Early research provided the foundation for analysing social
entrepreneurial intentions. Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour
(TPB) has been widely adopted for understanding the antecedents of
behavioural intentions, namely attitude towards the behaviour, subjective
norm, and perceived behavioural control. On the basis of Ajzen’s TPB, Mair
and Noboa (2006) developed a theoretical framework of social
entrepreneurial intentions and suggested that empathy, moral judgement,
self-efficacy, and social support are the four antecedents of social
entrepreneurial intentions; specifically, empathy serves as a substitute for
attitude towards the behaviour, moral judgement as a substitute for
subjective norm, self-efficacy as a substitute for perceived internal
behavioural control, and social support as a substitute for perceived external
behavioural control.
Hockerts (2017) extended Mair and Noboa’s (2006) model by including
one additional antecedent—prior experience with social problems.
Moreover, two adjustments were made to Mair and Noboa’s (2006) model.
First, moral judgement was replaced by moral obligation, because moral
judgement is more related to the reason why an individual feels morally
obliged instead of the extent of that obligation (Hockerts, 2015). Second,
perceived desirability and perceived feasibility were excluded from the
model, because Hockerts (2017) determined them to not be separate factors
in exploratory factor analysis. On the basis of the aforementioned studies,
we tested the effects of five antecedents—empathy, moral obligation, social
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, perceived social support, and prior experience
with social problems—on the social entrepreneurial intentions of university
students.

Antecedents of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

Empathy is regarded as the ‘natural ability to understand the emotions and
feelings of others, whether one actually witnessed his or her situation,
perceived it from a photograph, read about it in a fiction book, or merely
imagined it’ (Decety & Jackson, 2004, p. 71). Wood (2012) indicated that
empathy is a key driver for supporting social ventures and stresses social

306 Ip, Wu, Liu & Liang– Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

innovation. Additionally, empathetic entrepreneurs usually possess vital

elements that are crucial for success, including the abilities to motivate and
lead employees, assist employees in handling workplace stress, gain higher
customer satisfaction through understanding customers’ wants, and achieve
higher innovativeness (Humphrey, 2013). Consequently, empathy, as one of
the virtuous behaviours, is essential for a social entrepreneur to create social
value for the organisation (Kraus, Filser, O’Dwyer, & Shaw, 2014).
Moral obligation is ‘a decision-making subprocess that occurs after an
individual makes a moral judgment and prior to establishing a moral
intention’ (Haines, Street, & Haines, 2008, p. 391). Strengthening moral
obligations through increasing social awareness and responsibility can
increase prosocial intentions and behaviour (De Groot & Steg, 2009), which
is consistent with the aim of social entrepreneurs in achieving prosocial
goals through starting up their ventures (Stephan, Uhlaner, & Stride, 2015).
Kibler and Kautonen (2016) also claimed that higher self-evaluation of
moral values might contribute to higher intentions to start up an enterprise.
However, although ethical motives and moral responsibility are vital for
social entrepreneurship, other motives may also involve less altruistic
purposes such as personal fulfilment (Mair & Marti, 2006). This could
explain why the positive association of moral obligation with social
entrepreneurial intentions was not supported in Hockert’s (2017) study.
Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy is regarded as ‘a person’s belief that
individuals can contribute toward solving societal problems’ (Hockerts,
2017, p.109). Higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy was found to be associated
with a higher level of conviction and preparation for establishing a new
venture, including higher self-confidence in addressing entrepreneurial tasks
and higher engagement in writing a business plan or saving money for the
business (Sequeira, Mueller, & McGee, 2007). In addition, potential social
entrepreneurs in emerging markets were reported to exhibit high self-
efficacy, because it was associated with a higher level of innovativeness,
social impact, expandability, and sustainability of the venture (Urban, 2015).
However, high self-efficacy may not always be beneficial for entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs who are overconfident in dynamic environments may ignore
or undervalue new information, which would in turn affect firm performance
(Hmieleski & Baron, 2008).

IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3) 307

The social support that entrepreneurs require is normally based on their

social capital, because successful entrepreneurs rely on efficient networks
(Mair & Noboa, 2006). As suggested by Baron and Markman’s (2000)
concept of social capital, defined as the actual and potential resources gained
from being part of a social network, social capital gained through reputation
and personal contacts is associated with more access to venture capitalists
and potential customers (Chia & Liang, 2016). Additionally, social capital is
paramount for greater knowledge acquisition, which is vital for newer firms
(Yli-Renko, Autio, & Sapienza, 2001) when social entrepreneurs require
knowledge of market demands and needs and social innovation to address
social problems (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006). Stam,
Arzlanian, and Elfring (2014) added that connections to people of different
backgrounds assist entrepreneurs of new firms to capture valuable resources
to enhance firm performance.
Prior experience with social problems is regarded as people’s practical
experience in working with social-sector organisations, which can generate
familiarity with such types of social problems (Hockerts, 2017). Prior
experiences in self-employment and entrepreneurial education can be a
trigger and a guide for potential entrepreneurs because such experiences
nurture and encourage them to start up an enterprise (Keat, Selvarajah, &
Meyer, 2011). Furthermore, such experiences seem to enable social
entrepreneurs to understand what works and what does not work before
engaging in a new venture, identify role models, and develop confidence in
establishing an enterprise (Shumate, Atouba, Cooper, & Pilny, 2014).
Khuong and An (2016) determined the positive association between prior
entrepreneurial experiences and entrepreneurial intentions, demonstrating
how entrepreneurship training and education might shape students’ future
professions.
Based on the aforementioned studies, the following five hypotheses were
proposed:
H1. Empathy positively affects social entrepreneurial intentions of
university students.
H2. Moral obligation positively affects social entrepreneurial intentions
of university students.

308 Ip, Wu, Liu & Liang– Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

H3. Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively affects social

entrepreneurial intentions of university students.
H4. Perceived social support positively affects social entrepreneurial
intentions of university students.
H5. Prior experience with social problems positively affects social
entrepreneurial intentions of university students.

Method
Measures
A quantitative method involving the use of a survey was adopted in this
study. To ensure reliable and valid measurement, scales from previous
studies were adopted. Regarding the antecedents of social entrepreneurial
intentions, the study results of Hockert (2017) were referred to. A total of 15
questions were adopted as survey questions for measuring the concepts of
empathy, moral obligation, social entrepreneurial self-efficacy, perceived
social support, and prior experience with social problems (three items for
each dimension). In addition, with reference to the study of Wang et al.
(2014), social entrepreneurial intentions were measured by conviction and
preparation dimensions through eight items. The respondents answered on a
6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly
agree). Unanswered questions were treated as missing values.

Participants and Procedures

The survey used both online and offline channels. Students studying in Hong
Kong and students who were born in Hong Kong but may not be currently
studying in Hong Kong were our target respondents. A survey link was
posted on Facebook fan pages for university students in Hong Kong.
Moreover, the survey was distributed during classes at the Chinese
University of Hong Kong. Consequently, a total of 303 questionnaires were
received through both channels. Participation was voluntary, and anonymity
was guaranteed. Before the execution of further analyses, 51 questionnaires
with a high proportion of incomplete or contradictory viewpoints were
excluded. Therefore, the total number of valid questionnaires was 252.
The sample descriptive statistics are outlined as follows: Female
participants constituted 62.3% of the sample; 31.9% and 55.8% of the

IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3) 309

participants were third-year and fourth-year (or higher) students,

respectively, whereas the remaining participants were postgraduate students;
26.5% and 69.5% of the participants were aged 20 years or younger and 21–
25 years, respectively, whereas the remaining participants were aged 26
years or older; and 83.3% and 10.0% of the participants were born in Hong
Kong and mainland China, respectively. Regarding the areas of study, social
science majors constituted the majority (45.6%), followed by business
administration (31.7%) and science and engineering (9.9%). Principal
component analysis with varimax rotation was performed to test the
dimensionality of the concepts with the adoption of SPSS 23.0 statistical
software. Multiple regression analysis was then performed to analyse the
possible causal relationships between the variables.

Results
Exploratory Factor Analysis
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value of the antecedents of social
entrepreneurial intentions was 0.88. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
significant (χ2 = 2225.70, df = 105, p < .001), implying that the data were
appropriate for factor analysis. According to Table 1, the total variance
explained for the five factors—empathy, moral obligation, social
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, perceived social support, and prior experience
with social problems—was 77.43%, revealing adequate validity. Hence, the
study provided a scale for analysing the antecedents of the social
entrepreneurial intentions of Chinese-speaking university students on the
basis of Hockert’s (2017) five determinants of social entrepreneurial
intentions. A factor loading less than .3 is blanked.

310 Ip, Wu, Liu & Liang– Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

Table 1.
Factor analysis of antecedents of social entrepreneurial intentions (n = 252)
% of
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. M SD σ²
1. Empathy (α = .80) 12.62
I feel compassion for socially marginalised
.58 .47 4.51 .92
people.
When thinking about socially disadvantaged
.77 4.31 .84
people, I try to put myself in their shoes.
Seeing socially disadvantaged people triggers an
.68 .48 4.41 .92
emotional response in me.
2. Moral obligation (α = .90) 20.10
We are morally obliged to help socially
.36 .75 4.51 .93
disadvantaged people.
It is an ethical responsibility to help people less
.84 4.65 .87
fortunate than ourselves.
Social justice requires that we help those who are
.84 4.58 .87
less fortunate than ourselves.
3. Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (α = .77) 12.44
Promoting environmental sustainability is
.49 .76 4.67 .84
something each of us can contribute to.
I am convinced that I personally can make a
contribution to address environmental .76 .32 4.27 .96
sustainability if I put my mind to it.
I could figure out a way to help solve the
.62 .47 3.80 .97
environmental issues.
4. Perceived social support (α = .82) 16.96
It is possible to attract investors for an
organisation that wants to promote environmental .73 3.79 .99
sustainability.
People would support me if I wanted to start an
.81 3.88 .96
organization to help socially marginalised people.
If I planned to address a significant
environmental problem, people would back me .87 3.77 .98
up.
5. Prior experience with social problems (α = .82) 15.31
I have volunteered or otherwise worked with
.33 .75 4.49 1.05
social organisations.
I have some experience working with social
.88 3.81 1.11
problems.
I know a lot about social organizations. .79 3.97 1.00
Total variance explained 77.43

IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3) 311

The KMO value of social entrepreneurial intentions was 0.89. Bartlett’s

test of sphericity was significant (χ2 =1678.27, df = 28, p < .001), implying
that the sample was appropriate for factor analysis. According to Table 2, the
total variance explained of the single factor was 68.26%, which showed
adequate validity. Therefore, this study provided a tool for analysing social
entrepreneurial intentions.

Table 2.
Factor analysis of social entrepreneurial intentions (n = 252)
SEIs M SD % of
σ²
Social entrepreneurial intentions (SEIs) (α = .93) 68.26
I wish to start a social enterprise that assist in alleviating.67 3.73 1.11
environmental issues.
I have a preliminary idea for a social enterprise on which I.83 3.19 1.12
plan to act in the future.
My professional goal is to become a social entrepreneur. .90 2.82 1.04
I am going to do anything to become a social entrepreneur. .90 2.89 1.13
I expect that at some point in the future I will be involved.89 3.00 1.10
in launching an organization that aims to promote
environmental sustainability.
I expect that at some point in the future I will be involved.84 3.19 1.17
in launching an organization that aims to help
disadvantaged groups.
I will act as a professional manager in getting involved in.86 3.05 1.12
management of a social enterprise through promotion.
If I am going to inherit my family’s business, I will plan to.69 3.12 1.15
transform it into a social enterprise.
Note 1: Because only one component was extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1, factor
loadings of social entrepreneurial intentions can be shown only through principal component
analysis.

312 Ip, Wu, Liu & Liang– Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to analyse the effects of the
antecedents on social entrepreneurial intentions. According to Table 3, the
unstandardised regression coefficients of empathy, moral obligation,
perceived social support, and prior experience with social problems on social
entrepreneurial intentions reached .278 (p < .01), −.282 (p < .001), .540 (p <
.001) and .137 (p < .05), respectively. Because empathy, perceived social
support, and prior experience with social problems were positively
associated with social entrepreneurial intentions, H1, H4, and H5 were
supported. Although moral obligation was significantly associated with
social entrepreneurial intentions, the association was negative; hence, H2
was rejected. Furthermore, because social entrepreneurial self-efficacy did
not reveal significant effects on social entrepreneurial intentions, H3 was
rejected. The R2 value of independent variables to social entrepreneurial
intentions reached 33.2%, and the results of the F-test reached the level of
significance (p < .001), implying that the regression model was appropriate.

Table 3.
Multiple regression analysis of the effects of the antecedents on social
entrepreneurial intentions (n = 252)
Variables Social Entrepreneurial intentions
Beta t p
(Constant) .712 2.145 .033*
Antecedents Empathy .278 2.941 0.004**
Moral obligation -.282 - .001***
3.303
Social entrepreneurial self- -.034 -.401 .688
efficacy
Perceived social support .540 7.673 .000***
Prior experience with social .137 2.158 .032*
problems
R2 .332
F 24.493
p .000***
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3) 313

Discussion
Factor analysis revealed five dimensions of the antecedents of social
entrepreneurial intentions, namely empathy, moral obligation, social
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, perceived social support, and prior experience
with social problems. This supports the factor structures suggested by Mair
and Noboa (2006) and Hockerts (2017). However, social entrepreneurial
intentions could not be divided into the two factors proposed by Wang et al.
(2014). This is probably because their study focused on entrepreneurship
rather than social entrepreneurship.
The regression model was determined to be appropriate. First, the p value
of the overall F-test was significant, indicating that the variables of the
antecedents of social entrepreneurial intentions did contribute to a superior
model to the intercept-only model. Second, the independent variables
(antecedents) accounted for 33.2% of the variance in social entrepreneurial
intentions, signifying an acceptable explanatory power of the model.
Perceived social support was observed to be a vital factor in promoting
social entrepreneurial intentions, and this is in agreement with the findings
of Mair and Noboa (2006) and Hockerts (2017). Social entrepreneurs can
never succeed alone (Mair & Noboa, 2006), especially in the collectivist
culture of Hong Kong that emphasises social harmony and common goals
(Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). With a higher level of social
support through connections with diverse individuals, entrepreneurs can
obtain valuable resources to enhance firm performance (Stam et al., 2014).
For example, social capital can contribute to attaining a high probability of
success in crowdfunding (Zheng, Li, Wu, & Xu, 2014), which is an
emerging financial source for social enterprises (Calic & Mosakowski,
2016). Accordingly, educators should assist students in developing social
networks for public support for alleviating social problems (Mair & Marti,
2006) and in facing work-related stress in entrepreneurial ventures
(Batjargal, Hitt, Tsui, Arregle, Webb, & Miller, 2013).
Empathy was also determined to be a significant factor for raising social
entrepreneurial intentions, and this is in agreement with Hockerts’ (2017)
student samples. Because empathy is crucial for motivating employees and
understanding customer needs (Humphrey, 2013), potential social
entrepreneurs should initiate their business with a higher chance for success

314 Ip, Wu, Liu & Liang– Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

because daily operations and profit earning are necessary for venture
sustainability. Because a common objective of Hong Kong social enterprises
is to mitigate poverty (Chan et al., 2011), emotional connections with those
suffering are required to develop a prosocial identity for the commitment to
act to relieve poverty (Miller, Grimes, McMullen, & Vogus, 2012). To foster
student empathy in order to equip them to become social entrepreneurs,
educators may consider conducting alternative class activities such as a
poverty simulations to raise students’ attention to social problems (Nickols
& Nielsen, 2011) and engaging students in team sports, which allow them to
cooperate with others and compassionately understand others’ perspectives
(Gano-Overway, 2014).
Prior experience with social problems was another significant factor
contributing to social entrepreneurial intentions, and this is consistent with
Hockerts’ (2017) finding. This is also in line with how prior experience
facilitates the generation of awareness and knowledge of the social aspects
for opportunity development of social ventures (Corner & Ho, 2010), as well
as with the importance of prior education and volunteering experience in
forming a social venture (Shumate et al., 2014). Nevertheless, the effect of
this variable is comparably weak. This is possibly because Hong Kong
students may not have sufficient experience with social problems because of
the pragmatic predisposition in learning (Kennedy, 2002). Fostering service-
learning in universities, which integrates academic study with community
service, could be a means of raising student responsibility for and awareness
of social changes (Ngai, 2006). Another possible reason is that Hockerts
(2017) believed that prior experience and social entrepreneurial intentions
are mediated by the four antecedents proposed by Mair and Noboa (2006).
How prior experience affects social entrepreneurial intentions warrants
further inquiry.
Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy was not found to be associated with
social entrepreneurial intentions in the present study, contradicting the
findings of Mair and Noboa (2006) and Hockerts (2017). Hockerts (2017)
found that social entrepreneurial self-efficacy was a dominant predictor of
social entrepreneurial intentions in his two student samples. One explanation
could be that Hockerts’ (2017) respondents were from Western countries,
characterised by an individualistic culture. Comparatively, our respondents

IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3) 315

were strongly affected by the Oriental collectivist culture, where individual

self-efficacy may be lessened by a person’s perception of others’ attitudes
(perceived social norms) towards entrepreneurial intentions (Siu & Lo,
2013). By adopting Ajzen’s TPB to predict entrepreneurial intentions in 12
countries, Engle et al. (2010) also reported that entrepreneurial self-efficacy
had no significant associations with entrepreneurial intentions in their
Chinese sample. The aforementioned studies provided the basis of our
finding.
Notably, moral obligation was observed to be negatively associated with
social entrepreneurial intentions, which contradicts the initial claim of Mair
and Noboa (2006). However, one of Hockerts’ (2017) investigated samples
shared a similar negative result; therefore, examining the reasons behind it is
worthwhile. One major argument is that the motive to engage in social
entrepreneurship must not necessarily be morally obliged. The motive may
involve less altruistic reasons including personal fulfilment, such as the
desire for status, recognition, respect, and friendship (Bacq, Hartog, &
Hoogendoorn, 2016; Mair & Marti, 2006). Another possible reason is that
perception matters. For example, those who indicate that they do not
strongly agree with the statement ‘social justice requires that we help those
who are less fortunate than ourselves’ may actually perceive helping social
minorities as insufficient for establishing social justice because other factors
such as environmental and juvenile issues also matter.
This study has two limitations. First, we received a relatively high
proportion of questionnaires from a single university, because the offline
survey was distributed at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, which may
not entirely represent the university population in Hong Kong. Second,
because of the lack of established social entrepreneurial intention scales, we
developed our own by modifying an existing entrepreneurial intention scale
(Wang et al., 2014), which may require further adjustments to suit the social
entrepreneurial context.
To address the aforementioned limitations, future studies can adopt a
sample with students from different universities or even a sample of the
Hong Kong public to examine how these variables are associated with social
entrepreneurial intentions. Because Hockerts (2017) suggested that the four
antecedents proposed by Mair and Noboa (2006) can mediate prior

316 Ip, Wu, Liu & Liang– Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

experience and social entrepreneurial intentions, we aspire to evaluate

whether similar results can be attained for Hong Kong respondents. In
addition, a social entrepreneurial intention scale should be established to
enrich the literature on social entrepreneurship and facilitate measurements.

Conclusion

In summary, the results indicate that empathy, perceived social support, and
prior experience with social problems were positively associated with social
entrepreneurial intentions, whereas no significant association was found
between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial
intentions. Notably, moral obligation was revealed to be negatively
associated with social entrepreneurial intentions.
These results lead to several evident contributions. First, this is the first
study to adopt Hockerts’ (2017) model and test it in an Asian context. Our
results partially support the model and indicate promising directions for
future research. Second, the present study not only enriches the theoretical
base of social entrepreneurship but also illustrates the need to reconsider the
roles of moral obligation and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Third, our results
have beneficial practical implications for entrepreneurial educators in terms
of designing appropriate instructional strategies and developing meaningful
projects to nurture student potential and empower their entrepreneurial
careers.
Social problems in this globalised era are not limited to a single
individual or community but affect everyone worldwide. These problems
can only be relieved when public awareness and support exist. Additionally,
social connections have become fundamental for completing different tasks;
whether they are trivial or enormous, such as establishing a social enterprise,
gaining social support for assistance has become crucial. Although
individual virtues such as empathy are also critical to encourage
entrepreneurs to start up social ventures, no one can succeed without others’
help to maintain venture sustainability. Because university students are our
society’s future, they should be encouraged to treasure environmental
resources and help disadvantaged people. Social ventures are a new means
of alleviating social problems with social innovation. This article has merely

IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3) 317

begun to emphasise the driving force for students’ social entrepreneurial

intentions, although future demand and potential for enriching the social
entrepreneurship literature still exist.

Acknowledgements

The first draft of this manuscript will be presented at the 2017 International Conference of
Taiwan Association for Educational Communications and Technology. The authors would
like to express their gratitude for the insightful suggestions of anonymous 2017TAECT and
the International Journal of Educational Psychology reviewers.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 50(6), 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial
entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 30(1), 1-22. doi:10.1111/j.1540–6520.2006.00107.x.
Bacq, S., Hartog, C., & Hoogendoorn, B. (2016). Beyond the moral
portrayal of social entrepreneurs: An empirical approach to who they
are and what drives them. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 703-
718. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2446-7.
Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social
skills can enhance entrepreneurs' success. The Academy of
Management Executive, 14(1), 106-116.
doi:10.5465/AME.2000.2909843.
Batjargal, B., Hitt, M. A., Tsui, A. S., Arregle, J. L., Webb, J. W., & Miller,
T. L. (2013). Institutional polycentrism, entrepreneurs' social
networks, and new venture growth. Academy of Management Journal,
56(4), 1024-1049. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0095.
Calic, G., & Mosakowski, E. (2016). Kicking off social entrepreneurship:
How a sustainability orientation influences crowdfunding success.

318 Ip, Wu, Liu & Liang– Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 738-767.

doi:10.1111/joms.12201.
Chan, K. T., Kuan, Y. Y., & Wang, S. T. (2011). Similarities and
divergences: Comparison of social enterprises in Hong Kong and
Taiwan. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(1), 33-49.
doi:10.1108/17508611111130149.
Chell, E., Spence, L. J., Perrini, F., & Harris, J. D. (2016). Social
entrepreneurship and business ethics: Does social equal ethical?
Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 619-625. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-
2439-6.
Chia, C.-C. & Liang, C. (2016). Influence of creativity and social capital on
the entrepreneurial intention of tourism students. Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 12(2), 151-168.
Corner, P. D., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635-
659. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00382.x.
Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A
critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203-
1213. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0620.
De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role
of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425-449.
doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.4.425-449.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human
empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71-
100. doi: 10.1177/1534582304267187.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”. Stanford
University: Draft Report for the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial
Leadership.
Defourny, J., & Kim, S. Y. (2011). Emerging models of social enterprise in
Eastern Asia: A cross-country analysis. Social Enterprise Journal,
7(1), 86-111. doi:10.1108/17508611111130176.
Engle, R. L., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J. V., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S.,
Alvarado, I., ... Wolff, B. (2010). Entrepreneurial intent: A twelve-
country evaluation of Ajzen's model of planned behavior.

IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3) 319

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(1),

35-57. doi:10.1108/13552551011020063.
Gano-Overway, L. A. (2014). The caring climate: How sport environments
can develop empathy in young people. In K. Pavlovich & K. Krahnke
(Eds.), Organizing through empathy (pp. 166-183). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Haines, R., Street, M. D., & Haines, D. (2008). The influence of perceived
importance of an ethical issue on moral judgment, moral obligation,
and moral intent. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 387-399.
doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9502-5.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2008). When does entrepreneurial self-
efficacy enhance versus reduce firm performance? Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1), 57-72. doi:10.1002/sej.42.
Ho, A. P. Y., & Chan, K. T. (2010). The social impact of work-integration
social enterprise in Hong Kong. International Social Work, 53(1), 33-
45. doi:10.1177/0020872809348950.
Hockerts, K. (2015). Antecedents of social entrepreneurial intentions: A
validation study. Social Enterprise Journal, 11(3), 260-280.
doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2013.16805abstract.
Hockerts, K. (2017). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 105-130.
doi:10.1111/etap.12171.
Humphrey, R. H. (2013). The benefits of emotional intelligence and
empathy to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Research Journal,
3(3), 287-294. doi:10.1515/erj-2013-0057.
Keat, O. Y., Selvarajah, C., & Meyer, D. (2011). Inclination towards
entrepreneurship among university students: An empirical study of
Malaysian university students. International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 2(4), 206-220.
Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-
understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(5), 430-445.
doi:10.1080/02601370210156745.
Khuong, M. N., & An, N. H. (2016). The factors affecting entrepreneurial
intention of the students of Vietnam National University: A mediation

320 Ip, Wu, Liu & Liang– Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

analysis of perception toward entrepreneurship. Journal of Economics,

Business and Management, 4(2), 104-111.
doi:10.7763/JOEBM.2016.V4.375.
Kibler, E., & Kautonen, T. (2016). The moral legitimacy of entrepreneurs:
An analysis of early-stage entrepreneurship across 26 countries.
International Small Business Journal, 34(1), 34-50.
doi:10.1177/0266242614541844.
Kraus, S., Filser, M., O’Dwyer, M., & Shaw, E. (2014). Social
entrepreneurship: An exploratory citation analysis. Review of
Managerial Science, 8(2), 275-292. doi:10.1007/s11846-013-0104-6.
Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models
of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5),
411-432. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0.
Liang, C., Chang, C.-C., Liang, C.-T., & Liu, Y.-C. (2017). Imagining future
success: Imaginative capacity on the perceived performance of
potential agrisocio entrepreneurs. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23,
161-174. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2016.12.007.
Luo, M., & Chui, E. W. T. (2016). An alternative discourse of productive
aging: A self-restrained approach in older Chinese people in Hong
Kong. Journal of Aging Studies, 38, 27-36.
doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2016.04.002.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of
explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1),
36-44. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002.
Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to
create a social venture are formed. In J. Mair, J. Robinson & K. N.
Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 121-135). Basingstoke,
U.K.: Palgrave MacMillan.
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. (2012).
Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion
encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review,
37(4), 616-640. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0456.
Mort, G., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship:
Towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76-88. doi:10.1002/nvsm.202.

IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3) 321

Ngai, S. S. Y. (2006). Service-learning, personal development, and social

commitment: A case study of university students in Hong Kong.
Adolescence, 41(161), 165-176.
Nickols, S. Y., & Nielsen, R. B. (2011). So many people are struggling:
Developing social empathy through a poverty simulation. Journal of
Poverty, 15(1), 22-42. doi:10.1080/10875549.2011.539400.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions
and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3.
Sequeira, J., Mueller, S. L., & McGee, J. E. (2007). The influence of social
ties and self-efficacy in forming entrepreneurial intentions and
motivating nascent behavior. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 275-293. doi:10.1142/S108494670700068X.
Shumate, M., Atouba, Y., Cooper, K. R., & Pilny, A. (2014). Two paths
diverged: Examining the antecedents to social entrepreneurship.
Management Communication Quarterly, 28(3), 404-421.
doi:10.1177/0893318914538561.
Siu, W. S., & Lo, E. S. C. (2013). Cultural contingency in the cognitive
model of entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 37(2), 147-173. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00462.x.
Stam, W., Arzlanian, S., & Elfring, T. (2014). Social capital of entrepreneurs
and small firm performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and
methodological moderators. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1),
152-173. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.01.002.
Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L. M., & Stride, C. (2015). Institutions and social
entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support,
and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business
Studies, 46(3), 308-331. doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.38.
Thompson, E. R. (2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct
clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 669-694.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00321.x.

322 Ip, Wu, Liu & Liang– Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

Urban, B. (2015). Evaluation of social enterprise outcomes and self-efficacy.

International Journal of Social Economics, 42(2), 163-178.
doi:10.1108/IJSE-03-2013-0071.
Wang, J.-H., Chang, C.-C., Yao, S.-N., & Liang, C. (2016). The contribution
of self-efficacy to the relationship between personality traits and
entrepreneurial intention. Higher Education: The International
Journal of Higher Education Research, 72(2), 209-224.
doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9946-y.
Wang, J.-H., Peng, L.-P., & Liang, C. (2014). Developing and testing the
psychological variable, rural practice, and entrepreneurial intentions
scales. Review of Agricultural Extension Science, 31, 72-95.
Wissink, B., Koh, S. Y., & Forrest, R. (2017). Tycoon city: Political
economy, real estate and the super-rich in Hong Kong. In R. Forrest,
S. Y. Koh & B. Wissink (Eds.), Cities and the super-rich: Real estate,
elite practices and urban political economies (pp. 229-252). New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wood, S. (2012). Prone to progress: Using personality to identify supporters
of innovative social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 31(1), 129-141. doi:10.1509/jppm.11.060.
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital,
knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young
technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 587-
613. doi:10.1002/smj.183.
Zheng, H., Li, D., Wu, J., & Xu, Y. (2014). The role of multidimensional
social capital in crowdfunding: A comparative study in China and US.
Information & Management, 51(4), 488-496.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.03.003.

IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3) 323

Ching Yin Ip is Research Assistant, Department of Bio-Industry

Communication and Development, National Taiwan University.

Shih-Chia Wu is Professional Consultant, School of Journalism and

Communication, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Huei-Ching Liu is Research Assistant, Department of Bio-Industry

Communication and Development, National Taiwan University.

Chaoyun Liang is Professor, Department of Bio-Industry

Communication and Development, National Taiwan University.
ORCID: 0000-0001-6608-7717.

Contact Address: Chaoyun Liang, Department of Bio-Industry

Communication and Development, National Taiwan University, No.
1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei, 10617, Taiwan. Email:
[email protected]