Bridging The Intention–Action Gap: Psychological And Contextual Determinants Of Social Entrepreneurial Intention Among University Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69980/2wr72934Keywords:
Social entrepreneurial intention, empathy, moral obligation, self-efficacy, perceived support, TPBAbstract
Despite increasing interest in social entrepreneurship, many students who express prosocial values do not translate intention into venture creation. Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Social Cognitive Theory, this study examines psychological and contextual antecedents associated with Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)-related dispositions among 713 university students. Exploratory factor analysis identifies four constructs: Empathy, Moral Obligation, Self-Efficacy, and Perceived Support. The overall scale demonstrates good reliability (α = .833), though factor-level reliability varies. Students report strong moral obligation (M = 3.984) and self-efficacy (M = 3.917), but lower perceived support (M = 3.459). Correlation analysis shows moderate positive associations among all constructs, indicating theoretical coherence but construct distinctiveness. Findings reveal a clear intention–action gap, where internal motivation is not matched by perceived environmental support. The study contributes by positioning perceived support as a critical environmental enabler within SEI models and offers implications for entrepreneurship education, institutional design, and youth policy.
References
1.International Labour Organization (ILO). (2023). World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2023. ILO Publications.
2.Basu, R. (2024). Youth unemployment and underemployment in India: Trends, challenges, and policy responses. Economic and Political Weekly, 59(8), 45-52.
3.United Nations. (2023). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023. UN Publications.
4.Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Working Paper.
5.Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 28-39.
6.Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commer-cial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22.
7.Nicholls, A. (Ed.). (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustain-able social change. Oxford University Press.
8.Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.
9.Barnett, R. (2011). Being a university. Routledge.
10.Hazelkorn, E., Boffo, S., & Salah-Eldeen, A. (2023). The evolving role of universities in education and science for the age of transformation. Springer.
11.Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(6), 2469-2497.
12.Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
13.Kickul, J., & Lyons, T. S. (2020). Understanding social entrepreneurship: The relentless pursuit of mission in an ever changing world (2nd ed.). Routledge.
14.Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146-1163.
15.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
16.Hockerts, K. (2017). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions. En-trepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 105-130.
17.Mumford, M. D., Todd, E. M., & Higgs, C. (2017). Challenge and complex-ity: The effects on motivation in creative thought. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 74-85.
18.Ames, D. R., Flynn, F. J., & Weber, E. U. (2016). Strategy and social network with low-cost entry: How asymmetry shapes success in the competitive environment. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 759-777.
19.Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excite-ment in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). George Washington University.
20.Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 112-122.
21.Cardella, G. M., Hernández-Sánchez, B. R., & Sánchez-García, J. C. (2020). Entrepreneurial competencies revisited: Insights into entrepreneurial skills and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-15.
22.Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Un-derstanding and learning from the differences. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 246-262.
23.Park, J. H., Sohn, S. Y., & Park, S. H. (2020). Social enterprises, job creation, and social open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(2), 26.
24.Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (Eds.). (2001). The emergence of social enter-prises. Routledge.
25.Ribeiro, C., Feitor, H., & Fernandes, C. (2021). Quality of employment in social enterprises: A literature review. Social Enterprise Journal, 17(1), 33-56.
26.Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J. A., Lans, T., Aafaqi, R., & Mulder, M. (2016). The impact of teacher’s personal characteristics on entrepreneurship education in vocational education. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 68(2), 173-192.
27.European Commission. (2018). European entrepreneurship competence framework. Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
28.Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, en-trepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307-1314
