Tác động của tính cách, giáo dục và kinh nghiệm đến ý định khởi sự kinh doanh xã hội tt tiếng anh

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY
--------------------------------

PHAN TAN LUC

THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS, EDUCATION AND
EXPERIENCE ON THE SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION
Major: Business Administration
Code: 9340101

SUMMARY OF PH.D THESIS

Ho Chi Minh – 2021


The thesis was completed at University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City Science Instructor
1. Associate Professor Pham Xuan Lan
2. Associate Professor Bùi Thanh Tráng
Reviewer 1: .........................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................
Reviewer 2: ........................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................
Reviewer 3: ........................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................
The thesis will be presented to the school-level thesis evaluation board at:
At …….. time …….. date …….. month ……. year ……..
The thesis can be found at at the library: ........................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................


LIST OF PUBLISHED PAPERS

1. Phan Tan Luc, Pham Xuan Lan & Angelina Nhat Hanh Le (2019). A Systematic Literature Review
on

Social

Entrepreneurial

Intention. Journal

of

Social

Entrepreneurship,

1-16.

DOI:

10.1080/19420676.2019.1640770. (Scopus Q2)
2. Phan Tan Luc, Pham Xuan Lan, Angelina Nhat Hanh Le & Bui Thanh Trang (2020). A Co-Citation
and Co-Word Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship Research, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, DOI:
10.1080/19420676.2020.1782971. (Scopus Q2)
3. Phan Tan Luc, Pham Xuan Lan & Bui Thanh Trang (2020). Personality Traits and Social
Entrepreneurial Intention: The Mediating Effect of Perceived Desirability and Perceived Feasibility.

The Journal of Entrepreneurship. DOI: 10.1177/0971355720974811. (Scopus Q2).


1
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH THESIS
1.1 Research problem
Social entrepreneurship is playing an important role in supporting the provision of solutions to social
problems (Ellis, 2010; Dees, 2017). Social enterprise can be regarded as a form of business activity that is
beneficial to the whole society as it addresses the goals of addressing the social needs that the government or
business normally does not address or respond to (Alvord et al., 2004). Over the past decade, in line with a
considerable improvement in economic development, interest in social enterprises and social entrepreneurship
has increased significantly in Vietnam (Centre for Social Initiatives Promotion Report, 2016). In 2014, social
enterprises were officially recognized as a separate type of organization under the Vietnam Enterprise Law.
This is an important milestone, allowing social enterprises to grow further with the support of a wide range of
stakeholders. According to statistics of the United Nations Development Program (2016), the number of
Vietnamese social enterprises officially registered with the government was 80. These social enterprises helped
employ more than 100,000 people and improve the livelihoods of more than 600,000 people—mainly women,
children, ethnic minorities, disabled workers, and low-income workers in various fields such as agriculture,
education, environment, health and technology.
All English publications related to social entrepreneurship (articles, books, editorial material, book
chapters, notes, and letters) were searched in the Web of Science database. The phrase ‘social
entrepreneurship’ was searched in the topic field (title/ abstract/keyword) in Web of Science database. This
study examined publications that were published before November 2019. The preliminary search returned
1,278 publications. Co-citation analysis was used to analyze 1,278 publications related to social
entrepreneurshipon from Web of Science database. The results showed the formation of five clusters (see
Figure 1.1).
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Cluster 1.
The concept

development of
social
entrepreneurship
and social
enterprise

Cluster 2.
Bricolage and
issues related to
management in
social
entrepreneurship

Cluster 3.
Opportunity
recognition,
motivation, and
intention

Cluster 4.
Social innovation
in social
entrepreneurship

Cluster 5.
Institutional
contexts

Source: Author's summary

Figure 1.1 Co-citation clusters on social entrepreneurship
Based on the co-analysis results mentioned above, this thesis focuses on cluster 3 'Opportunity recognition,
motivation, and intention.' Although social entrepreneurship is an issue that has received a lot of attention from
stakeholders, there is currently an alarmingly low level of social entrepreneurship around the world, especially
in developing countries such as Vietnam. According to Krueger et al. (2000), the development of
entrepreneurship depends on the quality and quantity of entrepreneurs. Similarly, social entrepreneurship can
only grow if the number of social entrepreneurs increases. Intention is the best indicator of behavior (Ajzen,
1991) and entrepreneurial intention arguably plays an important role in the decision to create a business (Liñán


2
& Chen, 2009). Although social entrepreneurship has been noted to be an important strategy for the sustainable
development of society, academics and policymakers are trying to understand how an individual wishes to
become a social entrepreneur to elevate its presence (Tan, Le, and Xuan 2019). The answer to this question
may come from understanding social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) (Chipeta and Surujlal 2017). SEI can be
interpreted as a belief, desire, and determination to establish a new social enterprise in the future (Tran and
Von Korflesch 2016). Vietnam has several intermediary organizations dedicated to supporting social enterprise
development. The major organizations that have experience in this area in Vietnam include the Supporting
Vietnam Social Enterprise Community (SSEC), Centre for Social Initiatives Promotion (CSIP), Seed Planters,
HATCH! and Evergreen Labs. In addition, a number of social enterprise incubators that have been established
by government agencies, such as the Da Nang Entrepreneurship and Innovation Ecosystem (DNES), SiHUB
(Saigon Innovation Hub), Supporting Center for Youth's Startup (sYs), BKHUP, and Start-up Nation
Programme, also contribute to the development of social entrepreneurship in Vietnam. These characteristics
make Vietnam a suitable location to carry out the current research on SEI.
Based on the above-mentioned co-analysis results, this thesis focuses on cluster 3 ‘Opportunity recognition,
motivation, and intention’. The phrase “social”, “entrep*” and “intent*” were searched in the topic field (title/
abstract/keyword) in selected databases. The scope of this study was restricted to dates before 2019/04/04. Due
to variability in the peer-review process and their limited availability, book reviews, editorials, and papers
from conference proceedings were eliminated; as such, only peer-reviewed papers in English were considered
in this research (Jones, Coviello, and Tang 2011). As a result, a total of 624 papers were found, totalling 195

articles from the Scopus database, 126 articles from the WoS database and 303 articles from Google Scholar.
The content analysis resulted in four categories: ‘core model, methodological, and theoretical issues’;
‘personal-level variables’; ‘context and institutional’; and ‘the SEI-to-behaviour process’. As presented in
Table 2.2, each of the first three categories is composed of three themes, whereas the fourth category has only
one theme.
Table 2.2. Categories and themes in SEI research
Categories

Themes
General test core model/Extending model

Category 1: Core model, methodological, and theoretical
issues (12)

(7)
New approaches (3)
Methodology (2)
Personality factors (9)

Category 2: Personal-level variables (19)

Background factors (8)
Gender issues (2)
Cross-cultural studies (2)

Category 3: Context and institutional (4)

Institutional variables (1)
Organizational level (1)

Category 4: The social entrepreneurial intention-tobehaviour
process (1).
* Note: number of published papers is presented in parentheses.

Source:Analysis results


3
Category 1: core model, methodological, and theoretical issues (12 papers)
Studies in this category analyze the main elements of the SEI model and solve theoretical issues or use new
approaches and methodology to measure SEI. The authors found three themes within this category, namely:
‘general test core model/extending model’; ‘new approaches’; and ‘methodology’.
Regarding the first theme - ‘general test core model/extending model’ - seven published papers were
classified into this theme due to their testing of SEI models that extend entrepreneurial models with additional
variables. In particular, based on the entrepreneurial event models of Shapero and Sokol (1982) and the
entrepreneurial potential model of Kruger and Brazeal (1994), Noorseha (2013) investigated the SEI of
university students with two additional variables: empathy, and social entrepreneurship exposure. Hockerts
(2017) and Forster and Grichnik (2013) tested the first SEI model proposed by Mair and Noboa (2006). While
Hockerts (2017) extended the model by adding prior experience with social problems, Forster and Grichnik
(2013) proposed a new model by combining additional variables such as empathy, perceived social norms,
self-efficacy, and perceived collective efficacy. More recently, two research projects have adopted the
Hockerts (2017) model and tested it in both Hong Kong (Ip et al. 2017) and Philippines (Aure 2018). Tiwari,
Bhat, and Tikoria (2017b) explored the role of cognitive style and self-efficacy in predicting SEI in India
through three determinants of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). In the most recent research project, in
order to examine the applicability of the theory of behavior for predicting SEI, Zaremohzzabieh et al. (2019)
conducted a meta-analysis to propose two alternative models, with findings showing the better fit of alternative
models in contrast to the original TPB model in their prediction of SEI.
For the second theme of ‘new approaches’ with three papers in this category, alternative approaches in
determining SEI were deployed. Tran and Von Korflesch (2016) contributed to social entrepreneurship
literature by providing a new SEI model based on the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT). While Beugré

(2014) developed a model of moral engagement to explain the motivation underlying the creation of social
ventures, Rivera et al. (2018) carried out research using the servant leadership approach and lifestyles theory
to measure SEI. Overall, these new approaches show the potential for SEI measurement, although further
testing, comparison and expansion are needed in the future.
The final theme within Category 1, namely ‘methodology’, has two papers which focus on methodology
to measure SEI. Baierl et al. (2014) employed a questionnaire-based experimental design to show a positive
influence of general social appraisal. To explore the moral portrait of social entrepreneurs and formulate
empirically-grounded propositions, Bacq, Hartog, and Hoogendoorn (2016) performed four sets of binary
logistic regressions that distinguish between social and commercial entrepreneurs based on the database from
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor’s (GEM) 2009 Adult Population Survey.
Category 2. Personal-level variables (19 papers)
This category includes the largest number of articles that study the roles of individual characteristics in
forming SEI. Within the category, nine papers focus on the relationship between personality traits and SEI
which constitute the ‘personality factors’ theme. A second theme with eight papers relates to various
‘background factors’ such as education, status, university category, and motivation. Another subset of two
papers presents ‘gender issues’ in SEI.
Within the ‘personality factors’ theme having nine papers, distinctive personality traits of social
entrepreneurs and would-be social entrepreneurs are discussed. In order to discover the general personality of
a potential social entrepreneur, Nga and Shamuganathan (2010) and Preethi and Priyadarshini (2018) draw on
the Big 5 model (i.e., extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, conscientiousness and agreeableness)


4
to measure five SEI dimensions as follows: social vision, financial returns, innovation, sustainability, and
social networking, whereas, Ip, Wu, et al. (2018) simply test the five personality traits of the Big 5 model.
Next, specific personality traits for SEI have been studied, such as risk-taking propensity, proactivity and
creativity (Chipeta and Surujlal 2017; Politis et al. 2016; Kedmenec, Rebernik, and Perić 2015; Prieto 2011),
emotional intelligence and self-efficacy (Tiwari, Bhat, and Tikoria 2017a), and compassionate love, hardship
in life and moral judgment competence (Kedmenec, Rebernik, and Perić 2015; Bacq and Alt 2018).
With respect to ‘background factors’, eight papers in this theme study the impacts of various background

factors affecting SEI. There are two papers examining the role of education on SEI. Shahverdi, Ismail, and
Qureshi (2018) identify barriers of SEI by moderating the role of education amongst research universities in
Malaysia. Hockerts (2018), in turn, focuses on the relationship between the process of experiential learning
and the trend of social enterprise establishment. In addition, a number of background factors such as differing
status (student and alumni) and university categories (research university, focus university, comprehensive
university, and private university) (Radin et al. 2017), prior experience (Lacap, Mulyaningsih, and Ramadani
2018), perceived access to finance (Luc 2018), human capital and social capital (Jemari et al. 2017),
motivational needs (Barton, Schaefer, and Canavati 2018) and social innovation orientation (Cavazos-Arroyo,
Puente-Diaz, and Agarwal 2017) are empirically investigated in relation to SEI.
Within Category 2, two papers in the ‘gender issues’ theme examine the role of gender in the formation of
SEI. Notais and Tixier (2017) design a qualitative study to understand what motivates the desire of women to
become social entrepreneurs. Lortie, Castrogiovanni, and Cox (2017) draw on theory from gender self-schemas
and social identity theory to explain how women have a natural tendency to create social goals and intentions.
Category 3. Context and institutions (4 papers)
Although this category has only four papers which devote a special consideration to the environmental and
institutional factors that influence SEI, the three themes of ‘cross-cultural studies’, ‘institutional variables’ and
‘organizational level’ are identified. There are two papers related to ‘cross-cultural studies’ that focus on
comparing the intent of starting a social business between nations. Comparable pairs of countries include the
United States and China (Yang et al. 2015) and Taiwan and Hong Kong (Ip, Liang, et al. 2018). The results of
the studies show that SEI is not uniform across different cultures and individuals are affected by their culture
during the formation process of SEI. Regarding the ‘institutional variables’ theme, there is only one paper Urban and Kujinga (2017) - which studies the contextual factors of the institutional environment in an African
context. The findings show that the regulatory environment has a positive and significant impact on SEI
through feasibility and desirability. Finally, with regard to the ‘organizational level’ theme, the paper by Tan
and Yoo (2015) constitutes a theme of its own. The results show that organizational attributes and social
missions have significant effects on SEI.
Category 4. The social entrepreneurial intention-to-behavior process (1 paper)
This group focused on longitudinal studies to learn about the process of change from SEI to the actual
behavior of respondents. There is only one paper classifying all within this group. Salhi (2018) examines the
role of personal motivation in the process of formulating the process of change from SEI to behavior. The
results show that personal motivations do not affect SEI and SEI is not significant in determining behavior.

On the other hand, the factors that influence SEI are very diverse; in this thesis, the author focuses on
personality traits, experience, and social entrepreneurship education because these factors are all core
components of human capital (Marvel et al., 2016). The interest in these factors has increased in parallel with
the attention given to the impact of human capital on entrepreneurial intention in the past two decades (Marvel


5
et al., 2016). Human capital is a fairly broad structure and has many approaches; however, personality traits,
experience, and social entrepreneurship are still indispensable core components of human capital. Ployhart and
Moliterno (2011) divide human capital into two categories: cognitive human capital (experience and education)
and noncognitive human capital (personality traits and motivation). Accordingly, cognitive human capital
tends to be visible and developable, while noncognitive human capital tends to be hidden and difficult to
develop.
This thesis divides human capital into two groups (cognitive human capital noncognitive human capital)
and explores each of these groups' impact on SEI through two empirical studies. The implementation of two
empirical studies with these two groups of factors is an appropriate approach for the following reasons:
Firstly, these are two groups of human capital that are different in nature. If personality traits are influenced
by internal factors such as intellect, instincts, emotions, desires, habits, and ways of thinking (McClelland,
1965), experience and education are influenced by external factors such as work experience, the impact of
courses, life experiences (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Marvel et al., 2016). Therefore, the mechanism of
forming intentions through antecedents also requires these antecedents to be considered appropriately for each
group of factors so that the combination of personality traits, experience, and social entrepreneurship education
simultaneously in the same SEI model is inappropriate. Specifically, in this thesis, the personality traits that
will be considered through two antecedents are perceived feasibility and perceived desirability, while
experience and education will be regarded as having social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social
entrepreneurial outcome expectations.
Secondly, in recent years, the interest of the academic community in the relationship between human capital
factors and SEI has increased noticeably (Tan et al., 2019). Many studies focusing on the role of personality
traits, experiences, and social entrepreneurship education have been conducted (Chipeta and Surujlal, 2017,
Politis et al., 2016, Kedmenec et al., 2015, Prieto, 2011). However, these studies have not fully explored the

roles of personality traits, experiences, and education in predicting SEI. Therefore, the simultaneous
consideration of these factors can easily lead to overlapping and unclear identification of impact effects. For
example, personality studies are a broad category in SEI topic (Tan et al., 2019), considering the interaction
between personality traits and other factors is unnecessary even when social entrepreneurs' personality traits
are still an unclear topic. Many current studies also focus more on personality traits rather than combining it
with other factors in the model of social entrepreneurship intention (Russia and Shamuganathan, 2010; Aure,
2018; Chipeta and Surujlal, 2017; Prieto, 2011).
For the above reasons, the thesis conducted two empirical studies to examine the impact of personality
traits, experiences, and education on social entrepreneurial intention:
▪ The first empirical study: the impact of personality traits on social entrepreneurial intention.
▪ The second empirical study: the impact of experiences and education on social entrepreneurial
intention.
1.2 Research gaps
Firstly, analyzes and classifications of SEI studies are scarce. Furthermore, scholars to date have unclear
and non-systematic information about the quantity and quality of SEI research that has been conducted.
Secondly, most of the research on SEI uses the theory of intention from EI such as Shapero's Entrepreneurial
Event (SEE) (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) or theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), the use of new
theoretical models also should be considered and assessed for the applicability in the context of social
entrepreneurship. Thirdly, previous studies have not highlighted which traits are characteristic of social


6
entrepreneurs. In addition, there is little empirical evidence on the indirect relationship between personality
traits and SEI (Russia and Shamuganathan, 2010; Ip et al., 2018a; Hsu and Wang, 2018; Preethi and
Priyadarshini, 2018). Fourthly, in previous studies, two factors, experience, and education were mostly
considered control variables in forming the SEI, and not much attention is given to the relationship between
experience, education, and SEI. Fifthly, the relationship between human capital factors and SEI is mainly
studied in developed economies, while the research evidence in developing countries is still limited. For the
above reasons, the author chose to implement the impact of personality, education, and experience on SEI.

HUMAN CAPITAL (Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011)

Noncognitive (personality traits)

Cognitive (experiences and education)

The first empirical study: the impact

The second empirical study: the impact of
experiences and education on SEI

of personality traits on SEI

Source: Author's summary
Figure 1.2 Two empirical studies in this thesis
1.3 Objectives of the study
1.3.1 The general objective of the study
This thesis summarizes the SEI topic from research gaps and builds a model to clearly explain the impact
role of each group of human capital factors, including noncognitive human capital (personality traits) and
cognitive human capital (experience and education) and their influence on SEI.
1.3.2 Specific objectives
The first objective: This thesis examines the impact of personality traits (noncognitive human capital) on
SEI through two premises in the first SEI model of Mair and Noboa (2006). Second objective: This thesis
examines the impact of experience with social organizations and social entrepreneurship education (cognitive
human capital) on SEI through social cognitive career theory (SCCT). The third objective: Proposing policy
implications to increase SEI in particular and social entrepreneurship in general based on aspects of human
capital.
1.4 Research subjects and scope
The object of this study is the two groups of factors of human capital, including personality traits
(noncognitive human capital), experience, and education (cognitive human capital) and SEI. The author

coordinated with the Vietnam Social Enterprises Community (SSEC) to collect data from individuals
participating in social entrepreneurship-related activities. The sample in this study is selected according to the
conventional method. The questionnaire survey link created on Google Forms is sent to individuals who
participate in the activities organized by SSEC.


7
Social entrepreneurship is still very new in Vietnam, so to ensure that the participating individuals have
enough knowledge and understanding to complete the survey on SEI, this study will focus on individuals who
have participated in courses/programs organized by the Vietnam Social Enterprises Community (SSEC), Seed
Planters, Saigon Innovation Hub and CSIP. These individuals mostly live in the HCMC area and surrounding
areas.
1.5 Research method
From identified research gaps, research models and draft scales were formed. After that, the author
conducted a group discussion of expert social entrepreneurs or those who have social entrepreneurship
experience to complete the model and scale. Subsequently, the second draft scale was formed to serve
preliminary quantitative research. The second draft scale was used for the test with samples of 100 individuals
using a convenient method when they participated in activities organized by the Supporting Social Enterprise
Community (SSEC). Cronbach's Alpha exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to evaluate the reliability
of the scale. As a result, the official scales are complete. The official questionnaire was emailed to the selected
respondents. Both measurement and structural models were empirically tested by the Partial Least Squares
(PLS) approach. PLS is suitable for our research model because it emphasizes exploration and prediction (Hair
Jr et al. 2016). In addition, the sequential mediation tests followed the stages suggested by Baron and Kenny
(1986). The procedure for our data analysis consists of: (1) the assessment of the reliability and validity of the
measurement model; (2) the evaluation of the structural model; and (3) the evaluation of the sequential
mediating effect.
1.6 Contributions of thesis
First, this is the earliest review on social entrepreneurship by combining co-citation analysis and keyword
analysis to determine the literature structure and potential research directions. Second, this is the pioneer study
to synthesize social entrepreneurial intention topics and to offer a guide to researchers by providing a

systematic understanding of the structure of social entrepreneurial intention research from academic literature.
Third, this thesis explores the personality traits of potential social entrepreneurs as a combination of general
entrepreneurial traits and social entrepreneurial traits. Fourth, this thesis explores the mediating effect of
perceived feasibility and perceived desirability in the relationship between personality traits and social
entrepreneurial intention. Fifth, this thesis examines the simultaneous impact of experience and education on
social entrepreneurial intention through social cognitive career theory. Sixth, this thesis assesses social
entrepreneurship education through awareness of individuals' perceptions after having experienced and learned
about social entrepreneurship. In addition, experience will be considered as prior experience with social
organization. Seventh, this thesis was carried out in Vietnam - a developing country - characterized by skills
and education on social entrepreneurs being in the early stage of formation and development, low levels of
social entrepreneurship activities, but potential (CSIP, 2016). Finally, this research will focus on people who
have a particular interest in social marketing. They are considered the most potential subjects to become social
entrepreneurs in Vietnam.


8

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION AND
RESEARCH MODEL

2.1 Social entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship is a rapidly evolving field that aims to meet the needs of society (Urban and Kujinga
2017; Arroyo-López and Carcamo-Solis 2011). Social entrepreneurship covers business activities that combine
the "social" and "entrepreneurship", therefore social entrepreneurship is considered to be a branch of
entrepreneurship research (Peredo and McLean 2006). According to Leadbeater (1997), social
entrepreneurship is regarded as an intermediary economic activity operating within public, private, and
voluntary activities. It involves a novel way and creative perspective to address social issues such as those in
education, environment, health and human rights (Mair and Noboa 2003). In a broad sense, social
entrepreneurship refers to a new form of creating and maintaining social values (Anderson and Jack 2002).
Although there are many descriptions and explanations, social entrepreneurship is generally defined as a

"process that begins with the formation of social ideas, identifying opportunities and solutions for sustainable
social development” (Salamzadeh, Azimi, and Kirby 2013; Shane 2003). Creating social value or solving
social problems through innovative solutions is the primary goal of social entrepreneurship; indeed, this is the
main difference between social business and other forms of business (Zahra et al. 2008; Alvord, Brown, and
Letts 2004).
2.2 Social entrepreneurial intention
Intention reflects a motivational factor that influences behavior, thus it is a reliable indicator of the effort
and willingness of a person to perform the behavior (Ajzen 1991; Austin, Stevenson, and Wei‐Skillern 2006).
SEI refers to the intention of starting a social enterprise (Mair and Noboa 2006) and is considered a
psychological behavior encouraging an individual to acquire knowledge, instigate novel ideas, and implement
the social entrepreneurial plans to eventually become a social entrepreneur (Mair, Robinson, and Hockerts
2006).
2.3 Review background theories of social entrepreneurial intention
By summarizing social entrepreneurial intention studies, the use of background theories to predict social
entrepreneurial intention can be divided into three main groups:
The first group inherits and uses theories from commercial entrepreneurial intentions such as Shapero’s
Entrepreneurial Event, entrepreneurial potential model (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994), theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
The second group uses entirely new and specifically designed models for social entrepreneurship such as
Mair and Noboa (2006)'s the first model of social entrepreneurial intention and model of Nga and
Shamuganathan (2010).
The third group includes new models emerging through the development of previous theories such as social
cognitive career theory (was developed from social cognitive theory) or Hockert (2017) 's model (was changed
and added new elements from the original model of Mair and Noboa (2006).
2.4 Research gaps in the relationship between personality traits and social entrepreneurial intention and
research model
First, studies using The Big Five model have difficulty distinguishing between the personality traits of
commercial entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. Second, previous studies were based only on traits
commonly found in commercial entrepreneurs, thus leading to a lack of consideration of social personality

9
traits. Third, social personality traits have not been considered in the social entrepreneurial intention, but only
in studies on the intention to participate in social and volunteer activities. Fourth, it is essential to consider the
role of both traditional personality traits and social entrepreneurial traits in order to understand the similarities
and differences in personality traits of social entrepreneurs and commercial entrepreneurs (Smith et al., 2014).
Fifth, the thesis explores the impact of personality traits on social entrepreneurial intention through two
antecedents of Mair and Noboa's first model of social entrepreneurial intention (2006), including perceived
feasibility and perceived desirability. Finally, this study examines how traits in Asian culture affect social
entrepreneurial intention.
Besides the direct impact hypotheses as shown in Figure 2.7, 4 hypotheses for mediation effects are tested
as follows:
H9a: Perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of general entrepreneurial traits
(risk-taking propensity, need for achievement, pro-activeness and innovativeness) and social entrepreneurial
intention.
H9b: Perceived feasibility of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of general entrepreneurial traits
(risk-taking propensity, need for achievement, pro-activeness and innovativeness) and social entrepreneurial
intention.
H9c: Perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of social entrepreneurial traits
(empathy and moral obligation) and social entrepreneurial intention.
H9d: Perceived feasibility of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of social entrepreneurial traits
(empathy and moral obligation) and social entrepreneurial intention.

Source: Proposed by author
Figure 2.7. Proposed model and hypotheses


10
2.5 Research gaps in the relationship between education, experience, and social entrepreneurial
intention

First, experience and education are still new in social entrepreneurial intention, and there are still
contradictions in previous studies. Second, previous studies only considered experience and education as
control variables and have not yet clearly shown the impact of experience and education on the process of
forming social entrepreneurial intention. Third, education and experience are two important structures in
cognitive human capital. However, these factors have been studied separately but have not been considered to
have a simultaneous impact on social entrepreneurial intention. Fourth, the indirect effects through the
antecedents of social entrepreneurial intention have not received much attention, so in this study, the impact
of the relationship between experience, education, and social entrepreneurial intention was considered through
two antecedents of social cognitive career theory (social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social
entrepreneurial outcome expectations). Fifth, this thesis assesses social entrepreneurship education through
awareness of individuals' perceptions after having experienced and learned about social entrepreneurship. In
addition, experience was considered as prior experience with social organization. Sixth, this thesis was carried
out in Vietnam - a developing country - characterized by skills and education on social entrepreneurs being in
the early stage of formation and development, low levels of social entrepreneurship activities but potential
(CSIP, 2016). Besides the direct impact hypotheses as shown in Figure 2.8, 2 hypotheses for mediation effects
are tested as follows:
H8a: SE self-efficacy and SE outcome expectations sequentially mediate the effect of social
entrepreneurship education on social entrepreneurial intention.
H8b: SE self-efficacy and SE outcome expectations sequentially mediate the effect of prior experience with
social organizations on social entrepreneurial intention.

Source: Proposed by author
Figure 2.8. Theoretical framework


11
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS
Over the past decade, in line with a considerable improvement in economic development, interest in social
enterprises and social entrepreneurship has increased significantly in Vietnam (Centre for Social Initiatives
Promotion Report, 2016). In 2014, social enterprises were officially recognized as a separate type of

organization under the Vietnam Enterprise Law. This is an important milestone, allowing social enterprises to
grow further with the support of a wide range of stakeholders. According to statistics of the United Nations
Development Program (2016), the number of Vietnamese social enterprises officially registered with the
government was 80. These social enterprises helped employ more than 100,000 people and improve the
livelihoods of more than 600,000 people—mainly women, children, ethnic minorities, disabled workers, and
low-income workers in various fields such as agriculture, education, environment, health and technology.
Vietnam has several intermediary organizations dedicated to supporting social enterprise development through
the provision of courses, training and mentoring. The major organizations that have experience in this area in
Vietnam include the Supporting Vietnam Social Enterprise Community (SSEC), Centre for Social Initiatives
Promotion (CSIP), Seed Planters, HATCH! and Evergreen Labs. In addition, a number of social enterprise
incubators that have been established by government agencies, such as the Da Nang Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Ecosystem (DNES), SiHUB (Saigon Innovation Hub), Supporting Center for Youth’s Startup
(sYs), BKHUP and Start-up Nation Programme, also contribute to the development of social entrepreneurship
in Vietnam. These characteristics make Vietnam a suitable location to carry out the current research on SE
intention.
The sampling frame consisted of participants attending various programs hosted by SSEC and CSIP, such
as the Funds for Social Entrepreneurs in Vietnam, Green our World, Social Immersion Program, and Workshop
on Social Innovation and Enterprise. The survey was undertaken by collaborating with the two most prominent
organizations (e.g., SSEC and CSIP) that promote social entrepreneurship in Vietnam. Based on the provided
list, an online questionnaire created on Google Forms was sent to individuals who have taken at least three
social-entrepreneurship orientation courses. The questionnaire was originally developed in English, and
subsequently translated into Vietnamese for the collection of data. To ensure equivalence between the two
versions, the back-translation technique was used. A total of 850 questionnaires were distributed. Finally, 503
valid responses were collected, representing a response rate of 59.17 percent.
Specifically, the author performs the following steps:
Step 1. Test the measurement model. The measurement model is tested through criteria of composite
reliability (CR), Average Variance Extract (AVE), comparing the square root of extraction variance (AVE)
with coefficients correlation to evaluate differentiation, factor loading factor (Factor Loading) and Cross
Loading (Cross Loading) and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
Step 2. Examine the structure model. Structure model is tested through R2 and Q2.

Step 3. Examine the direct effects of variables in the model.
Step 4. Examining the mediating effect according to the 4-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny
(1986).
Step 5 is to check the results of intermediate effects through two values: CI (Confidence interval) through
the bootstrapp process with the sample number of 5,000 and the index Variance accounted for (VAF).


12
CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH RESULT
4.1 Research results on the relationship between personality traits and social entrepreneurial intention
4.1.1 Measurement model
Reliability of the factors was measured as both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. Cronbach’s
alpha values in this study ranged from 0.639 (for empathy) to 0.93 (for need for achievement). The composite
reliability values ranged between 0.68 (for empathy) to 0.93 (for need for achievement). Cronbach’s alpha
values and composite reliability for all the constructs are very close or above to the threshold value of 0.7
(Nunnally and Bernstein 1978). The results indicated the evidence of construct reliability. The average
variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs in this study was above 0.5, which indicated the convergent validity
of each construct in the model.
This study evaluated the discriminant validity using three criteria such as Fornell and Larcker (1981), cross
loading and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). According to Fornell and Larcker (1981)
stated that the values of variables are compared to the square root of AVE. The square roots of all AVEs (from
0.526 to 0.730) were larger than the shared variance of a latent variable with other latent variable.
Regarding cross loading, Chin (2010) suggests that each indicator loading should be greater than all its
cross-loadings. In this model, each indicator’s outer loading was greater than 0.5 (from 0.502 to 0.980) on their
own construct and higher than all its cross-loadings with other constructs.
Finally, the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) is a new method for assessing the validity
of discrimination in PLS-SEM and is considered superior to traditional discriminant validity assessment
approaches such as Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and cross-loadings (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt
2015). The result showed that neither lower nor upper confidence interval (CI) includes a value of 1, which
shows that the model satisfied discriminant validity. To sum up, the convergent validity and discriminate

validity of the measurement items are achieved.
4.1.2 Structural model
To test the hypotheses, this study ran the structural model. The criteria were considered evaluating the
structural model assessment including path coefficient, the coefficient of determination (R 2), cross-validated
redundancy (Q2). A t-test calculated from the bootstrapping process of 5.000 samples was applied to test the
direct effects (Figure 4.1). H1 and H2 examined direct relationships from perceived desirability of social
entrepreneurship and perceived feasibility of social entrepreneurship to social entrepreneurial intention. The
result found the support for H1 and H2. The remaining hypotheses in the research model examine the direct
impact from personality traits to perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship and perceived feasibility of
social entrepreneurship respectively and found the support for H3a, H3b, H4a, H5a, H5b, H6b, H7b, H8a,
H8b, and remaining such as H4b, H6a, H7a rejected. The results were presented in Figure 4.1.


13

Source:Analysis results

Figure 4.1 Research results and direct‐effect relationship coefficients
4.1.3 Mediation test
The four‐step procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) was followed to test the mediating effects
of two mediators (perceived feasibility (PF) and perceived desirability (PD)) respectively in the relational
antecedents (six personality traits include need for achievement (NA), risk-taking propensity (RT),
innovativeness (INN), pro-activeness (PRO), empathy (EMP) and moral obligation (MO).
In step 1, all antecedents (six personality traits: need for achievement, risk-taking propensity,
innovativeness, pro-activeness, empathy and moral obligation) were tested for direct impact on social
entrepreneurial intention. At this step, there are only four personality traits that affect social entrepreneurial
intention including pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation. Because risk-taking
propensity and need for achievement failed to test direct effect, thus these two personality traits were not
further assessed in step 2 and step 3.
In Steps 2 and 3, the four antecedents (pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation) had

significant impacts on the two mediators, which also significantly influenced the social entrepreneurial
intention.
In Step 4, the research results of testing mediating effects of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility
showed that all relationships in steps 2 and 3 were supported, whereas in relation to the direct effect of
personality traits (pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation) in step 1, only empathy and
moral obligation were supported, the relationship between pro-activeness and innovativeness were not
significant. Thus, the results showed that the two mediators (perceived desirability and perceived feasibility)


14
fully mediated the effects of pro-activeness to social entrepreneurial intention, while these two mediators
partially mediated the effects of moral obligation to social entrepreneurial intention. In addition, only perceived
feasibility fully mediated the effects of innovativeness to social entrepreneurial intention and partially mediated
the effects of empathy to social entrepreneurial intention. The result found the support for and H9d, and
remaining such as H9b, H9a, H9b rejected.
Table 4.1 Mediation test

Analysis steps

Research variables

Mediator
PD

Outcome
PF

PRO

SEI

-0.057
-0.037
0.146b

INN

0.141b

EMP

0.215b

MO

0.153c

RT
NA
Antecedent

Step 1

Antecedent
Step 2
and Step 3
Mediation
Antecedent
Step 4
Mediation

PRO
INN
EMP
MO
PD
PF
PRO
INN
EMP
MO
PD
PF

0.303c
0.054
0.100
0.179b

0.323c

0.210c

0.114a
0.193c
0.256c
0.155b

0.109a
0.196c
0.257c

0.157b

0.123b
0.294c
0.090
0.106
0.167a
0.096a
0.055c
0.201c

Source:Analysis results

The additional mediating test were conducted to test mediating effects. The bootstrapping process with
5,000 samples showed that pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation had indirect effect
on the social entrepreneurial intention (Table 4.1). In summary, two mediators fully mediated the effects of
pro-activeness to social entrepreneurial intention, while these two mediators partially mediated the effects of
moral obligation to social entrepreneurial intention. In addition, only perceived feasibility fully mediated the
effects of innovativeness to social entrepreneurial intention and partially mediated the effects of empathy to
social entrepreneurial intention.


15
Table 4.2. Supplementary mediation tests
Antecedent‐mediators‐outcome
relationship
PRO - PD - SEI
PRO - PF - SEI
INN - PF - SEI
EMP - PF - SEI

MO - PD - SEI
MO - PF - SEI

Significance effect at 95% level
Point of estimate
Confidence interval
0.016
0.023
0.032
0.042
0.011
0.033

0.006 – 0.041
0.005 – 0.044
0.013 – 0.057
0.019 – 0.071
0.004 – 0.030
0.012 – 0.060
Source:Analysis results

4.2.4 Discussion
The research results bring interesting insights into the effect of general entrepreneurial traits and social
entrepreneurial traits on social entrepreneurial intention. To consider the general entrepreneurial traits, this
study examined the effect of four key general entrepreneurial personality traits on potential social
entrepreneurs, including risk-taking propensity, need for achievement, proactiveness, and innovativeness.
There is evidence that commercial entrepreneurs’ two very typical personality traits, including risk-taking
propensity and need for achievement, did not affect social entrepreneurial intention. Social entrepreneurial
intention is considered unaffected by risk-taking propensity because social entrepreneurs do not allow risk
barriers to reduce their desire to pursue social values (Peredo & McLean, 2006). They are aware of the risks

of failure as part of the innovation process rather than an individual tragedy and are willing to accept it (Mair
& Marti, 2006). Social entrepreneurs do not seek short-term solutions or short-term results but want to create
a lasting social impact and sustainable results.
Regarding the need for achievement, this study’s results can be explained by potential social entrepreneurs
who are socially oriented in their thinking; they are oriented to pursue social value instead of fame, money, or
achievement. Perceived desirability and perceived feasibility fully mediated the relationship between
proactiveness and social entrepreneurial intention. Proactive people are continually looking for opportunities
to change their lives, and starting a business is also one of their priority options (Chipeta & Surujlal, 2017).
Thus, they always have the desire to become entrepreneurs. In addition, they always strive to develop their
capabilities to meet best the opportunities they see, so these individuals always feel confident when they find
opportunities to become entrepreneurs. This result also confirmed once again the role of innovativeness in
entrepreneurial intention and social entrepreneurial intention (Irena Kedmenec et al., 2015). In social
entrepreneurship, an entrepreneur is an innovator with different approaches (Dees, 2007). Many studies
suggest that social entrepreneurs exhibit greater innovativeness than commercial entrepreneurs because they
face less common problems and situations in society (Irena Kedmenec et al., 2015). The intriguing insights
obtained about mediation indicate that only perceived feasibility fully mediated the relationship between
innovativeness and social entrepreneurial intention. This can be explained because innovativeness is a common
trait that increases confidence in finding solutions to social problems, but that does not mean that
innovativeness promotes the desire to become social entrepreneurs.
The two social personality traits, including empathy, and moral obligation, also affect social entrepreneurial
intention. The research results show that like traditional personality traits, empathy and moral obligation also
strongly affect the individual desire to become a social entrepreneur. Perceived desirability and perceived
feasibility partially mediated the relationship between moral obligation and social entrepreneurial intention.
The cognitive process of helping individuals is one of the basic personalities that distinguish commercial


16
entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs (Ip et al., 2018), which is especially true for individuals who intend to
become social entrepreneurs. Moral obligations can guide individuals to help people around them by shaping
their desire to become social entrepreneurs. The findings from previous studies suggest that empathy is

contradictory (Hockerts, 2017), but this finding agrees with most previous studies when it comes to empathy
that has a direct and indirect effect on social entrepreneurial intention (Ip et al., 2018). In addition, moral
obligation and empathy help individuals overcome barriers of knowledge and skills to believe it is feasible to
become a social entrepreneur.
Regarding the mediating effects of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility, the personality traits all
affect social entrepreneurship’s perceived feasibility. It means these personality traits, not only influence
attitudes, subjective norms, or the desire to become entrepreneurs like previous studies (Chipeta & Surujlal,
2017), but they also play an important role in promoting belief about their competence to become a social
entrepreneur. While perceived desirability and perceived feasibility fully mediate in the relationship from
general entrepreneurial traits (proactiveness and innovativeness) to social entrepreneurial intention, perceived
desirability and perceived feasibility partially mediate the relationship from social entrepreneurial traits
(empathy and moral obligation) to social entrepreneurial intention. This divergence might come from
differences in the nature of the two groups of personality traits. Social entrepreneurial traits can directly
influence intention when an individual has empathy or moral obligation for social issues. Meanwhile, general
entrepreneurial traits require a process of evaluation and information gathering to form perceived desirability
and perceived feasibility before starting a social entrepreneurial intention.
4.2 Research results on the relationship between education, experience and social entrepreneurial
intention
4.2.1 Measurement model
The reliability and convergent validity of measurement scales are typically determined by factor loadings,
Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) (Hair Jr et al., 2016). The
results presented in Table 2 showed that Cronbach's α and CR values were greater than the recommended value
of 0.7, while factor loadings and AVE were above the threshold of 0.5; together, these results indicated the
reliability and validity of all constructs in the model (Hair Jr et al., 2016).
Discriminant validity refers to the extent to which constructs are distinct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Discriminant validity can be assessed by comparing the amount of the variance captured by the construct and
the shared variance with other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In Table 3, the square roots of all AVEs
were larger than correlations among constructs that indicated the measures were discriminate.
Additionally, discriminate validity was confirmed by examining the cross-loading of the indicators (Hair
Jr et al., 2016) and HTMT (Henseler et al., 2015). In this measurement model, factor loadings were above 0.5

and higher on their own construct than for their cross-loadings on other constructs. Furthermore, all HTMT
values were lower than the threshold value of 0.90, and neither lower nor upper confidence interval (CI)
included a value of 1. Thus, both convergent and discriminant validity were established for this measurement
model.
4.2.2 Structural model
The R2 values for the endogenous variables of SE self-efficacy, SE outcome expectations, and social
entrepreneurial intention were 0.195, 0.717 and 0.229, respectively, values which were considered acceptable
(Hair Jr et al., 2016). In addition, the authors used the predictive sample reuse technique (Q2) to evaluate for
predictive relevance (Hair Jr et al., 2016). Based on the blindfolding procedure, Q 2 for SE self-efficacy, SE


17
outcome expectations and social entrepreneurial intention were 0.044, 0.351 and 0.122, respectively, which
were greater than 0. This showed that the research model had significant predictive relevance (Hair Jr et al.,
2016).
A t-test calculated from the bootstrapping process of 5000 samples was applied to test the direct effects
(Figure 4.2). The results showed that the direct impacts from SE self-efficacy and SE outcome expectations
to social entrepreneurial intention were significant. Thus, H1, H2 and H3 were supported. In addition, social
entrepreneurship education was positively associated with SE self-efficacy, but the relationship between social
entrepreneurship education and SE outcome expectations was not significant; hence H4 was supported, while
H5 was not supported. Prior experience with social organizations was also positively associated with both SE
self-efficacy and SE outcome expectations, supporting H6 and H7.

Source:Analysis results

Figure 4.2 Theoretical framework and analysis results
4.2.3 The sequential mediating effects
The authors used the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test the sequential
mediating effects (Table 4). In step I, EDU and EXP positively affect SEI. In steps II and III, EXP and EDU
had significant impacts on the two sequential mediators (SESE and SEOE), which also significantly influenced

the SEI, whereas the SESE significantly affected the SEOE. In the final step, the results showed that all the
relationships in steps 2 and 3 were supported, whereas in relation to the direct effect of the two antecedents
(EDU and EXP) in step 1, only the relationship between EDU and SEI was supported—the relationship
between EXP and SEI was not significant. Thus, the results showed that the two mediators (SESE and SEOE)
fully and sequentially mediated the effects of EXP to SEI, while SESE partially mediated the effects of EDU
to SEI.


18
Table 4. Mediation test
Analysis steps

Mediation

Research variables

SESE
Step 1

Antecedent
Step 2 and Step 3

Antecedent

SEOE

0.293c

EXP

0.110a

EDU

0.209c

0.163c

EXP

0.161b

0.207a
0.843c

Antecedent

EDU

0.208c

-0.010

0.185c

EXP

0.161b

0.073a

0.011

c

0.386c

SESE
Biến trung gian

0.409c
0.155c

SEOE

Step 4

SEI

EDU

SESE

Biến trung gian

Outcome

0.829

0.123b

SEOE

a<.05, b<.01, c<.001
Note. EDU: social entrepreneurship education; EXP: Prior experience with social organizations; SESE: SE selfefficacy; SEOE: SE outcome expectations; SEI: social entrepreneurial intention;
Source:Analysis results

Two additional mediating tests were conducted to confirm sequential mediating effects. The bootstrapping
process with 5,000 samples showed that EDU and EXP had an indirect effect on the SEI (bias corrected 95%
confidence interval: 0.005 - 0.044 and 0.018 - 0.042). The variance accounted for (VAF) determines the size
of the indirect effect in relation to the total effect (i.e., direct effect + indirect effect) (Hair Jr et al., 2016). The
calculated VAF values showed that the mediation effect of SESE on the EDU-SEI relationship was 30.26%,
while the sequential mediation effects of two mediators (SESE and SEOE) on the EXP-SEI relationship was
92.83%. In summary, the results from the mediating tests showed that two mediators (SESE and SEOE)
sequentially mediated the effects of EXP to SEI, while only SESE mediated the effects of EDU to SEI, thereby
supporting H8b and rejecting H8a.
Table 4.4 Supplementary mediation tests
Antecedent‐mediators‐

Significance effect at 95% level

VAF

Point of estimate

Confidence interval

EXP-SESE-SEOE-SEI

0.020

0.005 - 0.044

0.9283

EDU-SESE-SEI

0.046

0.018 - 0.042

0.3026

outcome relationship

Source:Analysis results

4.2.4 Discussion
This study provides insights into self-efficacy and outcome expectations in the context of social
entrepreneurship. In particular, our empirical findings support that SCCT can be employed to predict SEI
through two determinants, SESE and SEOE, thus adding to the areas in which the theory is applicable. In
addition, EXP has significant and positive effects on both SESE and SEOR; however, EDU is only found to
have an impact on SESE, but not on SEOE. A possible explanation for this finding is that EDU provides
appropriate knowledge and relevant skills, but it is difficult to convince people to believe in the positive


19
outcomes of running a social business. This result implies that the SEOE cannot be taught, but practical
personal experience is needed. Individuals will develop their own perception of the expected outcomes they
can achieve through life and work experiences. This result contradicts several results from previous studies in

entrepreneurship that advocate education to help visualize the achieved results (Zhang, Duysters, and Cloodt
2014). Compared to entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship is a relatively new concept, and it is—as a
consequence—difficult for individuals to be aware of what the purposes of social entrepreneurs are. As such,
teaching about SE outcome expectations will become ineffective in environments where the level of social
entrepreneurship remains low. Meanwhile, EDU still holds a key role in increasing SESE. The significant
finding for SESE is similar to the results of previous studies, such as Oosterbeek, Van Praag, and Ijsselstein
(2010) and Zhao, Seibert, and Hills (2005). In short, the more knowledge and skills that education provides,
the higher an individual believes in their abilities, in turn making them more likely to become social
entrepreneurs.
The direct effect of the accumulated experience in doing social works on SEI has been frequently found in
the existing literature (Hockerts 2017; Kautonen, Luoto, and Tornikoski 2010). However, our indirect findings
imply that individuals who have experience with social work only want to be social entrepreneurs when they
feel capable of becoming social entrepreneurs, as well as having anticipated outcomes that meet their
expectations. Unlike work experience or management experience, prior experience with social organizations
not only enhances learning by equipping knowledge and skills, but also inspires becoming a social
entrepreneur. Experience working with social organizations can provide practical knowledge and skills that
education cannot. In addition, the application of theoretical knowledge into practice is also one of the important
factors in helping increase SESE. Prior experience with social organizations provides information for
individuals to personally assess their knowledge and skills, as well as the effectiveness of using these
capabilities, in social entrepreneurship. Understanding social problems or interacting with social entrepreneurs
increases awareness of what a social entrepreneur can achieve or their goals when they set up a social
enterprise. Furthermore, experience working with social organizations provides the opportunity for individuals
to come into contact with social issues, which develop social personalities and lead individuals towards their
desire to become social entrepreneurs.
The results contribute to the SEI field by exploring two sequential mediators, SESE and SEOE, on the
linkages from EDU/EXP to SEI. SESE and SEOE complementary and sequentially mediate the effects of EDU
to SEI while these two mediators fully (indirect-only mediation) and sequentially intervene the effects of EXP
to SEI. EDU retains the orientation in increasing intention to start a social business through SESE as previous
studies (Akar and Ustuner 2017; Bayrón 2013), but is unable to increase awareness of SEOE. When society's
perception of social entrepreneurship is low, the teaching or introduction of SEOE is completely ineffective in

SEI formation. EXP is one of the most important personal variables that influence the intention to start a social
business (Hockerts 2017). It not only enhances SESE by giving individuals opportunities to put what they have
learned into practice, but also helps to visualize what a social entrepreneur can achieve.


20

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION
5.1 Theoretical contribution
5.1.1 Theoretical contribution from SEI systematic literature review
The systematic literature review is the pioneer study to synthesize social entrepreneurial intention topics
and to offer a guide to researchers by providing a systematic understanding of the structure of social
entrepreneurial intention research from academic literature.
5.1.2 Theoretical contribution of the first empirical study on the relationship between personality and social
entrepreneurial intention
First, this study confirmed the possibility of applying the Mair and Noboa (2006) model in predicting the
intention to start a social business through the perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship and perceived
feasibility of social entrepreneurship. Second, the personality traits of individuals who intend to begin social
enterprise is a combination of general entrepreneurial traits (proactiveness, innovativeness) and social
entrepreneurial traits (empathy and moral obligation). More surprisingly, two very typical personality traits of
commercial entrepreneurs, including risk-taking propensity and need for achievement, did not affect the social
entrepreneurial intention. Third, while perceived desirability and perceived feasibility fully mediate in the
relationship from general entrepreneurial traits (pro-activeness and innovativeness) to social entrepreneurial
intention, perceived desirability and perceived feasibility partially mediate the relationship from social
entrepreneurial traits (empathy and moral obligation) to social entrepreneurial intention.
5.1.3 Theoretical contribution of the second empirical study on the relationship between social
entrepreneurship education, experience and social entrepreneurial intention
First, as a relatively new theoretical lens, SCCT has been found to be applicable in the context of social
entrepreneurship. Second, this study contributes to an understanding of the indirect aspects of social
entrepreneurship education and experience in social entrepreneurial intention research. Third, the results

contribute to the social entrepreneurial intention field by exploring two sequential mediators, SE self-efficacy
and SE outcome expectations, on the linkages from social entrepreneurship education/prior experience with
social organizations to social entrepreneurial intention.
5.2 Implication
This thesis has conducted two literature reviews into social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurial
intention; these reviews help researchers locate their research, discover potential themes for future research,
and make social entrepreneurship knowledge more accessible to new researchers and policymakers. New
researchers will also gain an overview of key structures, key research directions in social entrepreneurship,
and social entrepreneurial intention. Policymakers, who have very little exposure to academic issues, can also
access social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurial intention more easily to learn and formulate social
entrepreneurship development strategies.
The first empirical research in this thesis offers practical insights for policymakers and social
entrepreneurship educators. Policymakers should develop an environment that fosters proactiveness,
innovativeness, empathy, and moral obligation - these are the personality traits that influence social
entrepreneurial intention. Policymakers can organize and design programs that help students become more
aware of social entrepreneurship, advice, and support creative ideas and solutions. This helps increase the
aspiration of potential social entrepreneurs and makes them feel more viable to become social entrepreneurs
when receiving a lot of social support. Social entrepreneurs have personality traits similar to those of social


21
entrepreneurs. Thus, developing more personality traits for potential commercial entrepreneurs is also an
appropriate development strategy to grow the number of social entrepreneurs. Current entrepreneurship
courses should be expanded to equip social entrepreneurship knowledge and skills. This will improve social
entrepreneurship awareness and equip the necessary capabilities for both commercial entrepreneurs and social
entrepreneurs in the future. Social entrepreneurial educators can create more hands-on experience with social
entrepreneurship-related tasks to help elicit students' social entrepreneurial traits. Also, extensive experience
with social issues in volunteering or direct contact with social entrepreneurs can become an incentive for an
individual to become a social entrepreneur.
The second empirical research in this thesis benefits practitioners and policymakers in several ways. First,

derived from the measurement scales of SE self-efficacy and SE outcome expectations, a set of evaluative
indicators can be developed to measure individuals' confidence, ability, and outcome expectations regarding
their perception toward social entrepreneurship careers. Such indicators can provide important cues for
implementing capacity building programs and strategic promotion practices pertaining to social
entrepreneurship. Second, strategies to urge individuals to become social entrepreneurs should focus on
making them feel they can contribute to solving social problems. Third, another strategy can rely on the
promotion of social empathy and dispatch of moral obligations that emphasize the significance as well as the
necessity of individual contribution to solving social problems. With respect to the significant effect of SE
outcome expectations on social entrepreneurship intention, these findings imply that strategies associated with
raising individuals' expectations about positive outcomes of social entrepreneurship should be applied. For
example, practitioners and policymakers should develop a good media strategy where successful social
entrepreneurs share their social and economic achievements. The real life stories of successful entrepreneurs
are not only those who achieve public recognition for their contributions to society, but also those that obtain
financial rewards, independence, and family security, a scenario that can strongly inspire people to run their
own social business. Fourth, knowledge and skills need to be updated continuously in accordance with the
latest social issues so that individuals feel confident in social entrepreneurship. Curriculum and training courses
should aim to equip the required knowledge and skills and introduce the outcomes to which a social
entrepreneur can contribute. Thirdly, curriculum and training courses need to be built by combining knowledge
related to social entrepreneurship and volunteer activities to promote motivational values. Extracurricular
activities that help people interact and understand more about current social issues can be integrated into
primary and secondary education. Social activities with social organizations not only help students attain
experience with social issues but also help to train social skills and spread social entrepreneurship. Finally,
policymakers need to create social entrepreneur networks to connect with potential social entrepreneurs. This
directive will help those who want to become social entrepreneurs learn the skills and knowledge as well as
establish the necessary motivation and enthusiasm to participate in social entrepreneurship.