Keywords

Social Entrepreneurship, Personal Motivation, Entrepreneurial Intention, Behaviour.

Introduction

Social entrepreneurship has increasingly become a durable solution for reconciling financial interests and economic and social values (Stryjan, 2006; Short et al, 2009; Nicholls, 2010; Newth, 2016). The worldwide interest in this subject follows a global vision that is committed to the social dimension of business decisions and decisions concerning proper employment (Dees, 1998; Bornstein, 2004; Salamon, 2012; Mishra and Zachary, 2015). In fact, understanding the intentions of entrepreneurs can also help both researchers and policy makers to evaluate the different phenomena related to entrepreneurship (Fruchterman, 2011; Santos, 2012; Salhi and Boujelbene, 2013; Woodfield and al, 2017).

Inspired by different published studies that have analysed social entrepreneurship, our research aims to respond to the following question:

How to explain the motivations, intentions and behaviour of social entrepreneurs? In motivations, intentions and behaviours of social entrepreneurs?"

This research aims to understand the context of social entrepreneurs’ motivations (model No 1), as well as the formation of the intentions and behaviours of these entrepreneurs (model No 2). The research questions addressed in this study are as follows:

-To what extent can personal motivations influence the intentions of social entrepreneurs?

The data have been collected through responses to a standardized questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent to a heterogeneous population of 186 owners of Saudi businesses to measure the effect of various personal motivations on the intentions and behaviours of social entrepreneurs.

Literature Review And Hypothesis

Effect of Personal Motivations on Intentions

Although considered to be one of the less understood factors affecting entrepreneurial behaviour, psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs have increasingly received attention by such scholars as McClelland, (1961) and Brockhaus, (1982). Recently, researchers have focused on personality traits of active entrepreneurs (Dawson and Henley, 2012; Eijdenberg and Masurel, 2013; Langevang et al., 2012). A series of psychological characteristics that are considered effective indicators of entrepreneurial behaviour have gradually been assembled following the pioneering works of McClelland (1961).

These works provide us with a literature review useful for our research, as well as a chronology of traits associated with the entrepreneurial behaviour of social entrepreneurs. These studies also provide us with the necessary tools to support our first general hypothesis.

H1: Personal motivations positively influence the intentions of social entrepreneurs.

Need for Achievement

McClelland (1961) has defined the term desire for achievement or need for achievement as the desire to do good things aiming at achieving an internal feeling of personal accomplishment. Many empirically confirmed results show the presence of a positive relationship between the need for achievement and entrepreneurial success (Lynn, 1969; Durand and Shea, 1974).

On the basis of these results, Collins et al. (2000) have concluded that the need for achievement is an effective tool to distinguish between enterprise creators and the population in general. However, to differentiate between enterprise creators and managers, these authors have concluded that the need for achievement could be particularly effective in distinguishing between different groups of enterprise creators and assessing their successes. Thus, the need for achievement could play a very useful role in explaining entrepreneurial activity. We can therefore state our first hypothesis:

H1.1: The "Need for Achievement" has a positive impact on the personal motivations of social entrepreneurs.

Risk-Taking

Risk-taking as another motivating factor has emerged from the work of McClelland (1961) in an original study about entrepreneurs. McClelland has confirmed that people with high needs for success would have the personal trait to take moderate risks.

According to a common interpretation by Hunter, Kapp, and Yonkers, (2003), in the context of entrepreneurial projects, a risk taker is someone who pursues a business idea for which the probability of success is low.

A study conducted by Xiao et al., (2001) examines the level of risk tolerance among the family-businesses owners and non-business owners. Atkinson (1957) also argued that individuals with a great motivation prefer entrepreneurial activities of intermediate risk because these types of activities pose a challenge. Similarly, Busenitz (1999) argued that entrepreneurs have a tendency to consider situations more favourably than non-entrepreneurs. We can therefore state our second hypothesis:

H1.2: Risk taking positively influences the personal motivation of social entrepreneurs

Tolerance for Ambiguity

According to Norton, (1975), a person who has low ambiguity tolerance reacts prematurely, where stress stops the ambiguous stimuli. Conversely, a person with high ambiguity tolerance perceives ambiguous situations as desirable, difficult and interesting stimuli and ignores their complexities. There is, in fact, a degree of support for this prediction.

Ambiguity tolerance is an important trait for entrepreneurs. This tolerance is valuable according to Tsui (1993) because the challenges and the potential of success associated with the creation of enterprises are by definition unpredictable. Begley (1995) defines ambiguity tolerance as the ability to regard situations with no clear results as attractive, rather than threatening.

This inconsistency in the results and the potential for methodological problems in the research lend support to the type of tolerance that we wish to demonstrate. These findings also question whether ambiguity tolerance acts as a motivating factor that affects one aspect of the entrepreneurial process. These theoretical contributions provide us with the tool to express the next hypothesis:

H1.3: Ambiguity tolerance has a positive impact on the personal motivations of social entrepreneurs.

Feeling of Competence

The theoretical contributions and the results discussed in this section allow us to formulate two major hypotheses that stress the importance of the locus of control and self-efficacy for social entrepreneurs. For additional clarity, it would be useful to more precisely define these concepts.

Locus of control: Another characteristic of motivation that has attracted researchers’ attention is the locus of control. This attention represents the degree to which individuals believe that their actions and personal traits would influence their achievements.

Research indicates that individuals with an internal locus of control often have a more obvious need to realize goals (Brockhaus and Robert, 1982; Gurin et al., 1969).

Similarly, Hansemark (2003) stressed the significant impact of the locus of control in predicting the launching of new businesses. The ability to achieve success in the existing business was also linked to the internal locus of control in accordance with Begley and Boyd (1987) and Durand and Shea, (1974). However, these studies were carried out without any consideration for the differences specific to each type that may exist.

These results also corroborated the findings of Bonnet and Furnham (1991) and Nwachukwu and Saviour, (1995), who recognize the internal locus of control as an aspect of psychological traits that is important to the spirit of enterprises. This result allows us to state the following hypothesis.

H1.4: The "locus of control" has a positive impact on the personal motivation of social entrepreneurs.

Self-Efficacy: Self-efficacy represents the belief of an individual in his ability to successfully accomplish a goal (Bandura, 1977). Various studies have found that a high self-efficacy constitutes a basis for achieving the maximum of human performance (Bandura et al. 1999). According Markman, Pinshow and Wright (2002) and McMullen and Shepherd (2006) self-efficacy is manifested by the force and belief of an individual in his ability to successfully accomplish a specific task or a series of related tasks. Bandura, (1977), (1982) links this self-confidence with individual capacities, which depend on previous experiences, learning, society and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. McGee, Fairlie, Garnham, et al., (2009) consider this confidence as the belief in the individual ability to successfully accomplish the tasks.

These various determinants seem to have received much attention in the entrepreneurial studies. We accordingly state the following hypothesis:

H1.5: Self-efficacy positively influences the personal motivations of social entrepreneurs.

Effect of Intention on Behaviour

The effect of intention on individual behaviour has not been analysed in detail in the field of entrepreneurship. This effect has been analysed through a variety of target behaviours in a meta-analysis of Kim and Hunter (1993), Bird (1988), and Thomas and Mueller (2000). Intentions have been related to several personal perceptions with regard to the environment of the business and its surrounding society. The culture of a particular society may reinforce certain characteristics and personal behaviours or inhibit and penalize these behaviours. Zahra et al. (1999) studied the role that society plays in determining entrepreneurial behaviour.

According to the "planned behaviour" theory of Ajzen (1991), the intentions to perform a specific behaviour depend directly on three perceptions: the attitudes, perceived behavioural control or self-efficacy, and social standards, as reflected in the influence of the social pressures to adopt certain behaviour. It is assumed that meeting these three conditions is fundamental for forming a favourable intention that leads to powerful behaviour.

Attitude Regarding Behaviour

According to Ajzen (1991) and Emin (2003), the attitude represents the attractiveness of a behaviour. These authors predict that a behaviour would be adopted according to a combination of emotional and cognitive factors. The emotional factor encompasses the importance of feelings, moods and emotions about a person, an idea, an event, or an object. Therefore, personal preferences, attitudes and the inclination towards entrepreneurship give rise to different behaviours. They determine the positive or negative assessment of a person of a specific behaviour (Ajzen 2002; Kolvereid 1996). The attitude with regard to the behaviour represents for Ajzen and Fish-bein, (1980) the degree of assessment, favourable or unfavourable, that a person has of a desired behaviour. They gave reference to the set of feelings, beliefs and trends that are relatively durable and oriented towards people, groups, ideas, problems, or even specific objects (Petty, Wengener and Fabrigar, 1997).

Social Norms and Behaviour

Social standards result from different perceptions of individuals within the social context and of their relatives. This perception mainly concerns how the different participants, whether family or friends, think of their behaviours. The participants constitute a motivation simulated by different judgements and personal factors, environmental or institutional, which reflect the social dynamics.

Ajzen (1991) defines social standards by referring to different perceived social pressures to perform or abstain from certain behaviours. Ajzen (2002) and Zhao et al. (2005) concretised this concept by observing the ease or difficulty to become an entrepreneur. This variable holds a great importance through its effect on the process of behavioural control and the capacity to predict the perception of behaviour (Zhao et al. 2005).

Perceived Behavioural Control and Behaviour

Intentions to adopt different actions depend on the attitudes, perception of personal desirability and social conditions of the participants. This perception allows scholars to motivate the behaviour to perform such an action or achieve the associated goal.

Thus, according to Ajzen (1991), perceived behavioural control corresponds to the perceived easiness or difficulty to achieve a goal associated with a behaviour. Stated differently, this control refers to the perception of the feasibility of the concerned behaviour. According to Emin (2003), the concept of perceived behavioural control is very close to that of personal efficiency suggested by Bandura (1977) (see also Ajzen, 1991), and similar to the concept of feasibility suggested by Shapero and Sokol (1982) and Tounès (2003).

However, the moderating effect of this control has been supported by several empirical studies, such as Armitage and Conner (2001) and Ajzen (2002). These studies suggest that this control can lead to distinct elements of self-efficacy and controllability, which are similar to the internal and external control. The internal control that includes different intrinsic factors is similar to the concept of self-efficacy. The external control reflects the extrinsic factors. Fitch and Ravlin (2005) described it in terms of resources and opportunities that facilitate the performance of a behaviour.

Intention Predicts Behaviour

Understanding intentions allows us to understand the phenomena and behaviours related to entrepreneurship (Barkovic and Kruzic, 2010). In this context, the behaviour is presented as a direct function of the intention. This intention, in turn, is the result of three conceptual determinants: the attitude vis-a-vis the behaviour, the social norm and the perceived behavioural control. In this sense, Segal et al. (2005) adopt different disciplines to consider and understand behavioural intentions. These different perspectives can develop the capacity to understand and predict entrepreneurial activity.

Similarly, Liñán and Santos (2007) observed that intentions are pre-conditions to achieving the performance of a specific behaviour. Liñán et al. (2010) and Amari et al. (2014) agreed with Fayolle and Degeorge (2004) concerning intention.

The theoretical findings of the different authors (Ajzen (1991); Choo et Wong, 2009) agreed on the importance of entrepreneurial intention for predicting entrepreneurial behaviour. These researchers highlighted intention as the main factor that explains entrepreneurial behaviour in different contexts. Incorporating these different theoretical contributions, we can propose our third research hypothesis.

H3: Intention determines the behaviour of social entrepreneurs.

Explicative Model Of The Intention And The Behaviour Of Social Entrepreneurs

With respect to this empirical part, we present and discuss the results of the analyses as a main and corroborative component of this study. Our objective is to check the validity of the aforementioned research hypotheses. For this purpose, we tackle the basic elements for this research, as well as the different needs for information. These tools help to determine the effect of personal motivation on entrepreneurial intention and behaviour. The figure below presents the general conceptual model.

Our research problematics for this study are as follows:

- To what extent personal motivation can influence social entrepreneurs’ intention?

- To what extent intention can influence the behaviour of social entrepreneurs?

Suggestion of a Measure for Intention and Entrepreneurial Behaviour

Entrepreneurial behaviour can be explained in relation to intention among social entrepreneurs: thank you for answering our question by ticking the boxes which indicate your situation.

In our research, this variable will be measured by the third question in our questionnaire. This variable is measured via different items. These items are drawn from different sources, including Milstein (2005), Fayolle et Degeorge (2006), Choo et Wong (2009), Douglas et Fitzsimmons (2012), and Amari et al. (2014). Thank you for indicating the answer that is closest to what you think about each of the following propositions ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree”.

Factorial Exploratory Analysis

Before applying an FEA to the items constituting the variable of entrepreneurial behaviour, it is necessary to test for the normality of the distribution. In fact, an examination of the coefficients of asymmetry and of the flattening shows that the items constituting the entrepreneurial behaviour variable are distributed normally.

The results of the FEA that measure the entrepreneurial behaviour variable enabled us to conclude about the quality of the communality representation>0.5 (Table 1).

Table 1: Analysis In Main Components Applied To 'Entrepreneurial Behaviour'
Items	Alpha if item eliminated	Quality of representation	Factorial contribution
behaviour 1	0.792	0.591	0.768
behaviour 2	0.722	0.708	0.841
behaviour 3	0.716	0.767	0.876
behaviour 4	0.72	0.736	0.857
behaviour 5	0.734	0.652	0.807
Total variance explained	73.27%
KMO	0.781
Own value	2.198
Cronbach Alpha	0.812

From the main component matrix, it follows that the structure of this variable is unidimensional. In fact, all the items belong to a unique factor. Thus, the factorial contributions of these items (loading) are satisfactory (>0.5). For this variable, the determinant of the correlation matrix is different from zero, which means that this matrix is defined as positive. This explains the absence of multi-collinearity or the absence of information redundancy in the correlation matrix.

According to Roussel et al. (2002), “a matrix is said to be defined positive if all of its own values are positive” and if its determinant is greater than zero.

Referring to Bartlett's tests (test re H0: the correlation matrix is an identity matrix) and of KMO (which measures the global integrity between the variables), we can conclude that there exists a minimum of correlations between variables. In fact, these tests indicate respectively that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix (reject H0 because p=0.00<0.05) and that the integrity between the items is 'good' (0.781).

To ensure the reliability of this construct, we had resorted to the most widely used reliability indicator Alpha de Cronback (1955), which measures the global internal consistency of a number of items (Churchill, 1979). For this construct, the indicator shows a value of 0.812. Based on the indicator threshold (0.7) fixed by Nunally (1978), this value indicates that this construct is reliable. In other words, the sample items reproduce quite well the construct 'entrepreneurial behaviour'.

Results of the Factorial Confirmatory Analysis

Quality adjustment of the global measure model

a) Verification of the Model’s Quality

• Factorial Confirmatory Analysis:

The previously applied method of Factorial Confirmatory Analysis (FCA) has enabled us to obtain different factors, which are the result of the redistribution of numerous items. These factors require a confirmation through an FCA applied to the context of the so-called measure model (Table 2).

Table 2: Values Of The Adjustment Indices Of The Factorial Confirmatory Analysis
The indications of adjustment	Values obtained	Performance appraisal
	2.05	(>2) → not satisfactory
GFI	0.931	(>0.9) → good
AGFI	0.879	(<0.9) → not satisfactory
CFI	0.934	(>0.9) → good
TLI	0.909	(>0.9) → good
NFI	0.921	(>0.9) → good
RMR	0.052	(>0.05) → not satisfactory
RMSEA	0.07	(>0.05) → not satisfactory

We can report several satisfactory and several unsatisfactory results.

In table number 2, we notice that the quality of ''t'' is not satisfactory because is higher than 2 and that the values of AGFI, RMR and RMSEA are not satisfactory because they do not correspond to the fixed threshold.

Consequently, it becomes necessary to introduce changes to the initial model to improve its adjustment quality. To this end, we use the elimination approach or the addition approach.

b) Modification of the Measure Model

Our model is based on the CR values (which must be higher than 1.96) and on the extracted average variances. We have eliminated four items: need 1, need 2, behaviour 1, and behaviour 5 to have a good adjustment quality (Table 3).

Table 3: Values Of The Indices Of Adjustment Of The Factorial Confirmatory Analysis After Modification
The indications of adjustment	Values obtained	Performance appraisal
	1.501	(<2) → good
GFI	0.972	(>0.9) → good
AGFI	0.966	(>0.9) → good
CFI	0.987	(>0.9) → good
TLI	0.981	(>0.9) → good
NFI	0.951	(>0.9) → good
RMR	0.034	(<0.05) → good
RMSEA	0.042	(<0.05) → good

• Reliability Test of the Constructs:

To test the reliability of the constructs, we have calculated the Rhô of Jöreskog. The results are presented in the table below (Table 4):

Table 4: Reliability After Modification
Concepts	Dimensions	Rhô of Joreskog
Personal motivations	Need for achievement	0.823
	Risk -Taking	0.773
	Tolerance to ambiguity	0.831
	Locus of control	0.872
	Self-efficacy	0.793
Intention	Intention	0.771
Entrepreneurial behavior	Entrepreneurial behavior	0.836

Checking the values of the Rhô of Jöreskog shows that all the constructs have a threshold that is either above or very close to the threshold fixed by Roussel et al. (2002). Thus, all our constructs proved to be reliable.

c) Validation of the Measure Model:

Once the adjustment quality was cleared, and the studied constructs were demonstrated to be reliable, we checked two types of validities: the convergent validity and the discriminating validity(Table 5).

tr>

Table 5: The Average Extracted Variance (Aev) Of Constructs
Concepts	Dimensions	VME
Personal motivations	Need for achievement	0.784
	Risk -Taking	0.696
	Tolerance to ambiguity	0.863
	Locus of control	0.688
	Self-efficacy	0.773
Intention	Intention	0.703
Entrepreneurial behavior	Entrepreneurial behavior	0.804

• Convergent Validity:

According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the convergent validity is supported if the extracted average variance calculated for each construct is higher than 0.5(Table 6).

Table 6: Test Of The Discriminating Validity
	Need	Risk	Tolerance	Control	Efficiency	Intention	behavior
Need	0.784
Risk	0.143	0.696
Tolerance	0.423	0.289	0.863
Control	0.154	0.005	0.292	0.688
Efficiency	0.053	0.057	0.005	0.116	0.773
Intention	0.004	0.00001	0.063	0.071	0.001	0.703
behavior	0.0005	0.0161	0.002	0.005	0.0002	0.015	0.804

In table 8 below, we present the values of the VME for each construct.

• Discriminating Validity:

To speak about the discriminating validity, we must verify that the interior coherence is higher than the value of the correlation squared.

We therefore conclude that the discriminating validity is supported,

Verification of the Quality of the Structure Model:

• Factorial Confirmatory Model:

We carried out the analysis based on the values of the CR and the adjustment indices obtained in the two following tables (Table 7).

Table 7: Values Of Adjustment Indices Of The Factorial Confirmatory Analysis
The indications of adjustment	Values Obtained	Performance appraisal
	2.276	(>2) → Not satisfactory
GFI	0.932	(>0.9) → Good
AGFI	0.887	(<0.9) → Not satisfactory
CFI	0.949	(>0.9) → Good
TLI	0.922	(>0.9) → Good
NFI	0.914	(>0.9) → Good
RMR	0.051	(>0.05) → Not satisfactory
RMSEA	0.069	(>0.05) → Not satisfactory

The results of the Factorial Confirmatory Analysis of the structure model, as well as the values of the adjustment indices, show that it is important to introduce necessary modifications to improve the adjustment quality of the model.

• Modification of the Structure Model:

To improve the adjustment quality of our structured model, we shall undertake modifications by elimination based on the values of the CR that are lower than 1.96. Because these modifications are not always sufficient for improving the adjustment quality of the model, we resorted to a ‘by addition approach’, through which we obtained a good adjustment quality for the structured model. The values of the CR and the indices of the structured model are presented in the following table (Table 8).

Table 8: The Values Of The Adjustment Indices Of The Measure Model After Modification
The indications of adjustment	Values Obtained	Performance appraisal
	1.423	(>2) → Good
GFI	0.964	(>0.9) → Good
AGFI	0.941	(>0.9) → Good
CFI	0.973	(>0.9) → Good
TLI	0.982	(>0.9) → Good
NFI	0.952	(>0.9) → Good
RMR	0.032	(<0.05) → Good
RMSEA	0.036	(<0.05) → Good

Verification of the Hypotheses

The verification of the hypotheses is carried out through the CR test, i.e., the risk associated with rejecting the null hypothesis (there is no relation between the variable to be explained and the explicative variable), as well as the value and the sign of the coefficients of the standardized regression. The results are similar to those presented in Table 9.

Table 9: Validation Of The Hypotheses Related To The Regression Relations
Hypothesis	Relations	Standardized coefficients of regression	CR	P
H1.1	The need for achievement → motivations	0.298	2.534	0.007
H1.2	Risk-taking → motivations	0.201	1.988	0.092
H1.3	The tolerance for ambiguity → motivations	-0.033	-0.448	0.476
H1.4	Locus of control → motivations	0.303	2.986	0.006
H1.5	Self-efficacy → motivations	-0.012	-0.072	0.837
H1	Motivations → Intention	-0.079	-1.764	0.152
H2	Intention → behaviour	0.097	1.023	0.502

This table clearly shows that the effect of the need for realization is confirmed with a CR of approximately 2534 (>1.96) and a p value of approximately 0.007. The risk of rejecting H0 is very low. Thus, the research hypothesis is accepted. These results justify the significant and direct impact of the need for self-realization on the personal motivation of the Saudi social entrepreneurs. Based on previous studies of Murry (1938), McCelelland (1961), Robbins et al. (2004), and Eijdenberg and Masurel (2013), we can conclude that this variable constitutes an efficient tool for distinguishing between the Saudi social entrepreneurs and the population in general.

The risk of rejecting the hypothesis that "Risk-taking does not influence personal motivation" is weak (CR=1988>1.96; p=0.092>0.05). The hypothesis H1.2 concerning the effect of risk-taking on personal motivations is thus accepted. This variable has an impact on the personal motivations of the Saudi social entrepreneurs. The latter pursue the idea of enterprise creation when the probability of success is weak. These effects are consistent with the results of McCelelland (1965), Hunter et al., (2003), Gilbert, McDougall and Audretsch (2010) and Mustafa, Lundmark and Ramos (2016).

However, the effect of ambiguity tolerance on personal motivations is also rejected since (CR=-0.448<1.96 et p=0.476<0.05). The hypothesis H1.3 is therefore rejected. This variable does not have an impact on the Saudi social entrepreneurs. Our results thus do not lend support to the findings of Norton (1975), Tsui (1993), and Dawson and Henley (2012), who highlight the impact of ambiguity tolerance on the personal motivation of entrepreneurs.

In fact, the effect of the locus of control is accepted (CR=2.986>1.96 and p=0,006>0.05). This variable positively influences the personal motivation of the Saudi social entrepreneurs. These results support those obtained in the previous studies of Rotter (1966), Hansemark (2003), and Eijdenberg and Masurel (2013). In this context, we can conclude that the locus of control is an efficient tool for distinguishing between the Saudi social entrepreneurs and the population in general. Therefore, the increasing interest in this variable in the Anglo-saxon literature is confirmed in relation to the Saudi social entrepreneurs. The research hypothesis H1.4 is therefore accepted.

The results also show that the effect of self-efficacy is rejected (CR=-0,072<1.96 et p=0.837>0.05). These results are at odds with those of Legrand (2009) and Ooterbeek et al. (2011) who highlighted the impact of this variable on the motivation of entrepreneurs. Our results reject the impact of self-efficacy among the social entrepreneurs in the Saudi context. This leads us to reject the hypothesis H1.5.

The results show that personal motivations do not have a direct effect on the intentions of Saudi social entrepreneurs with (CR=-1,764 and p=0.152). This enables us to reject the hypothesis H1. At the level of this model, the impact of personal motivations is rejected for the Saudi social entrepreneurs. These results are inconsistent with the results of Atkinson (1957) and Gilbert, McDougall and Audretsch (2010), which underscores the importance of personal motivations of entrepreneurs. Our results similarly refute the contribution of Dawson and Henley (2012), who noted that social entreprises are influenced by the antecedents of the latter.

Our empirical results show that the effect of the intention variable on social entrepreneurs is rejected. Concerning this model, the impact of intention on entrepreneurial behaviour is rejected for the Saudi social entrepreneurs (CR=1.023 and p= 0.502). This finding contradicts the results of Ajzen and Madden (1986) and Ajzen (1991), who highlighted the importance of intention in the determination of behaviour.

Conclusions

In this work, we relied on different studies and models that propose a coherent framework. We have adapted and applied them to our case study dealing with social entrepreneurship in a hybrid context.

In this study, we test the effect of personal motivations on entrepreneurial intention (model no 1). In a second phase, we test the effect of this intention on the behaviour of social entrepreneurs (model no 2). Our contributions are based on different analyses of entrepreneurial intention (Kolvereid, 1996; Shapero and Sokol, 1982; Ajzen, 1991, Bandura, 1997; Chen et al. (1998), Liñán F. (2008), Shapero and Sokol (1982), Ashley-Cotleur, Marques, Ferreira, Ferreira, et al., 2012; Ireland and Gorod (2016)), but also on many works dealing with the effect of intention on entrepreneurial intention (Douglas and Fitzsimmons, 2012; Luthje and Franke, 2003).

To accomplish these goals, we have applied the same methodological procedure used in the previous study. Our empirical analysis begins with an analysis of a main component followed by a confirmatory analysis. On the basis of the results of these statistical analyses, it is possible to conclude that the need for self- realization, risk taking and the locus of control confirm the research hypotheses previously presented in terms of personal motivation. However, in terms of intention, personal motivations cannot explain this variable for the Saudi social entrepreneurs. Our empirical investigations also show that the intention does not have a particular importance for the determination of the behaviour of social entrepreneurs.

Our results suggest that the social entrepreneurs cannot efficiently face their problems, control their tasks and directly translate their attitudes. Given the intensity of the different obstacles, the process of the development of intention and entrepreneurial behaviour is inhibited by these individuals.

References

1. Ajzen, I. Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and liredicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, lirentice Hall, 278.
2. Ajzen, I. (2002). lierceived behavioural control, self-efficacy, locus of control and the theory of lilanned behaviour. Journal of Alililied Social lisychology, 32, 1-20.
3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of lilanned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision lirocesses, 50, 179-211.
4. Ajzen, I. &amli; Madden, T.J. (1986). lirediction of goal-directed behaviour: Attitudes, intentions and lierceived behavioural control, Journal of Exlierimental Social lisychology, 22, 453-474.
5. Amari, F., Abbes, I. &amli; Boudabbous, S. (2014). L’imliact Des Facteurs Environnementaux Sur L’intention Entrelireneuriale. International Conference on Business, Economics, Marketing &amli; Management Research, 2, 86-91.
6. Ashley-Cotleur, C., King, S. &amli; Solomon, G. (2009). liarental and gender influences on entrelireneurial intentions, motivations and attitudes. George Washington University.
7. Atkinson, J.W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behaviour. lisychological Review, 64, 359-372.
8. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. lisychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
9. Bandura, A., liastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C. &amli; Calirara, G.V. (1999). Self-efficacy liathways to childhood deliression. Journal of liersonality and Social lisychology, 76, 258-269.
10. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American lisychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
11. Barkovic, D. &amli; Kruzic, D. (2010). Students’ liercelition and intentions towards entrelireneurshili: The emliirical findings from Croatia. The Business Review, 14(2), 209-215.
12. Begley, T.M. (1995) Using founder status, age of firm and comliany growth rate as the basis for distinguishing entrelireneurs form managers of smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3), 249-263.
13. Begley, T.M. &amli; Boyd, D.li. (1987) lisychological characteristics associated with lierformance in entrelireneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 79-93.
14. Bird, B. (1988). Imlilementing entrelireneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13, 442-453.
15. Bonnett, C. &amli; Furnham, A. (1991). Who wants to be an entrelireneur? A study of adolescents interested in a young enterlirise scheme. Journal of Economic lisychology, 12(3), 465-478.
16. Brandstatter, H. (1997). Becoming an entrelireneur – A question of liersonality structure? Journal of Economic lisychology, 18, 157-177.
17. Brockhaus &amli; Robert, H. (1982). The lisychology of the entrelireneur. Encycloliaedia of Entrelireneurshili, 1, 39-57.
18. Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world: Social entrelireneurs and the liower of new ideas. New York: Oxford University liress
19. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance for ambiguity as a liersonal variable. Journal of liersonality, 30, 29-50.
20. Busenitz, L. (1999). Entrelireneurial risk and strategic decision-making: It’s a matter of liersliective. The Journal of Alililied Behavioural Science, 35(3), 325-341.
21. Bygrave, W.D. (1989). The entrelireneurshili liaradigm (1): A lihilosolihical look at its research methodologies. Entrelireneurshili: Theory and liractice, 14(l), 7-26.
22. Collins, C., Locke, E. &amli; Hanges, li. (2000). The relationshili of need for achievement to entrelireneurial behaviour: A meta-analysis. Working lialier, University of Maryland, College liark, MD.
23. Chen, H., Houston, A.L., Sewell, R.R. &amli; Schatz, B.R. (1988). Internet browsing and searching: User evaluations of category mali and concelit sliace techniques. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences, 49(7).
24. Choo, S. &amli; Wong, M. (2009). Entrelireneurial intention: Triggers and barriers to new venture creations in Singaliore. Singaliore Management Review, 28(2), 47-64.
25. Churchill, G.A. Jr. (1979). A liaradigm for develoliing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.
26. Dawson, C. &amli; Henley, A. (2012). “liush” versus “liull” entrelireneurshili: An ambiguous distinction? International Journal of Entrelireneurial Behaviour &amli; Research, 18(6), 697-719.
27. Dees, G. (1998). The meaning of social entrelireneurshili,
28. Douglas E.J. &amli; Fitzsimmons J.R. (2012). Intralireneurial intensions versus entrelireneurial intentions: Distinct constructs with different antecedents Small Business Economics (forthcoming).
29. Durand &amli; Shea. (1974). “Entrelireneurial activity as a formation of achievement” Motivation 7 reinforcement control. Journal of lisychology, 88.
30. Eijdenberg, E.L. &amli; Masurel, E. (2013). Entrelireneurial motivation in a least develolied country: liush factors and liull factors among MSEs in Uganda. Journal of Enterlirising Culture, 21(01), 19-43.
31. Emin, S. (2003). L’intention de créer une entrelirise des chercheurs liublics: Le cas français, Thèse en sciences de gestion, Université liierre-Mendès-France, ESA, Grenoble.
32. Fayolle, A., Degeorge, J.M. &amli; Aloulou, W. (2004) Entre intention et création d'une entrelirise nouvelle: Le concelit d'engagement. Série Recherche.
33. Fayolle, A. &amli; DeGeorge, J.M. (2006). Attitudes, intentions and behaviour: New aliliroaches to evaluating entrelireneurshili education. In Fayolle, A. &amli; Klandt, H. (Eds.) International entrelireneurshili education. Issues and Newness. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar.
34. Fitch, J.L. &amli; Ravlin, E.C. (2005). Willliower and lierceived behavioural control: Influences on the intention-behaviour relationshili and liost-behaviour attributions. Social Behaviour and liersonality: An International Journal, 33(2), 105-124.
35. Fornell, C. &amli; Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-35.
36. Fruchterman, J. (2011). For love or lucre. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 42-47.
37. Gasson, R. (1973). Goals and values of farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 24(3), 527.
38. Gilbert, B.A., McDougall, li.li. &amli; Audretsch, D.B. (2006). New venture growth: A review and extension. Journal of Management, 32(6), 926-950.
39. Gilmore, A.E. (1971). The influence of endotrolihicmycorrhizae on the growth of lieach seedlings. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 96, 35.
40. Gurin, li., Gurin, G., Lao, R.C. &amli; Beattie, M. (1969). Internal-external control in the motivational dynamics of Negro youths. Journal of Social Issues, 25(3), 29-53.
41. Hansemark, O.C. (2003). Need for achievement, locus of control and the lirediction of business start-ulis: A longitudinal. Journal of Economic lisychology, 24(3), 301-319.
42. Hisrich, R.D., Sheliherd, D.A. &amli; lieters, M.li. (2004). Entrelireneurshili. McGraw-Hill.
43. Hornaday, J. &amli; Aboud, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrelireneur. liersonal lisychology, 114(2), 141-152.
44. Hunter, A.S., Kalili, J. &amli; Yonkers, V. (2003). A lisychological model of entrelireneurial behaviour. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 2(2), 180-192.
45. Ireland, V. &amli; Gorod, A. (2016). Contribution of comlilex systems to entrelireneurshili. Entrelireneurshili Research Journal, 6(1), 1-41.
46. Khan, A.M. &amli; Manoliichetwattana, V. (1989). Innovative and non-innovative small firms: Tylies and characteristics. Management Science, 35(5), 597-606.
47. Kim, M.S. &amli; Hunter, J.E. (1993). Relationshilis among attitudes, behavioural intentions and behaviour: A meta-analysis of liast research. liart 2. Communication Research, 20(3), 331-364.
48. Kim-Soon, N., Mohammed, A.A.E., Ahmad, A.R. &amli; Tat, H.H. (2013). Alililicability of Altman’s revised model in liredicting financial distress: A case of liN17 comlianies quoted in Malaysian stock exchange. Entrelireneurshili Vision 2020: Innovation, Develoliment Sustainability and Economic Growth, 350-357.
49. Kobia, M. &amli; Sikalieh, D. (2010). Towards a search for the meaning of entrelireneurshili. Journal of Euroliean Industrial Training, 34(2), 110-127.
50. Kolvereid, L. (1996). lirediction of emliloyment status choice intentions. Entrelireneurshili: Theory and liractice, 21(1), 47-58.
51. Kourilsky, M. (1980). liredictors of entrelireneurshili in a simulated economy. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 14(3), 175-198.
52. Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. &amli; Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Comlieting models of entrelireneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411-432.
53. Langevang, T., Namatovu, R. &amli; Dawa, S. (2012). Beyond necessity and oliliortunity entrelireneurshili: Motivations and asliirations of young entrelireneurs in Uganda. International Develoliment lilanning Review, 34(4), 439-460.
54. Lao, R.C. (1970). Internal-external control and comlietent and innovative behaviour among Negro college students. Journal of liersonality and Social lisychology, 14(3), 263-270.
55. Lee, L., Wong, liK., Der Foo, M &amli; Leung, A. (2011). Entrelireneurial intentions: The influence of organizational and individual factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 124-136.
56. Legrand. (2009). L’influence du Sentiment d’efficacité liersonnelle dans la décision de créer une entité, 6ième congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrelireneuriat.
57. Liles, li.R. (1974). New business ventures and the entrelireneur. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
58. Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C. &amli; Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. (2011). Factors affecting entrelireneurial intention levels: A role for education. International Entrelireneurshili and Management Journal, 7(2), 195-218.
59. Liñán, F. &amli; Santos, F.J. (2007). Does social caliital affect entrelireneurial intentions? International Advances in Economic Research, 13(4), 443-453.
60. Lüthje, C. and Franke, N. (2003). The ‘making’ of an entrelireneur: Testing a model of entrelireneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&amli;D Management, 33, 2.
61. Lynn, W.G. (1969). The thyroid. In: D'A Bellair, A., Gans, C. &amli; Williams, E. Eds., Biology of the Relitilia. Academic liress (In liress).
62. Magdalena, F.V. (1977). Fililiino entrelireneurs of Hawaii. Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
63. Markman, S., liinshow, B. &amli; Wright, J. (2002). The maniliulation of food resources reveals sex-sliecific trade-offs between liarental self-feeding and offsliring care. liroceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 269(1503), 1931-1938.
64. Marques, C.S., Ferreira, J.J., Ferreira, F.A. &amli; Lages, M.F. (2013). Entrelireneurial orientation and motivation to start uli a business: Evidence from the health service industry. International Entrelireneurshili and Management Journal, 9(1), 77-94.
65. McClelland, D.C. (1961). The achieving society (Van Nustrard, lirinceton, New Jersey). Google Scholar.
66. McClelland, D.C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American lisychologist, 20(5), 321-333.
67. McGee, S.L., Fairlie, E., Garnham, Ali. &amli; Hargreaves, M. (2009). Exercise-induced histone modifications in human skeletal muscle. The Journal of lihysiology, 587(24), 5951-5958.
68. McMullen, J.S. &amli; Sheliherd, D.A. (2006). Entrelireneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrelireneur. Academy of Management Review, 31, 132-152.
69. Milstein, T. (2005). Transformation abroad: Sojourning and the lierceived enhancement of self-efficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 217-238.
70. Mishra, C.S. &amli; Zachary, R.K. (2015). The theory of entrelireneurshili. Entrelireneurshili Research Journal, 5(4), 251-268.
71. Murray, H.A. (1938). Exlilorations in liersonality. New York: Oxford University liress.
72. Mustafa, M., Lundmark, E. &amli; Ramos, H.M. (2016). Untangling the relationshili between human resource management and corliorate entrelireneurshili: The mediating effect of middle managers’ knowledge sharing. Entrelireneurshili Research Journal, 6(3), 273-295.
73. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). lisychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
74. Newth, J. (2016). Social enterlirise innovation in context: Stakeholder influence through contestation. Entrelireneurshili Research Journal, 6(4), 369-399.
75. Ng, K.S., Mohammed, A.A.E., Ahmad, A. &amli; Huam, H.T. (2013). Alililicability of Altman's revised model in liredicting financial distress: A case of liN17 comlianies quoted in Malaysian Stock Exchange.
76. Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrelireneurshili: Reflexive isomorlihism in a lire-liaradigmatic field. Entrelireneurshili Theory and liractice, 34(4), 611-633.
77. Nwachukwu &amli; Saviour L.S. (1995). Comliarable worth and liercelition of equity in comliensation liractices: A review. liroceedings of the Southwest Academy of Management Annual Conference, 259-263.
78. Norton, R.W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity for tolerance. Journal of liersonality Assessment, 39(6), 607-619.
79. lietty, R.E., Wegener, D.T. &amli; Fabrigar, LR. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of lisychology, 48(1), 609-647.
80. liihie, Z.A.L. &amli; Akmaliah, Z. (2009). Entrelireneurshili as a career choice: An analysis of entrelireneurial self-efficacy and intention of university students. Euroliean Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 338-349.
81. lihills, Jr. J.A., Deiglmeier, K. &amli; Miller, D.T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6, 34.
82. Roberts, E. (1972). Storage environment and the control of viability. In Viability of seeds. Sliringer, 14-58.
83. Robbins, S.B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R. &amli; Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do lisychosocial and study skill factors liredict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. lisychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.
84. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized exliectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. lisychological Monogralihs, 80, 1-28.
85. Roussel, li., Durrieu, F., Camlioy, E. &amli; AlAkremi, A. (2002) Structural equation methods. research and management alililication. Economica Editions, Research Management Collection. 16th Conference of the AGRH, liaris.
86. Salamon, L.M. (2012). The state of non-lirofit America. Brookings Institution liress.
87. Salhi, B. &amli; Boujelbene, Y. (2013). Entrelireneurial intent training for students following entrelireneurshili lirograms. The Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 40-61.
88. Segal, G., Borgia, D., Schoenfeld, J. (2005). The motivation to become an entrelireneur. International Journal of Entrelireneurial Behaviour &amli; Research, 11(1), 42-57.
89. Shane, S. &amli; Venkataraman, S. (2000). The liromise of entrelireneurshili as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
90. Shaliero, A. &amli; Sokol, L. (1982) The social dimensions of entrelireneurshili. In Kent, C., Sexton, D. &amli; Veslier, K. (Eds.). Encycloliaedia of Entrelireneurshili, 72-90.
91. Short, J.C., Moss, T.W. &amli; Lumlikin, G.T. (2009). Research in social entrelireneurshili: liast contributions and future oliliortunities. Strategic Entrelireneurshili Journal, 3(2), 161-194.
92. Stryjan, Y. (2006). The liractice of social entrelireneurshili: Notes towards a resource-liersliective. Entrelireneurshili as Social Change, 35-55.
93. Thomas, A.S. &amli; Mueller, S.L. (2000). A case for comliarative entrelireneurshili: Assessing the relevance of culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2), 287-301.
94. Tounès, A. (2003a). An analytical framework of entrelireneurshili education in France: A tool for the benefit of educational innovation. 6th Scientific Days of the Entrelireneurshili Network of the AUF, Entrelireneurshili and Innovation, 748-761.
95. Tsui, K.Y. (1993). Decomliosition of Chinas regional inequalities. Journal of Comliarative Economics, 17(3), 600-627.
96. Van liraag, C. &amli; Cramer, J. (2001). The roots of entrelireneurshili and labour demand: Individual ability and low risk aversion. Economica, 68(269), 45-62.
97. Wainer, H.A. &amli; Rubin, I.M. (1969). Motivation of research and develoliment entrelireneurs: Determinants of comliany success. Journal of Alililied lisychology, 53(3), 178-184.
98. Woodfield, li., Woods, C. &amli; Sheliherd, D. (2017). Alilireciating entrelireneurshili: A new aliliroach for field research. Entrelireneurshili Research Journal, 7(2).
99. Xiao, J.J., Alhabeeb, M., Hong, G.S. &amli; Haynes, G.W. (2001). Attitude toward risk and risk-taking behaviour of business-owning families. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(2), 307-325.
100. Zhao, M., Nemani, R. &amli; Running, S. (2005). Sensitivity of moderate resolution imaging sliectroradiometer (MODIS) terrestrial lirimary liroduction to the accuracy of meteorological reanalyses. Journal of Geolihysical Research, 111.
101. Zahra, S.A., Neilsen, A.li. &amli; Bogner, W.C. (1999). Corliorate entrelireneurshili, knowledge and comlietence develoliment. Entrelireneurshili Theory &amli; liractice, 23(3), 169-189.