Social Entrepreneurial Orientation Impact On Social Entrepreneurial Intention Mediated Social Entrepreneurial Attitudes

: Social inequality, poverty, and unemployment have now become serious problems experienced by the Indonesian state. The role of social entrepreneurs here is very important to be able to solve the problems of social inequality, poverty, and unemployment that occur in Indonesia. This study looks at how the dimensions or components of social entrepreneurial orientation (social vision, social proactiveness, innovation, and risk-taking motives) can influence or encourage a person's social entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions. This study uses a quantitative approach and a data collection strategy with an electronic questionnaire, using a non-probability sampling strategy, namely purposive sampling. The number of samples in this study were 185 respondents. The data that has been obtained was then analyzed using the CB-Structural Equation Model with the SPSS AMOS version 26 analysis tool. This study found that there were 5 supported hypotheses and 4 unsupported hypotheses. This research also provides theoretical implications, managerial implications, and suggestions for further research.


INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is a large country in terms of population, cultural diversity, natural resources, and area (Khamimah, 2021). In terms of population, based on Population Administration data as of June 2021, the total population of Indonesia is 272,229,372 people (Zudan, 2021). With a population of around 272 million, this is certainly a strong asset in advancing the economy, both as producers and consumers (Dukcapil, 2021). Then in terms of cultural diversity, Indonesia has inherited a variety of cultures, considering that there are thousands of ethnic groups, languages, and customs that are still thriving today. In addition, Indonesia has abundant natural resources consisting of biological and animal natural resources, there are also coal, copper, gold, silver, oil, and natural gas and so on. Indonesia's wealth is also supported by the vast territory of Indonesia which consists of an area of the ocean and land where based on the results of the International Law of the Sea Convention or the "United Nation Convention of the Law of the Sea" has measured the overall land and sea area of Indonesia reaching 5,176,800 km 2 (UNCLOS, 1982, in Saksono, 2013. But the strong capital above that which is already owned by Indonesia is still not able to make this country a developed country and can prosper all its people. Currently, Indonesia is still facing the problem of poverty and social inequality that is quite striking among the Indonesian people. Inflation and unemployment are short-term problems faced by the Indonesian economy and in the long term can hinder sustainable development and economic growth in Indonesia (Biro Analisa Angaran dan Pelaksanaan APBN, 2014).
The role of entrepreneurship here is especially important for economic growth in Indonesia. With the role of entrepreneurship, it will be a logical consequence of the creation of more new jobs that can reduce the number of unemployed so that it will have an impact on increasing economic growth and sustainable development in Indonesia. The Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs of Indonesia, Airlangga Hartanto, stated that Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are currently an important pillar for Indonesia's economic growth and based on data from the Ministry of Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprises (UKM), stated that the number of MSMEs in Indonesia is currently This has reached 64.2 million and can absorb 97 percent of the total workforce in Indonesia, so the contribution made from the total MSMEs in Indonesia accounts for 61.070 percent of Indonesia's GDP or 8,573.890 trillion rupiah (Hartanto, 2021). The Minister of State-Owned Enterprises, Erick Tohir, stated that the level of entrepreneurship in Indonesia is still far behind when compared to Singapore and other countries in Asia. As an illustration, Singapore has several entrepreneurs reaching 8.760 percent of the total population there, as well as other developed countries which have an average number of entrepreneurs reaching 14 percent -15 percent of the total population. But in Indonesia, the number of entrepreneurs is only 3.470 percent of the total population of Indonesia (Sidik, 2022). The Secretary of the Ministry of Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprises, Arif Rahman Hakim, stated that Indonesia was ranked 74th out of 134 countries based on data from the 2019 Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEI Report, 2019).
The data shows that the number of entrepreneurs in Indonesia is still exceptionally low when compared to the total population in Indonesia. Therefore, the government is currently drafting a Presidential Regulation on National Entrepreneurship Development which is a derivative of the Job Creation Law and Government Regulation No. 7/2021, which will focus on creating new entrepreneurs in Indonesia (Ismoyo, 2021). The government has also prepared the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) which is expected to have a positive impact on Indonesia's sustainable development, with a vision to leave the ranks of middle-income countries with an achievement target in 2045 (Kementerian PPN/ Bappenas, 2020). As for several development initiatives to address social problems that have been initiated by Indonesia in recent years, its positive impact can already be seen, where socio-economic disparities continue to decline from year to year. But since mid-2019-2020 there has been an increase in the number of poverty or social inequality due to the Covid-19 pandemic as well as job creation remains the toughest challenge for this nation. The lack of job opportunities and the high unemployment rate have become serious problems that have occurred in Indonesia for a long time, plus currently the entire world, including Indonesia itself, is facing the Covid-19 pandemic. The impact of Covid-19 is very serious, Chairman of the Indonesian MSME Association (Akumindo), M. Ikhsan Ingratubun stated that based on the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin), during the last year during the Covid-19 pandemic, as many as 30 million MSMEs went bankrupt, which is almost half the number of MSMEs in Indonesia, namely 64.2 million MSMEs according to 2019 data. Ikhsan also explained data from a Bank Indonesia survey in March 2021, 87.5 percent of MSMEs affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and 93.3 percent of business actors experienced a decrease in sales turnover, so this led to an increase in unemployment in Indonesia (Insi, 2021).
In It was recorded that in 2020, unemployment increased by 1.84 percent or as many as 2.78 million people. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic is very much felt for Indonesia where many sectors have been disadvantaged, ranging from MSMEs and large companies to losses due to the declining purchasing power of the people, which has an impact on many employees being laid off. The above problems show an increase in growth Indonesia's economy and reducing social inequality is not an easy thing to realize. The role of entrepreneurs who create businesses and create new jobs is not enough, but it also requires the role of entrepreneurs who have concern for others, such as opening job opportunities for those who cannot afford to enter the mainstream economy. Therefore, in this problem, the role of social entrepreneurs is needed. With the role of social entrepreneurs, the form of business activities carried out will focus on solving problems that exist in society which are usually not resolved or responded to by the government or commercial businesses (Weber and Kratzer, 2013). A group of people who understand social concerns and utilize their entrepreneurial skills to effect social change and solve social difficulties and problems is referred to as social entrepreneurship (Lydiawati and Sanny, 2018;Ruiz-Rosa et al., 2020). This social entrepreneur's position can aid the nation's growth by supporting the government's involvement in all-circle development. When entrepreneurs engage in social entrepreneurship activities, they are focusing on resolving social issues such as unemployment, social inequality, and low-quality education, all of which are impediments to a country's long-term development and economic growth goals (Nsereko, 2021).
Based on data from the estimated results of the British Council study (2018), it shows that social entrepreneurs in Indonesia are still few, namely only 342,000 of the current total population of Indonesia which reaches around 272 million people or only 0.120 percent of the total population of Indonesia (Council, 2018). As for increasing the number of social entrepreneurships in Indonesia, efforts are needed to increase the intention of the Indonesian people towards social entrepreneurship first. This social entrepreneurial intention plays a fundamental role (Ruiz-Rosa et al., 2020). Entrepreneurial intention, defined as a planned behavioral activity, was found to be a major predictor of entrepreneurship. As a result, estimating the variables that can influence the similarity of behavior and individual willingness to engage in social entrepreneurial activities that become a means of forming socio-economic value for the country is important to encourage individual participation in social entrepreneurial activities.
Numbers of studies have found many factors that focus on social entrepreneurship, such as the process of social entrepreneurship, aspects that influence social entrepreneurial intentions, and levels in social entrepreneurship, which are divided into individuals, organizations, and institutions, in the literature on social entrepreneurship (Asma et al., 2019;Ko and Kim, 2020;Nsereko et al., 2018). However, some of these studies emphasize characteristics of social entrepreneurial behavior such as empathy, self-efficacy, social identity, and individual initiative, and there are still few studies that look at the relationship between social entrepreneurship orientation and individual intentions to start a social entrepreneurship-based business. As a result, there is currently a research gap in the domain of social entrepreneurship addressing the relationship between social entrepreneurial approach and human behavioral intentions. Entrepreneurship orientation (EO) is a concept described as a person's proclivity to take calculated risks, be inventive, and display strategic proactivity that represents individual behavioral attitudes in order to increase the predictability of individual intents to become an entrepreneur (Zhao et al., 2011). As a result, a key aspect, EO, which may study a person's inclination and desire toward entrepreneurial attitudes and activities, must be used to promote the desire to become an entrepreneur (Marques et al., 2018). According to (Kumar et al., 2021) seeing and understanding entrepreneurial orientation (EO), which includes proactive, innovative, and risk-taking behavior, can increase predictability for future entrepreneurs, so the dimensions or components of this entrepreneurial orientation (EO) should be examined at the individual level to assess a person's entrepreneurial actions.
In the social entrepreneurship literature, social vision as a dimension or component of social entrepreneurship orientation has been investigated to have an influence on social entrepreneurial intentions in students (Tu et al., 2021). (Tu el al., 2021) investigated the effect of social vision on social problem solving on individual tendencies and behavioral intentions towards social entrepreneurship in the literature. (Satar and Natasha, 2019) further established and refined the scale in four dimensions or components of individual social entrepreneurship orientation (SEO), namely social passion, creativity, risk taking, and aggressiveness. Then, as predictors of person behavior toward social entrepreneurship, (Sulphey and Salim, 2020) established and validated a scale on the dimensions or components of SEO, including social vision, proactive social, innovation, and risk taking. As a result, research done by (Satar and Natasha, 2019) and (Sulphey and Salim, 2020) has created and validated a conceptual SEO measure scale that replaces entrepreneurial orientation (EO) with social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO), which is acceptable for use in research. As a result, the researcher chose to undertake this study to answer the research question and fill a research gap in the literature on social entrepreneurship. They also recommend to using students as samples in social entrepreneurship research in their individual studies. As a result, in this study, the author will be using student as respondents with an entrepreneurial specialization as a sample.
Furthermore, the purpose of this research is to see how the strength dimensions or components of social entrepreneurial orientation (social vision, social proactiveness, innovation, and risk-taking motives) influence the development of social entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions in Pelita Harapan University (UPH) students. This study is unique in that it examines whether social entrepreneurship attitudes, either directly or indirectly, mediate the dimensions or components of social entrepreneurship orientation (SEO) to produce UPH students' intentions, particularly the concentration of entrepreneurship towards social entrepreneurship.

THEORETICAL REVIEW
Social Entrepreneurial Intention. Individual psychological states that encourage people to attain objectives or plans of action are known as intentions (Mandongwe and Jaravaza, 2020). Meanwhile, according to (Tu et al., 2021) intention indicates the motivating variables that impact action and may be derived from a person's willingness to undertake the conduct. Entrepreneurial intention, according to (Asma et al., 2019), is a person's desire to start a new business; similarly, social entrepreneurial intention is a person's desire and willingness to start a new social enterprise and do so intentionally in the future. A person's commitment to some expected future behavior to develop a socially centered business is also known as entrepreneurial intention (Tiwari et al., 2017a). Intentionality, according to Bird (1988, in Mandongwe andJaravaza, 2020), is a disposition that directs one's thoughts, experiences, and actions toward specific goals. As a result, (Indira, 2014 in Mandongwe and Jaravaza, 2020) claims that entrepreneurial activity is also a planned behavior and that intentions might predict entrepreneurial conduct. A person's entrepreneurial intention can be established if he believes he has the potential to adopt goal behaviors that help explain and forecast entrepreneurship (Omorede, 2014).Someone who is likely to create a social company or become a social entrepreneur has social entrepreneurship goals (Mandongwe and Jaravaza, 2020).

Social Entrepreneurial Attitude.
Attitude is a person's predisposition to behave against or against anything in the environment, transforming it into something positive or bad; it is based on rising individual beliefs and the assessment process linked with these beliefs (Tiwari et al., 2017a). Attitudes differ from comparable attributes in the sub-chapters below, such as social vision, social proactivity, innovation, and risk-taking motivations (Tiwari et al., 2017a). The amount to which a person has a good or terrible judgment or evaluation that will eventually determine the action to be made is referred to as attitude (Tiwari et al., 2017b). Meanwhile, according to (Kocoglu and Hasan, 2013), attitude indicates the degree to which a person's effect on deciding behavior has an impact on the desire to become an entrepreneur. As a result, the social entrepreneurship attitude is a composite of one's views and research techniques connected to social entrepreneurship beliefs (Tiwari et al., 2017a). According to (Ernst, 2014, in Tiwari et al., 2017a, social entrepreneurship attitude is the degree to which a person views social entrepreneurship as a career option positively or negatively. Social Vision. The capacity to recognize any possibilities in the present with a willingness to reach out and address social problems is referred to as social vision (Tu et al., 2021). In this sense, someone with a social vision will direct his potential to contribute to the solution of current social issues since he already has a fervent desire to become a figure of social change for the greater good. Social entrepreneurship is distinguished from other forms of entrepreneurship by its social perspective (İrengün and Arıkboğa, 2015). With a social vision in place, commercial objectives will be formed that are focused on resolving current social issues, such as Kitabisa.com. Because all these enterprises have a major influence on the surrounding community, such as kitabisa.com, which raises cash for individuals in need, many social issues have been handled as a result of the existence of kitabisa.com.
Social Pro-activeness. Proactivity refers to a person's willingness to be more proactive in seeking out possibilities and considering new products or services based on future demand (Tu et al., 2021). Proactivity refers to a person's proclivity to actively observe their surroundings, anticipate the unexpected, and prevent it by planning for or devising solutions to future uncertainty (Dwivedi and Weerawardena, 2018). A proactive nature is required for a social entrepreneur to survive, serve the market, and grow in the market, according to social entrepreneurship (Tu et al., 2021). According to (Tu et al., 2021), people with a proactive social personality can see opportunities and act on them so that they may demonstrate initiative, act, and eventually bring about substantial social change. According to Satar and Natasha (2019), proactive social is when a person sees opportunities for a social problem where others only see it as a social problem. In this case, proactive social is also a person's action to anticipate future problems, needs, and social changes in order to solve existing social problems. For social entrepreneurs, proactive social is critical in cultivating a positive outlook that moves along with the inventive actions that are typically connected with the entrepreneurial process (Tu et al., 2021). Social proactiveness can also develop because it creates a greater feeling of urgency in a person to undertake and continue acts that have a direct influence on the surrounding environment, such as fixing social problems, in social missions or problems (Syrjä et al., 2019).
Innovativeness. Innovation is defined as "someone's endeavor to create new items that open up previously untapped prospects and give new solutions" or "a process where creative ideas are applied into something new" (Mandongwe and Jaravaza, 2020). According to (Satar and Natasha, 2019), innovation is defined as a person's desire to break out from a current system or structure to produce new goods or services that benefit the larger society. Innovation may also refer to a person's attitude, which is characterized by a persistent desire to address societal issues, find existing possibilities, and assemble resources to make these chances a reality. Innovation is needed for product/market development in a social environment to deal with continuous change and uncertainty (Tu et al., 2021). Entrepreneurs can use innovation to uncover and enhance their company's competitiveness in the market, especially when faced with new competition (Luc, 2020).
Risk-Taking Motive. The readiness to take bold action, willing to commit a lot of time and money but with unknown consequences, is the risk-taking motive (Satar and Natasha, 2019). The risk-taking motive, according to (Mandongwe and Jaravaza, 2020), is the willingness of a person to resist and confront dangers to achieve their goals. Taking risks refers to a proclivity to engage in risky actions and activities (Kumar et al., 2020). The capacity and desire inside a person to think about and plan for a golden opportunity to build a company despite of the uncertainty inherent in this possibility is also described as the risk-taking motive (Mandongwe and Jaravaza, 2020). According to (Quaye and Acheampong, 2013 in Mandongwe and Jaravaza, 2020), the tag associated to the risk-taking drive-in entrepreneurial orientation may be detected by its higher significance in entrepreneurial conduct. It has been demonstrated in this situation that the desire to take risks leads to the formation of many small firms (Mandongwe and Jaravaza, 2020). When the rewards and repercussions on others or socially are extremely substantial, the risk-taking incentive tends to engage in any action with a much larger risk (Satar and Natasha, 2019).

Hypothesis Development
The Relationship of Social Vision with Social Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Social vision is one of the most key factors that influences an entrepreneur's decision to pursue social entrepreneurship. When an entrepreneur has a social vision, he or she will strive to achieve social value in their business, and this is what distinguishes social entrepreneurship from other types of entrepreneurship (İrengün and Arıkboğa, 2015). Social entrepreneurs are more interested and devoted to the development and maintenance of social values, which lead to the creation of ambitious aims to address social issues (Letaifa, 2016). Dedication and engagement in social issues are often accompanied with emotional responses and a sense of social duty (Tu et al., 2021). An enticing social vision that envelops powerful sentiments of dedication and devotion in a positive or negative way to meet basic human aspirations has naturally awakened the social entrepreneurial mentality (Tu et al., 2021). The formation of positive or negative social entrepreneurial attitudes begins with active connections with many stakeholders in society and is guided by a social vision to provide value for societal transformation (Sekliuckiene and Kisielius, 2015). In conclusion, operating a visionary connection with diverse stakeholders is the first step in generating social entrepreneurial intents, which implies that social entrepreneurs view and act with the goal of creating social value and successfully transferring projects to others.
Social vision has been shown to have a considerable beneficial influence on social entrepreneurial attitudes in previous study (Tu et al., 2021). So that the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H1a: Social vision has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial attitude. H1b: Social vision has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intention.

The Relationship of Social Pro-Activeness with Social Entrepreneurial Attitudes and
Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Scanning and seeking for possibilities, projecting potential hurdles, and overcoming suspected impediments are all examples of proactive functions (Luc, 2020). (Dwivedi and Weerawardena, 2018) claim that being proactive is being ready for the unexpected and attempting to avoid unpleasant shocks. One's activeness may impact a company's inclination to expand social entrepreneurship enterprise. According to (Tu et al., 2021) Proactive social personality has implications in social entrepreneurship, as social proactivity aids social entrepreneurs in making a social effect. Proactive persons are more likely to have social entrepreneurial attitudes and objectives in this situation. Individuals may actively and directly modify their existing condition, which is impacted by their socially proactive character, because there is a reciprocal causal link between people, environment, and behavior (Tu et al., 2021). This conclusion is backed up by a recent study by (Hossain and Asheq, 2020), who found that proactive students exhibit greater levels of social entrepreneurial intent. So that the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H2a: Social pro-activeness has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial attitude. H2b: Social pro-activeness has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intention.

The Relationship of Innovativeness with Social Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Social
Entrepreneurial Intentions. The capacity to innovate is one of the most important characteristics in entrepreneurship, since it may offer up new prospects for new firms or startups (Efrata et al., 2021). Individuals innovative will undoubtedly have even more options to maximize the use of current ideas in the development of a firm (Efrata et al., 2021). Individual invention plays a significant part in all topics relating to the notion of social entrepreneurship because it is one of the major ideas in the field (Gur-Erdogan et al., 2014). According to (Ayub et al., 2013, in Mandongwe andJaravaza, 2020), innovation is a critical factor in determining entrepreneurial intention. Innovation is addressed as a crucial variable in the realm of social entrepreneurship studies via alternative solutions that may be promoted in solving social challenges (Luc, 2020). A number of studies in the field of social entrepreneurship have found a link between innovation and social entrepreneurship intentions (Mueller, 2011;Wagner, 2011). Individual innovation has a key role in regard to social entrepreneurship because entrepreneurship is defined as a creative method (Gur-Erdogan et al., 2014). Because social enterprises are viewed as knowledge-based businesses, innovation plays a critical role in their growth (Weerakoon et al., 2020). Individual student innovativeness has a favorable effect as a significant predictor of social entrepreneurial attitudes, according to research done by (Tu et al., 2021). This study also reveals that innovation has a beneficial influence on students' intents to establish a social-based firm. According to this result, the more inventive a student is, the more favorable attitudes and behavioral intentions he will have to create a social-based business. The findings of (Tu et al., 2021) are also pertinent to the research of (Efrata et al., 2021;Samydevan et al., 2021;Wathanakom et al., 2020), which found that student innovation is a possible factor of social entrepreneurial intents. So that the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H3a: Innovativeness has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial attitude.
H3b: Innovativeness has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intention.

The Relationship of Risk-Taking Motive with Social Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions.
Because there is so much uncertainty in starting a business/business, risk taking is one of the most important things that an entrepreneur must consider. Individuals who start enterprises must have a high-risk tolerance. As a result, the risk-taking motive might be defined as an individual's proclivity to take risks. Although risk taking is limited in social entrepreneurship due to the main purpose of creating a sustainable social company, it cannot be denied that risk taking is an important aspect for social entrepreneurship (Zhang and Cain, 2017). In a (Tu et al., 2021) research, it was discovered that students' risk-taking motivations influenced their social entrepreneurial views and behavioral intents to engage in social-based companies. This suggests that students' thoughts of creating social-based firms in the future will be positively influenced by a more risk-taking mindset. These findings are relevant to the study that was undertaken by (Adu et al., 2020;Chipeta and Surujlal, 2017;Yukongdi and Lopa, 2017;Zisser et al., 2019) These studies show that risk-taking motivations play a significant influence in motivating people to establish a socially centered business. So that the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H4a: Risk-taking motive has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial attitude. H4a: Risk-taking motive has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intention.

The Relationship between Social Entrepreneurial Attitude and Social
Entrepreneurial Intention. Entrepreneurial inclinations are influenced by a person's attitude toward entrepreneurship (Tu et al., 2021). Several elements, including environmental circumstances that might alter a person's attitude toward entrepreneurship, can influence a person's ambition to become an entrepreneur (Tu et al., 2021). A person's attitude influences several aspects of his behavior, and his attitude ultimately shapes one's behavioral activities (Tu et al., 2021). In general, attitudes toward behavior assess a person's motivation to engage in conduct with a specified goal. Social entrepreneurial attitudes have a strong influence on social entrepreneurial intentions because attitudes are deterministic antecedents for intentions, implying that any deviations in attitudes directly lead to deviations in the level of social entrepreneurial intentions (Tiwari et al., 2017a). According to Tiwari et al. (2017b), a positive attitude to become a social entrepreneur and the ability to start one's own business predict social entrepreneurial intentions. Therefore, (Casuard andBrannback, 2011, in Tiwari et al., 2017b) find that a person is more likely to create social entrepreneurial intents if he has a good attitude toward starting his own social company that is in keeping with his overall life objectives. (Ernst, 2014, in Tiwari et al., 2017b investigated the impact of people's attitudes toward social entrepreneurship on their desire to become social entrepreneurs and found a strong positive meaningful relationship between people's attitudes toward social entrepreneurship and their desire to become social entrepreneurs. Likewise in research conducted by (Tu et al., 2021), proving that students' social entrepreneurial attitudes have a positive effect on their social entrepreneurial intentions, which means that if a student has a positive attitude towards social-based businesses, he or she will tend to start an entrepreneurial business. social life as the future career. The results of this study are also relevant to several previous studies conducted by (Luc, 2020;Tiwari et al., 2017a), where Luc (2020) and (Tiwari et al., 2017a) documented a strong relationship between individual attitudes and behavioral intentions. to start a socially based business. So that the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H5: Social entrepreneurial attitude has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intention.

Social Entrepreneurial Attitude mediate the Relationship between Social Vision and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions.
As explained in the previous sub-chapter where social vision is an important aspect of social entrepreneurship. Previous researchers proposed a mediating effect of social entrepreneurial attitudes on social vision and social entrepreneurial intentions, which concluded that the indirect effect of social vision on intentions mediated by social entrepreneurial attitudes was significant (Cavazos-Arroyo et al., 2017). Thus, the role of social entrepreneurial attitudes mediates the effect of social vision on intentions to engage in social entrepreneurship in the near future among Mexican students (Cavazos-Arroyo et al., 2017). Therefore, this study believes that the mediating role of social entrepreneurial attitudes is very suitable in the path of social vision and social entrepreneurial intentions. So that the hypothesis can be formulated as follows:

H6: Social Entrepreneurial Attitude mediate the relationship between Social Vision and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions
Social Entrepreneurial Attitude mediate the Relationship between Social Pro-Activeness and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Theory of Planned Behavior suggests that individual factors can influence intention (Ajzen, 2020). Proactive social is included in the individual personality factor. That is, students who have a proactive social nature will have the intention to engage in social entrepreneurship and of course also this proactive social can encourage students to have attitudes that have confidence to engage in social entrepreneurship because they consider social entrepreneurship to be a positive thing. Therefore, this study believes that the mediating role of social entrepreneurial attitudes is very suitable in the proactive social path towards social entrepreneurial intentions. So that the hypothesis can be formulated as follows:

H7: Social Entrepreneurial Attitude mediate the relationship between Social Pro-Activeness and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions
Social Entrepreneurial Attitude mediate the Relationship between Innovativeness and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Theory of Planned Behavior suggests that individual personality factors can influence intentions (Ajzen, 2020). Innovativeness is included in the individual personality factor, namely creativity. This is because innovation is a process where creative ideas are implemented into something new (Mandongwe and Jaravaza, 2020). So here, innovative people can create new things and are different from others with their creativity, which of course will have confidence in social entrepreneurship as a positive and useful thing. Innovative people have a great opportunity to grow their intentions towards entrepreneurship because innovation is a major factor in the formation of entrepreneurship, especially social entrepreneurship. Previous researchers have proven that social entrepreneurial attitudes have a significant influence mediating the relationship between innovation and social entrepreneurial intentions (Cavazos-Arroyo et al., 2017). Furthermore, research conducted by (Nathanael and Nuringsih, 2020), proves that social entrepreneurial attitudes positively mediate between innovation and social entrepreneurial intentions. Therefore, researchers believe that the mediating role of social entrepreneurial attitude is very suitable in the path of innovation and social entrepreneurial intentions. So that the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H8: Social Entrepreneurial Attitude mediate the relationship between Innovativeness and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions.

Social Entrepreneurial Attitude mediate the Relationship between Risk-Taking
Motive and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Through the Theory of Planned Behavior proposed by Ajzen (2020), states that intentions are explained through behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Kurjono, 2018, in Agustina andFauzia, 2021). The motive for taking risks is included in the perceived behavioral control factor. Perception of behavioral control is a person's view of the ease or difficulty of realizing a certain behavior. Here the risk-taking motive can affect a person's belief to act based on calculated risks. Confident and optimistic, task and result oriented, dare to take risks and like future-oriented challenges which are entrepreneurial traits that reflect the attitude of an entrepreneur (Agustina and Fauzia, 2021). Because entrepreneurship requires one's courage to take risks and dare to face obstacles as a consequence of something that must be done (Asmara et al., 2016). Research conducted by (Asmara et al., 2016) on 540 students majoring in management at a public university in Malang recommends that individuals who have a risk-taking motive will have a positive entrepreneurial attitude, and this will have an impact on increasing entrepreneurial intentions. Therefore, researchers will believe that the mediating role of social entrepreneurial attitudes can be mediate on risk-taking motives and social entrepreneurial intentions. So that the hypothesis can be formulated as follows:

H9: Social Entrepreneurial Attitude mediate the relationship between Risk-Taking Motive and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions
Based on these nine hypotheses, a research model can be developed as seen in Figure 1.

METHODS
This study uses a quantitative research methodology with a descriptive research design. The directional hypothesis was used in this study and the time horizon in this study was a cross-sectional study. Because this study was conducted to estimate the variables that can affect a person's intention to start a social enterprise and previous research suggests using students as research samples. Considering the suggestions from previous studies, this study will use students as samples in this study. This study will use 185 undergraduate students with a concentration in entrepreneurship at Pelita Harapan University as a sample through an electronic questionnaire so that the unit of analysis used in this study is the individual. Students concentrating on entrepreneurship at all universities in Indonesia are the population in this study. The data in this study were collected from February 20 to February 26, 2022. This study uses a non-probability sampling data collection technique, namely purposive sampling because the researcher wants respondents who have information and data that match the criteria determined by the researcher so that the information obtained can answer the objectives of this research (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016).
In this study, there are 6 variables with 29 indicators which can be seen in table 1. The dependent variable in this study is social entrepreneurial intention as measured by seven indicators adopted from (Urban and Kujinga, 2017). Social entrepreneurial intention is measured by four indicators adopted from (Miranda et al., 2017) Social vision is measured by four indicators, social pro-activeness is measured by six indicators, and risktaking motive is measured by four indicators. Of the three independent variables adopted from (Sulphey and Salim, 2020).Innovativeness is measured by four indicators adopted from (Satar and Natasha, 2019). All the indicators in this study have been slightly modified to suit the context in this study. A questionnaire was made by combining all the variables and indicators, then submitted to academic experts to be examined and a pre-test was carried out to see whether the indicators that had been made were reliable and valid. The actual questionnaire consists of 9 parts, namely, introduction, informed consent, respondent profile, and definitions and statements of six variables. All indicators were measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Because there is currently a COVID-19 pandemic and Pelita Harapan University is conducting online learning to allow researchers to collect respondent data offline, researchers use electronic questionnaires as a tool to collect data. Researchers collected data one by one by direct message to 185 respondents. The online questionnaire created by the researcher contains a brief introduction about the background and objectives of the research. A brief explanation of each variable is also given to make it easier for respondents to understand the essence of the whole research (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016).
After the data collected has been cleaned and filtered from existing errors, the data is ready for analysis. Covariance Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) was analyzed using SPSS AMOS software version 26 with two steps, namely the measurement model and the structural model. The author used SPSS AMOS software to accurately analyze the mediation relationship in the research model. Covariance Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) is a statistical analysis tool that describes or defines the relationship between each variable (Svensson, 2015). For reliability and validity tests, analysis was carried out using SPSS AMOS version 26 software. Then the hypothesis was tested with regression weights and mediation tests were analyzed using SPSS AMOS software version 26. Before testing the structural model, several assumption tests were carried out such as normality test, linearity test, homoscedasticity test, and multicollinearity test to ensure that the existing data does not have statistical errors.

RESULTS
Respondents' profil data can be found in Table 2. Next, the researcher will test the measurement model to see whether the existing indicators already represent the variables for each variable that has been made in this research model. Researchers will use SPSS AMOS version 26 software to test the measurement model, namely, reliability test (Construct Reliability and Cronbach Alpha), construct validity test (convergent validity and discriminant validity). Table 3. showed the results of Reliability test for each research variable. Where the Construct Reliability value of each variable must be above 0.700 (Yusup, 2018). the Cronbach Alpha value of each variable must be above 0.700 with the corrected total item correlation value of each indicator above 0.300 (Ramadhan, 2018). Then all variables can be declared reliable.  Table 4. showed the results of Convergent Validity test for each research variable. To analyze convergent validity, it can be calculated using the confirmatory factor analysis method using a standardized loading estimate value above 0.500 with a critical ratio value above 1.960 and a probability value below 0.500. Furthermore, convergent validity is also seen from the average variance extracted value which must be above 0.500.    Table 6. shows the results of the Discriminant Validity test for the Heterotreait-Monotrait type for each research variable. To analyze the discriminant validity of the Heterotrait-Monotrait type, it can be seen from the value of the Heterotrait-Monotrait correlation ratio which must be below 0.850. So, it can be concluded that all variables are valid. The measurement model test will include a normality test to assess whether the data obtained are normally distributed or not. For a medium-sized sample (50 below n below 300), reject the null hypothesis at a z value above 3.290 or below -3.290 which corresponds to an alpha level of 0.050 then the sample is not normally distributed. This study used 185 samples, so the researcher had to get the z value in the range of -3.290 below x below 3.290 to conclude that the data were normally distributed. After going through the calculation process which can be seen in table 7. below, the researcher got the z skewness value of -2.285 and z kurtosis of -1.101. Based on the above calculations and the z values in the two sizes are below 3.290 and above -3.290, it can be concluded that the data in this study are normally distributed. The normality test can also be seen from the histogram image, where data that are normally distributed will form a bell. Figure 2. below will represent data that has been normally distributed.

Figure 2. Histogram Normality Test Result
The next assumption test is linearity test, where this linearity test refers to how closely the projected dependent variable follows a straight line. If the result is significant (p below 0.050), a linear model can be used to analyze the model relationship. All examples should, in theory, lie on a straight line with no deviation from linearity. In other words, the deviation will be zero, indicating that linearity does not explain the overall (combined) difference between groups. Real data may deviate from the ideal scenario, and there are situations when deviations do not follow a straight line. The more significant the F value, the greater the deviation situation, as indicated by the F-deviation from linearity. If the deviation of the linearity column contains p above 0.050, the data is said to be linearly connected. Table 8. below will show the results of the linearity test. The F-linearity row and the F-deviation row in the table above are the first two results to be examined. Table 8. shows that the relationship between variables already meets the assumption of linearity because the F-linearity results are in the significant range (0.000 below 0.050) and the F-deviation results from linearity are in the non-significant range (above 0.050).
Furthermore, this study tested the assumption of homoscedasticity to determine the variance of the residual values. In linear regression, there is an expected value and there is a fact value or real value. Between the expected value and the real value there must be a difference, so it is these error values that make up the residual value. If the significant value is greater than 0.050, then there is a case of homoscedasticity. But if the significant value is less than 0.050 then there is a case of heteroscedasticity. Table 9. below has shown that each variable has homoscedasticity. Furthermore, this study tested the assumption of multicollinearity to identify the strong correlation of the structural equation model between variables. The relationship between the dependent variable will be disturbed if the independent variable has a high correlation. As a result, a feasible regression model should have no correlation between independent variables or be collinear but not strongly correlated. Table 10. below will show the results of the multicollinearity assumption test and all VIF values below 10 and all Tolerance values above 0.100 then there is no multicollinearity. The supported hypothesis is the hypothesis that has a positive committed relationship with the critical value must be plus or minus of 1.650. The structural model that is made must look at the existing fit model criteria. The resulting R-square value seen from each endogenous latent variable can be seen in Squared Multiple Correlations. Table 11. below will show the results of the R-Square value of each endogenous latent variable in this study. Based on the R-square value from table 6. above, the Social Entrepreneurship Attitude variable has an R-square value of 0.644 which can be interpreted as 64.400 percent of each variation that can be explained by social vision, proactive social, innovation, motives for taking risk, and social entrepreneurial intentions. But about 35.600 percent of each variation is explained by other variables outside this study. Furthermore, Social Entrepreneurship Intentions has an R-Square value of 0.680 which can be interpreted as 68 percent of each variation that can be explained by social vision, proactive social, innovation, risk-taking motives, and social entrepreneurial attitudes. However, around 32 percent of each variation is explained by other variables outside of this study. The results of the structural model can be seen in Figure 3. Furthermore, this study conducted a hypothesis test, where the hypothesis will be supported if it has a critical ratio value plus or minus of 1.650 and a threshold p-value below equals 0.050. So, if there are variables that do not meet these criteria, the hypothesis will not be supported. Table 12. below are the results of hypothesis testing. Based on the results of hypothesis testing concluded that H1b, H2a, H3b, H4a, and H5 were supported by research data, while H1a, H2b, H3a, and H4b were not supported by research data. Furthermore, this study conducted a mediation test. Indirect-only Mediation (Full Mediation) means that the independent variable cannot directly affect the dependent variable without going through the mediating variable. Competitive Mediation (Partial Mediation) and Complementary Mediation (Partial Mediation) means that the independent variable can directly influence the dependent variable without going through the mediating variable. In table 13. below are the results of the mediation test.

DISCUSSION
Hypothesis 1a proves that social vision does not have a positive effect on social entrepreneurial attitudes. There are two reasons why this hypothesis is not supported. First, as previously explained that the development of a positive social entrepreneurial attitude begins with establishing active relationships with different stakeholders in society and has been led by a social vision to offer value for societal change (Sekliuckiene and Kisielius, 2015). Stakeholders here can be in the form of organizations, communities, socio-economic groups, governments, or even community institutions (Khamimah, 2021). While the samples taken in this study were students, the majority of whom still do not have experience in establishing relationships with various stakeholders in the community so of course this can affect their attitude towards social entrepreneurship. Second, because many students do not have experience in social life, this will certainly have an impact on their dedication and involvement in dealing with the causes of social problems which are developed with some emotions and awareness of social responsibility. (Tu et al., 2021). So that in this case it can inhibit the influence of students' social vision on social entrepreneurship attitudes.
Hypothesis 1b proves that social vision has a positive influence on social entrepreneurial intentions. There are two reasons why this hypothesis is supported. First, because students see behavior as a solution to realizing their social vision. Social vision here is defined as one's goal to reach and solve existing social problems (Gardner, 2004, in Tu et al., 2021. Meanwhile, according to (Ajzen, 2020), behavior can be formed if there is an intention in a person. The stronger the students' intention to be involved in making social-based businesses, the greater their performance in realizing the social vision. Therefore, the results of this study prove that social vision has a positive effect on the social entrepreneurship intentions of UPH students. Second, the social entrepreneurial mindset has naturally been activated as an irresistible form of social vision that envelops a keen sense of commitment and devotion in fulfilling a fundamental desire to solve social problems. This is reflected in their positive intention to create a socially based business. Therefore, social vision has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intentions (Tu et al., 2021).
Hypothesis 2a proves that social proactivity has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial attitudes. There are two reasons why this hypothesis is supported. First, according to (Lumpkin et al., 2011) states that being proactive has become an important feature in the context of social entrepreneurship, where people who are socially proactive will effectively try to solve social problems. Therefore, it can be said that people who are socially proactive are more likely to show a positive attitude towards social entrepreneurship. Second, this is because being socially proactive has implications in social entrepreneurship, where being socially proactive helps these sociopreneurs to make a positive impact on social issues. In this case, proactive people are more likely to show a positive attitude towards social entrepreneurship (Tu et al., 2021). This hypothesis is also supported by (Mandongwe and Jaravaza, 2020) and (Tu et al., 2021).
Hypothesis 2b proves that social proactiveness does not have a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intentions. There are several reasons why this hypothesis is not supported. First, the phenomenon that occurs in Indonesia today, the majority of undergraduate students prefer to find work rather than create a business (Aryaningtyas & Palupiningtyas, 2019). Based on data from the Ministry of Manpower (Kemenaker) it is stated that currently 6.97 percent of undergraduate graduates and 6.61 percent of diploma graduates fail to find work. That is, based on data and facts in the field, it can be seen that as many as 8.75 million college graduates prefer to become workers rather than create businesses (Catherin, 2021). Likewise in research conducted by (Aryaningtyas and Palupiningtyas, 2019). which conducted a survey of students at six different universities regarding "what will they do after graduating and getting a bachelor's degree in economics?", the majority of them, namely 76 percent answered that they will apply for a job to become an employee, then as much as 4 percent say they want to create a business, and the remaining 20 percent say they want to work while doing business.
From the results of this study, it can be concluded that education at economic universities produces more graduates who want to become employees, but there are still less who have an entrepreneurial spirit. The intention to become a social entrepreneur is of course greatly influenced by the proactive social nature of the students themselves, which means that UPH students still have a low level of social proactivity or in other words, students lack initiative to act in overcoming existing social problems. Second, this finding indicates that being socially proactive may not directly affect students' entrepreneurial intentions to start a socially based business but that being socially proactive may have a positive effect on social entrepreneurial attitudes. This shows that if a student has a strong attitude to include himself in social entrepreneurship, his social proactivity will lead to a positive intention to start a social-based business.
Hypothesis 3a proves that innovation has no effect on social entrepreneurial attitudes. There are two reasons why this hypothesis is not supported. First, from the results of hypothesis testing, it was found that innovation has a direct influence on social entrepreneurial intentions. That is, if a person has a prominent level of innovation, he will be more likely to start a social-based business, even though he does not have a strong positive attitude towards social entrepreneurship. Second, innovation here is defined as the creation of new ideas and their implementation into new products or services that lead to social needs for the benefit of the wider community (Satar and Natasha, 2019). The high level of student innovation is often used as an excuse to become a socialpreneur (Luc, 2020). The reason for becoming a socialpreneur is defined as a person's belief in starting a social enterprise. However, this study uses a sample of students, the majority of whom still have no experience in the world of entrepreneurship, which means that many of them have never implemented or executed an innovation into a new product or service. This can be seen with the Sparklab at UPH, where all the student innovations that exist are only ideas or ideas in the form of a proposal without executing the idea into a product or service. Thus, this can affect their beliefs or attitudes towards social entrepreneurship.
Hypothesis 3b proves that innovation has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intentions. There are two reasons why this hypothesis is supported. First, because entrepreneurship is understood as an innovative approach which means that innovation is one of the key ideas in the realization of social entrepreneurship, individual innovation certainly has an important function in relation to social entrepreneurship (Gur-Erdogan et al., 2014). This concludes that the more innovative a student is, the more they will have the intention to start a social-based business (Tu et al., 2021). This statement is supported by previous research conducted by (Tu et al., 2021) which proves that innovation has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intentions. Second, women tend to be more innovative in creating their businesses and have a higher intention to coordinate responsibilities in the business they do compared to men (Lapuente and Suzuki, 2021). In this study, many respondents were women, based on the support of research conducted by (Lapuente and Suzuki, 2021), it is not surprising that the results obtained by the authors prove that UPH student innovation has a positive effect on their intentions towards social entrepreneurship. This hypothesis is also supported by (Wathanakom et al., 2020), (Efrata et al., 2021), (Tu et al., 2021), and (Samydevan et al., 2021).
Hypothesis 4a proves that the risk-taking motive has a positive effect on social entrepreneurial attitudes. There are three reasons why this hypothesis is supported. First, a high risk-taking mentality will positively grow students' perceptions of starting socialbased businesses in the future. This opinion is supported by research conducted by (Tu et al., 2021). Second, the risk-taking motive is the tendency of individuals to be willing to take risks and make decisions with risks. Someone who decides to engage in social entrepreneurship must be someone who is willing to make all decisions based on calculated risks (Asmara et al., 2016). Of course, it is not easy for someone to make high-risk decisions, but this is not the case for UPH entrepreneurship concentration management students, where they have gained a deeper understanding of entrepreneurship, finance, and human resource management. Every time you start a new business, especially a socialbased business, careful preparation is needed so that the business being built can be successful. Starting from how to develop a product that can solve social problems, how to make social-based businesses that are created to survive and compete with other competitors in the market.
So that in this case they will better understand how to make the right decisions and be trained to be able to face any challenges that arise in the social entrepreneurship activities that will be carried out. With the ability to be able to face every challenge that arises and the ability to always find new methods that are more effective in solving every existing social problem. Of course, this will increase their confidence in social entrepreneurship and believe in their abilities, so this will foster a positive attitude towards social entrepreneurship. Third, the risk-taking motive is one aspect that influences one's attitude towards social entrepreneurship. That is, here someone who has a high risk-taking nature will have a positive social entrepreneurial attitude. In this case, UPH students believe that social entrepreneurship activity is a positive thing if they dare to take and face every risk, so it can be concluded that a person's risk-taking motive will affect his attitude towards social entrepreneurship. This hypothesis is also supported by (Chipeta and Surujlal, 2017), (Yukongdi and Lopa, 2017), (Irawati, 2020), and (Tu et al., 2021).
Hypothesis 4b proves that the risk-taking motive does not have a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intentions. There are two reasons why this hypothesis is not supported. First, women are more afraid of risk than men, so in this case they tend to be more careful in what they do and consider all the risks that may occur if they are involved in making a socially based business (Singh et al., 2022). In this study, many respondents were women, so it is not surprising that the results of this study stated that the risk-taking motives of UPH students did not have a positive effect on their intention to start a socialbased business. Second, because the Covid-19 pandemic is currently happening, it makes people more careful in taking risks to start a business, especially a social business (Farouk, 2021). During the Covid-19 pandemic, it is quite difficult to start a new business, considering the facts in the business field that many have experienced a decline and even cannot survive (Bahtiar, 2021). This is supported by data submitted by the General Chairperson of the MSME Association (Akumindo), M. Ikhsan Ingratubun, based on data from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin), stating that during the last year during the Covid-19 pandemic as many as 30 million MSMEs went bankrupt. 87.5 percent of those affected by Covid-19 and 93.3 percent of MSME business actors experienced a decline in sales turnover (Insi, 2021). So that during the Covid-19 pandemic, the option to start a new business will be an exceedingly difficult choice. Therefore, the results of this study indicate that students think again about starting a new social-based business considering the risks that will be faced are quite large, so that in this case the risk-taking motive does not have a positive effect on their social entrepreneurial intentions.
Hypothesis 5 proves that social entrepreneurial attitudes have a positive effect on social entrepreneurial intentions. There are three reasons why this hypothesis is supported. First, aspects of a person's behavior depend on his attitude and finally, his attitude extends to an important part in shaping one's behavioral intentions and actions. That is, someone who has a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship that is in line with his life goals is more likely to form an intention to create a socially based business. Second, social entrepreneurial attitudes have a strong influence on social entrepreneurial intentions because attitudes are in fact deterministic antecedents (philosophical beliefs that all events occur as a result of the existence of some necessity) for intentions, thus highlighting that any deviations that occur in attitudes are directly leads to deviations with levels of social entrepreneurial intentio (Tiwari et al., 2017a). In this case, students have a positive attitude towards social entrepreneurship, so this has a positive effect on their intention to become sociopreneurs. Third, if a student has a positive attitude towards social entrepreneurship, he will tend to start a social-based business as a future career choice. This reason is also supported by the results of hypothesis testing conducted by (Kusminarti et al., 2017), (Law and Breznik, 2017), (Tiwari et al., 2017a), (Fellnhofer, 2018), (Liguori et al., 2020), (Luc, 2020), and (Tu et al., 2021).

CONCLUSION
This study acknowledges several limitations of the study which will open new research opportunities in the social entrepreneurship research domain. First, this research uses non-probability sampling, namely purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is used by researchers by selecting the desired and appropriate respondents' criteria, namely having knowledge about entrepreneurship, and taking entrepreneurship concentration. The limitation of the study is that the entire population does not have the same opportunity to become respondents in the study. This of course cannot generalize to the entire population. However, by using purposive sampling, researchers can involve individuals in the best population to provide information about the research phenomenon (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). Further research is recommended to make comparisons between respondents from the management faculty and respondents from other faculties studying entrepreneurship courses. In this case, an example is the faculty of medicine.
The second limitation, in a study, is needed to determine the subject to be used in the study. There are many subject criteria that can be used in this study. The second limitation is that the subjects used in the research are students who are currently pursuing a study program at Pelita Harapan University. From the many choices of subjects that can be used in this study, the researcher decided to use student subjects at UPH, this is because the researchers themselves are students at UPH and the subjects of this study will make it easier for researchers to obtain data.
By using only research subjects from one university, the results of this study cannot be generalized from all subjects. However, using student research subjects at UPH will make it easier for researchers to obtain data in a limited time so that this research can be completed according to a predetermined schedule. Further research is suggested to use respondent criteria in more than 1 university. By testing the criteria for respondents to concentrate on entrepreneurship at different universities, the results of the study can be more generalized to the existing population. In addition, future researchers are also advised to use the subject of entrepreneurship concentration students who have completed their studies and want to work or become entrepreneurs. By using the respondent's criteria, it is expected to have a more significant impact on individual behavior in determining the attitudes and intentions of social entrepreneurship.  Sulphey andSalim (2020 in Tu et al., 2021) social problems