COVID-19 and Its Effects on Attitudes toward Opportunity-Motivated Entrepreneurship: Before and after Lockdown

Abstract

COVID-19 lockdown measures have largely been effective in curtailing the spread of the disease. Yet, its other effects have been profound and pervasive, exposing gender inequalities, reducing psychological sustainability, and causing economic hardship. Entrepreneurship, with its potential for effecting social good and sustainable economic development, has too been changed with studies finding a drop in entrepreneurship during the crisis. Yet, it is unknown how entrepreneurship may change after COVID-19 and lockdown measures are eased. We study changes in attitudes toward entrepreneurship by testing two samples of Singaporean undergraduates before the implementation (N = 242) and after the easing (N = 280) of lockdown measures. In doing so, we contribute to research about attitudes toward entrepreneurship, often side-lined in Theory of Planned Behaviour entrepreneurship studies which tend to focus instead on entrepreneurship intentions. Our findings indicate that opportunity-motivated, or pull, entrepreneurship may have become more positive after lockdown measures are eased. Next, women hold stronger beliefs in entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil agentic-type goals (e.g., power, achievement). For both genders, the extent to which entrepreneurship can achieve prosocial, communal-type goals is a key post-lockdown determinant of positive attitudes to entrepreneurship. Our findings provide clues into what to expect regarding post-lockdown entrepreneurship, and bears practical implications for entrepreneurship educators and policymakers.

1. Introduction

“The deepest recession since the Second World War” notes a World Bank press release in June 2020 on the economic effects of COVID-19 [1]. Indeed, while the effects of COVID-19 on society is all-encompassing, including changes in consumption patterns [2], increases in anxiety and depression risks [3], and decreases in psychological sustainability [4] and quality of life [5], the economic impact on businesses has been unprecedented. For example, Cowling et al. [6] reported that without external assistance, 61% of a sample of 1500 British Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are projected to run out of cash because of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.

Leaders of SMEs, employers of 70% of the global workforce [7], have the desire [8] and potential [9] to effect sustainable economic development. Entrepreneurship, in particular, has been singled out as an important engine of economic growth and social good during this COVID-19 crisis [10]. As a potential medium for greater gender equality [11,12] and avenue for decent work [13,14], entrepreneurship has the potential to achieve multiple United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals in the wake of COVID-19. Yet, apart from COVID-19 being a career shock [15] and a catalyst for drastic change [16,17], the exact direction and impact of the pandemic on entrepreneurship is still being ascertained.

Past research suggests that entrepreneurship activity will be subdued during crises [18,19,20,21] such as COVID-19. As countries recover from crises though, a rise in interest and participation in entrepreneurship has been documented all around the world, in countries such as Australia [22], China [23], Indonesia [24], and Spain [18]. For COVID-19, an indicator of recovery is the easing of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions such as the reopening of indoor group dining.

This rise in interest can be examined using Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) [25] in terms of variables such as entrepreneurial intent and attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Indeed, entrepreneurial intent is an outcome variable commonly studied using the TPB, often at the neglect of other TPB variables such as subjective norms and attitudes toward entrepreneurship [26]. Attitudes toward entrepreneurship can be examined in terms of overall feelings (e.g., how positive entrepreneurship is judged to be as a career option) or in terms of entrepreneurship’s perceived capacity to fulfil agentic-type (power, achievement, seeking new experiences or excitement) and prosocial (affiliation, altruism, intimacy) goals [27].

As such, this study examines how the easing of COVID-19 lockdown measures has affected attitudes toward entrepreneurship. To that end, we surveyed two groups of Singaporean undergraduates—one group in early 2020, before the implementation of lockdown restrictions [28], and another group in early 2021, after the easing of major lockdown measures [29]. Our study on attitudes also contributes to the relative paucity of TPB research on attitudes toward entrepreneurship.

We now review the literature on COVID-19′s effects on attitudes to entrepreneurship, and present our hypotheses. Next, we outline our methods and materials before reporting our results. We discuss our findings and how it compares to other similar empirical studies. We end by stating the implications of our findings, acknowledging study limitations, and proposing future research directions.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Literature Review

Rummel et al.’s pre-COVID-19 study [15] surveyed recent graduates and identified several negative career shocks (e.g., disappointment with organisational life, and personal tragedy) and positive career shocks (e.g., a moment of realization—spotting opportunities) that preceded their starting of a business. It seems likely that COVID-19 would lead to such negative and positive career shocks among aspiring entrepreneurs. The concept of career shocks, as a catalyst for entrepreneurship, is meant to complement the traditional conceptualisation of entrepreneurship as resulting from necessity (“push” entrepreneurship) or opportunity (“pull” entrepreneurship) [30]. As Devece et al. [18] documented with Spanish entrepreneurs before and after the 2008 Great Recession, economic crises (such as the one brought about by COVID-19 lockdown restrictions) can lead to substantial push factors for entrepreneurship in the form of unemployment, underemployment, and difficulty in finding permanent work.

Current evidence suggests that during a crisis, entrepreneurship activity is inhibited. Melugbo et al. [19] report a slowdown in entrepreneurial activity among Nigeria entrepreneurs during the pandemic. Similarly, Cepel et al. [20] find an increase in perceptions of financial risk among entrepreneurs and SMEs in the Czech Republic and Slovakia during this period. Ruiz-Rosa et al. [21], examining social entrepreneurship, also reports a fall in entrepreneurial intent because of COVID-19. Indeed, Gomes et al. [31] summarise research as demonstrating considerable decreases in entrepreneurial rates and intent in times of economic crisis.

After a crisis and in the longer-term though, there is some evidence that interest in, and participation in entrepreneurship may increase through proactive career behaviours [30]. This is certainly the case in selected fields. For example, Zhang and Huang [23] found that in response to lockdowns and changes in mindsets and behaviours, such as higher participation rates in the internet economy, Chinese college students are more likely to start an online business after the crisis. Similar increases in interest in entrepreneurship are reported in Indonesia, through an increase in self-rated interest in social entrepreneurship among university students because of COVID-19 [24], and in Australia, through the creation of new ventures in response to the Black Saturday Bushfires [22]. Indeed, Linan and Jaen [32] notes data on potential entrepreneurs from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor that indicates a significant increase in entrepreneurial intent, especially related to push entrepreneurship, in the years following the 2008 Great Recession. All this suggests a possible increase in positive attitudes toward, and intentions to participate in entrepreneurship as countries exit lockdowns.

Ajzen’s [25] Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is the most commonly used [33] and predictive [21] theory to explain entrepreneurial intention. The TPB states that behaviour can be predicted by intention which in turn, is predicted by (1) attitude towards the behaviour, (2) subjective norm, and (3) perceived behavioural control. Perceived behavioural control is essentially self-efficacy placed within the TPB framework [25]. Here, it refers to the individual’s perceived ease or difficulty in becoming an entrepreneur. On the other hand, subjective norm here refers to social pressures from family and friends and other people important to the individual regarding entrepreneurship [31]. Finally, attitude refers to one’s predisposition towards the creation of a company [33] and denotes the degree to which one is favourable about the act of entrepreneurship [34].

Because entrepreneurial intention has been found to be the best predictor of entrepreneurial behaviour with reported correlations between entrepreneurial intention and behaviour as high as 0.90 and 0.96 [33], it is commonly the target outcome variable for studies examining entrepreneurship using the TPB. Aparicio et al.’s [26] summary of studies in a special issue of Sustainability on entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship reveals that studies examining entrepreneurship focused primarily on entrepreneurial intentions. Similarly, Su et al.’s [35] outline of research topics on TPB and entrepreneurship indicates that a majority of studies have intention as the dependent variable. While research, including Kautonen et al.’s [36] longitudinal study of Austrian and Finnish adults, have indeed found consistent evidence that entrepreneurial intention predicts subsequent behaviour, less attention has been devoted to the antecedents of intention, such as attitudes toward entrepreneurship [34,37].

One reason to study attitudes toward entrepreneurship is that attitudes predict intentions [33]. Gomes et al. [31] found that attitude was the statistically largest predictor, more so than perceived behavioural control and social norm, of entrepreneurial intention. Similarly, Paunescu et al. [37] found that attitude, or the perceived desirability of entrepreneurship, predicted future entrepreneurial intentions among Romanian adults. Collectively, attitude, perceived behavioural control, and social norm have been found to predict 39% to 59% of the variance in entrepreneur intention [36,38]. Reviewing past research findings, Veciana et al. [34] concluded that attitudes toward entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial activity are key determinants of university students’ decision to become entrepreneurs.

Veciana et al.’s [34] and Paunescu et al.’s [37] studies are atypical in that they focus on attitudes, rather than intentions, toward entrepreneurship. There are two other reasons for studying attitudes. The first is that attitudes predict other factors important for entrepreneurship such as motivation. Martinez-Gonzalez et al.’s [33] study found that Polish and Spanish university students who agreed with attitudinal statements such as “Entrepreneurship has more advantages than disadvantages” also professed a greater motivation to become an entrepreneur and indirectly, expressed greater entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The second reason is that attitudes regarding occupations are malleable [39] and can therefore be used to cultivate entrepreneurial intention—A key goal of entrepreneurial education [40]. Su et al. [35] found that perceived support from their university for entrepreneurship led to students expressing more positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship. The increase was far greater for attitudes toward entrepreneurship than for perceptions of behavioural control.

This malleability in attitudes toward entrepreneurship was exploited by Jakob et al. [27] who, in a pre-COVID-19 experiment, was able to change German university students’ stereotypical beliefs about entrepreneurship by exposing them to vignettes which emphasised the communal, or prosocial value of entrepreneurship. This intervention partially reversed the students’ underestimation of the communal value of entrepreneurship where entrepreneurship is viewed primarily as a vehicle to fulfil agentic-type goals, not prosocial ones. In turn, this heightened sense of the prosocial value of entrepreneurship led to an increase in positive attitudes toward opportunity-motivated, pull entrepreneurship. While the effects of COVID-19 on entrepreneurial intention has received some attention, notably from Ruiz-Rosa et al. [21] who found a decrease in social entrepreneurial intention during COVID-19, the effects of the pandemic on attitudes after lockdown restrictions are eased, defined as the rolling back of any lockdown restrictions by any measure, has not been studied.

There are reasons to expect that attitudes toward entrepreneurship may have changed to include more emphasis on entrepreneurship’s capacity for prosociality because of COVID-19 and lockdown restrictions. Syropoulos [41] refers to COVID-19 as a “real-world test of prosociality” in that the behaviours of individuals are key to limiting the spread of COVID-19. COVID-19 presents a social dilemma [42] where individuals have to enact costly prosocial behaviours (e.g., endure social isolation and economic hardship from quarantines and lockdowns) so as to benefit themselves and the larger community. Van de Groep et al.’s [43] diary study of Dutch adolescents in lockdown found evidence that the pandemic has led to the prioritising of needs and deservedness, over kinship and familiarity, in the allocation of resources. It appears that COVID-19 has brought prosociality and the pursuit of communal goals into attention and practice.

This has also occurred at the business level. Despite some contrary findings of reduced corporate donations in China [44], a rise in corporate philanthropy and Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives has been observed [45]. Manuel and Herron [46] note how businesses, motivated by personal and social good, have engaged in a wide range of COVID-19 CSR actions. Garcia-Sanchez and Garcia-Sanchez [47] report how large Spanish companies have redoubled their CSR efforts because of the pandemic. Indeed, an increase in CSR activities in response to previous disasters and pandemics has been documented [48]. This capacity for businesses and entrepreneurs to fulfil COVID-19 prosocial goals also receives widespread attention with high profile business leaders such as Jack Ma, Jack Dorsey, and Bill Gates leading such efforts [49].

Studies have found that COVID-19 prosocial behaviours are more likely to occur in countries with higher trust in government. Han et al.’s [50] study of participants from 23 countries measured COVID-19 prosocial behaviours by asking participants questions such as “I am willing to help others who suffer from coronavirus”. Their research found higher rates of self-rated prosocial behaviours in countries where trust in government is higher. Echoing Han et al.’s [50] findings is Lim et al.’s [51] Singapore study which found an association between trust in government communication and greater likelihood of adopting protective behaviour.

Singapore, which lifted major lockdown restrictions in December 2020 [29], offers the opportunity to study the effects of COVID-19 on attitudes toward entrepreneurship after the easing of lockdown measures. Such research could also address Jakob et al.’s [27] concern about extrapolating their findings about German beliefs regarding entrepreneurship to other nations, such as Singapore which Hofstede [52] found to differ considerably from Germany. Indeed, some studies have found differences across countries for entrepreneurship beliefs. For instance, Veciana et al. [34] found several significant differences between Puerto Ricans and Catalonians when asked about the desirability of engaging in entrepreneurship, and characteristics of entrepreneurs (e.g., Catalonians’ ratings of the financial and management skills of entrepreneurs were higher than ratings given by Puerto Ricans). Similarly, Margaca et al. [53] found that Portuguese university students had higher perceived behavioural control for entrepreneurship than Spanish students. There are contrary findings though. For example, Nikolaev et al. [54] analyse data from 73 countries and found that cultural values, geography, and legal origins were not significant predictors of opportunity- and necessity-motivated entrepreneurship. Indeed, Martinez-Gonzalez et al. [33] argue that generational differences are more important for entrepreneurship than international differences. That is, members of the same generation from different countries should share more similarities among themselves than with other generational members of the same country.

Another question regarding entrepreneurship is the effect of gender. Despite the positive role of entrepreneurship in ameliorating gender inequality [11,12] and therefore achieving the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal 5 of empowering women and girls, males have been documented to have greater entrepreneurial intentions [23]. Though it should be noted that a recent meta-analysis has found such differences to be small [55]. Indeed, other studies such as Veciana et al.’s [34] report no clear and consistent gender differences. Similar mixed findings were reported by Jakob et al. [27] who found no gender differences in the belief that entrepreneurship allows for the fulfilment of agentic-type goals such as achievement, power, and excitement. On the other hand, significantly lower ratings were provided by women for entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfilment communal-type goals such as interaction with others, and prosocial behaviour. That is, Jakob et al. [27] found that women were more sceptical than men in believing that entrepreneurship can lead to the fulfilment of prosocial goals. Such findings can inform efforts to promote entrepreneurship to women. In this case, for example, entrepreneurial education programmes can focus on remedying this scepticism.

2.2. Hypotheses

Before examining how attitudes toward entrepreneurship may have changed after the easing of lockdown measures, we first seek to extend Jakob et al.’s [27] findings regarding German young adults’ entrepreneurship beliefs in a Singaporean context. Accordingly, we hypothesise:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Entrepreneurship is perceived to be better at fulfilling agentic-type goals than communal-type, prosocial goals.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Females rate entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil communal-type, prosocial goals lower than males.

Examining the effects of easing lockdown measures, and based on findings of increased interest and participation in post-crisis entrepreneurship [23,32,56], we expect an increase in positive attitudes toward opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship after the easing of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. We chose to focus on opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship because (1) opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship is the prevalent motivation worldwide (74% of early-stage entrepreneurs [56]) and in Singapore (6.2 times more opportunity-motivated than necessity-motivated early-stage entrepreneurs [57]), and (2) opportunity-motivated entrepreneurs are more successful than necessity entrepreneurs especially during periods of crises such as during recessions [18]. Accordingly, we hypothesise:

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Attitudes toward opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship is more positive after the easing of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.

Entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment, alongside emotional valence and self-efficacy, predicts attitudes toward entrepreneurship [27]. Pre- implementation of lockdown restrictions, we expect entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type goal fulfilment to be predictive of positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Post-implementation of lockdown measures requiring prosocial behaviours such as social isolation [41], we expect entrepreneurship’s capacity for both agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment to be predictive of positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship. We hypothesise (Figure 1):

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Pre-COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type goal fulfilment predicts positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship.

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Post-COVID-19 easing of lockdown restrictions, entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment predict positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship.

3. Materials and Methods

To test our hypotheses, we recruited 522 undergraduate students at a Singaporean university. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Singapore University of Social Sciences’s Institutional Review Board (Approval Number: APR-0078-V1.0-10022020). After removing responses that were invariant or failed to follow instructions, responses from 203 (Mean age = 28.17; 66% females) and 253 (Mean age = 29.95; 70% females) participants at Time 1 (between February and March 2020) and Time 2 (between February and March 2021) were obtained respectively. Time 1 testing occurred before 7 April 2020, the implementation of the first COVID-19 lockdown measures in Singapore [28]. Time 1 was marked by a period of fear and concern in Singapore about rising COVID-19 infections [58]. Time 2 testing occurred after periods of low or no infections in the community [59], and the easing of lockdown measures [29].

All participants were asked their gender and age, and were administered two sets of questions from Jakob et al. [27]. The first set of questions required participants to rate, on a 7-point Likert scale, the capacity of eleven different careers to fulfil agentic-type (power, achievement, seeking new experiences or excitement) or prosocial (intimacy, affiliation, altruism) goals. The eleven careers represented entrepreneurial careers (founder of a start-up business, entrepreneur, self-employed person), agency-stereotypic careers (CEO, senior HR manager, engineer, lawyer), and prosocial or communion-stereotypic careers (social worker, teacher, nurse, nursery teacher). The second set of questions measured attitudes toward entrepreneurship by asking participants to rate entrepreneurship on a semantic differential scale, from −3 to 3, for boring versus exciting, uninteresting versus interesting, and annoying versus attractive. These questions assess opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship by asking about the desirability and pull of entrepreneurship, as opposed to the push-nature of necessity-motivated entrepreneurship [56].

4. Results

A one-way ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted to test Hypothesis 1. This analysis combined Time 1 and Time 2 data because no differences in conclusions were found when Time 1 and Time 2 data were analysed separately. Figure 2 displays the means for the extent to which entrepreneurial, agency-stereotypic, and communion-stereotypic careers fulfil agentic-type and prosocial goals. Entrepreneurial careers were judged to better fulfil agentic-type than prosocial goals (Mean difference = 1.96, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.57). Entrepreneurial careers were also judged to better fulfil agentic-type goals than agency-stereotypic (Mean difference = 0.82, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.06), and communion-stereotypic (Mean difference = 1.15, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.13) careers. Finally, entrepreneurial careers were judged to be poorer at fulfilling prosocial goals than agency-stereotypic (Mean difference = −0.34, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.35), and communion-stereotypic (Mean difference = −1.58, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.32) careers. Our results support Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2 was tested using a one-way independent ANOVA comparing males and females on the extent to which they felt entrepreneurial, agency-stereotypic, and communion-stereotypic careers fulfil agentic-type and prosocial goals. This analysis combined Time 1 and Time 2 data because no differences in conclusions were found when Time 1 and Time 2 data were analysed separately. No gender differences were found for agency-stereotypic and communion-stereotypic careers. Contrary to Hypothesis 2, females (M = 4.11, SD = 1.11) and males (M = 4.09, SD = 1.19) did not differ in their perception of entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil communal-type, prosocial goals. It is noteworthy though that females (M = 6.10, SD = 0.79) gave higher ratings than males (M = 5.92, SD = 0.86) for entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil agentic-type goals (F(1,401) = 4.18, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.22).

Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 examine changes in attitudes toward entrepreneurship because of COVID-19 and lockdown measures. Time 1 testing occurred before the implementation of lockdown measures, while Time 2 testing was conducted in a period of low or no community infections and after the easing of lockdown measures. In support of Hypothesis 3, entrepreneurship was rated more positively (t(453) = −2.073, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.20) at Time 2 (M = 5.11, SD = 1.23) than at Time 1 (M = 4.84, SD = 1.46).

To test Hypotheses 4 and 5, attitudes toward entrepreneurship were regressed onto entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment.

Table 1. Results from regression models predicting positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship from entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment.

Entrepreneurship’s Capacity for:	Time 1			Time 2
	b	β	r	b	β	r
Agentic-type goal fulfilment	0.35 **	0.21 **	0.21	0.24 *	0.14 *	0.18
Prosocial goal fulfilment	0.02	0.02	0.07	0.25 **	0.23 **	0.26
Total R2	0.05 *			0.09 **

r = Zero-order correlations. b = Unstandardised Betas. β = Standardised Betas. * p < 0.05 (two-tailed). ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

displays the results of two multiple regression, one each for Time 1 and Time 2. While significant, perceived entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment only accounted for 5% (Time 1) and 9% (Time 2) of variance in attitudes toward entrepreneurship. At Time 1, in support of Hypothesis 4, entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil agentic-type goals (β = 0.21, t₁₉₉ = 2.87, p < 0.01) was found to be a significant predictor of positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship. In support of Hypothesis 5, entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil agentic-type goals (β = 0.14, t₂₅₀ = 2.35, p < 0.05) and prosocial goals (β = 0.23, t₂₅₀ = 3.81, p < 0.01) significantly predicted positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship. It should be noted that while not significant at Time 1 (β = 0.02, t₁₉₉ = 0.25, p > 0.05), at Time 2, entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil prosocial goals was now a significant and larger predictor of positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship than entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil agentic-type goals.

5. Discussion

5.1. Main Findings

We have established that entrepreneurship can be an important engine of economic growth and sustainable social good in the wake of COVID-19 [10]. Attitudes are an important determinant of intentions, and subsequent behaviours to become entrepreneurs [31]. Yet, research studying entrepreneurship, such as those using the theory of planned behaviour, has largely focused on intentions, not its antecedents, such as attitudes [35]. Additionally, there is a gap in our understanding of attitudes toward entrepreneurship in times of crises. Understanding how attitudes may have changed because of crises, such as COVID-19, is important because attitudes toward entrepreneurship are malleable [27] and can be used to cultivate entrepreneurial intention [40].

Consistent with Jakob et al. [27], entrepreneurship is perceived to be better at fulfilling agentic-type goals than prosocial ones (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, entrepreneurship careers (e.g., founder of a start-up business) were rated to be better than agency-stereotypic (e.g., CEO) and communion-stereotypic (e.g., teacher) careers at fulfilling agentic-type goals (e.g., obtaining power). Conversely, communion-stereotypic careers, followed by agency-stereotypic careers, were regarded as better than entrepreneurship careers at fulfilling prosocial goals. These findings were observed before the implementation, and after the easing, of lockdown measures. COVID-19 does not appear to have changed stereotypical beliefs of entrepreneurship as a vehicle to primarily fulfil agentic-type goals.

Despite some past studies finding cross-cultural differences in terms of attitudes toward entrepreneurship (e.g., [34,53]), including differences between prospective Singaporean entrepreneurs and others elsewhere [60], our results support Nikolaev et al.’s [54] finding, based on data from 73 countries, that cultural values are not significant predictors of pull and push entrepreneurship. Our results extend Jakob et al.’s [27] findings beyond a Western sample suggesting that across cultures, entrepreneurship is regarded as better at fulfilling agentic-type goals than prosocial goals.

Unlike Jakob et al. [27], female study participants did not rate entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil communal-type, prosocial goals to be lower than males (Hypothesis 2). Instead, we found that women rated entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil agentic-type goals to be higher than men. That is, whereas Jakob et al. [27] found that women were more sceptical than men in believing that entrepreneurship can lead to the fulfilment of prosocial goals, in this study, women believed more strongly than men that entrepreneurship can lead to the fulfilment of agentic-type goals such as the acquisition of power and achievements.

Because we did not set out to study why gender differences may have occurred, we can only posit that this difference may be due to changing associations between traditional gender roles and entrepreneurship [27], and the differential effects of COVID-19 on (especially married) women—for example, Yidirim and Eslen-ZIya [61] found a jump in housework hours for married women, as opposed to almost no increase for married men. It should be noted though that this gender difference, while significant, is small (Cohen’s d = 0.22). This is consistent with past studies finding small [23,55,62] or mixed [34] gender differences in entrepreneurial motivation, attitude, and intent.

Focusing on COVID-19-linked changes in attitudes toward entrepreneurship, we found that attitudes toward opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship became more positive after the easing of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions (Hypothesis 3). That attitudes toward entrepreneurship become more positive after the easing of lockdown restrictions is consistent with past studies finding an uptick in entrepreneurship activity and interest after a crisis. This increase in post-crisis entrepreneurship has been observed for both push entrepreneurship [18,32] and pull, or opportunity-motivated, entrepreneurship [22,24]. For example, Zhang and Huang [23] reported a post-pandemic increase in Chinese college students’ inclination to start an online business. Our results, recorded after the easing of lockdown restrictions, also contrast with studies such as Ruiz-Rosa et al. [21] who found a small but significant drop in social entrepreneurial intention during lockdown restrictions. This change in positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship is significant but small (Cohen’s d = 0.20). This may be due to the varied effects of COVID-19 on entrepreneurship and work-life [30]. COVID-19, as a career shock, can have both positive and negative effects on entrepreneurship [15]. Crucially too, we take the easing of lockdown measures as an indicator of “after a crisis”. Yet, for many people, especially those in presently still affected industries such as tourism, the easing of lockdown measures may not signal the end of the crisis. This variability in COVID-19 effects is a plausible explanation for the small effect size observed.

Exploring the antecedents to attitudes toward entrepreneurship, we found that pre-COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type goal fulfilment predicts positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship (Hypothesis 4). This, alongside entrepreneurship’s capacity for prosocial goal fulfilment, continued to predict positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship after lockdown restrictions were eased (Hypothesis 5). Interesting, post-COVID-19 easing of lockdown restrictions, entrepreneurship’s capacity for prosocial goal fulfilment was a larger predictor of positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship than entrepreneurship’s capacity to fulfil agentic-type goals. It should be noted that while significant, the variance in attitudes toward entrepreneurship that is accounted for by entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type and prosocial goal fulfilment is small at less than 10%. Because attitudes to entrepreneurship are formed through a broad set of beliefs, including emotional and self-efficacy beliefs [27], this finding is not unexpected. Future studies can examine a broader set of antecedents for attitudes toward entrepreneurship.

Our finding that entrepreneurship is now evaluated too for its capacity for prosocial goal fulfilment supports Kramer and Kramer’s [39] hypothesis that positive changes in the status of some occupations may have occurred as a result of COVID-19. This finding is also a positive outcome that Jakob et al. [27] were trying to achieve through their experimental manipulation. COVID-19 has led to the emphasis of prosociality at an individual level—be it through our personal sacrifices in this social dilemma [42] or our allocation of resources based on needs and deservedness [43]. Likewise, this emphasis on prosociality is observed at an organisational and entrepreneurship level [45,46,49].

5.2. Implications and Conclusions

Our study yields two practical implications. The first is that attitudes and intentions toward opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship may become more positive as lockdown measures are eased. COVID-19 then presents an opportunity to spur entrepreneurship. An example comes from Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business which organised a pandemic “virtual idea blitz” bringing together more than 200 international participants who collectively produced 21 social enterprise pitches in just seven days [60]. Policymakers, especially those from countries with a poor entrepreneurial culture and low entrepreneurship participation rates such as Singapore [61] and Germany [27], should see COVID-19 as an opportunity to encourage entrepreneurship.

How then can educators of entrepreneurship education programmes and policymakers spur entrepreneurship? The second study implication provides a clue. Our findings suggest that more positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship may be promoted by emphasising the prosocial value of entrepreneurship. Because of COVID-19, entrepreneurship education is in urgent need of change [62] and this can include how entrepreneurship is portrayed [27]. Entrepreneurship, promoted as a force for social good, may also attract more sources of seed financing which has declined markedly because of the pandemic [63]. In sum, entrepreneurship should be promoted as a way to achieve both agentic-type and prosocial goals so as to increase subsequent entrepreneurship rates.

Increasing entrepreneurship rates among women can help tackle gender inequality [11,12] and achieve the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal 5 of empowering women and girls. Our finding that women believed more strongly than men that entrepreneurship can lead to the fulfilment of agentic-type goals (e.g., the acquisition of power and achievements) needs to be verified because such beliefs can guide policymaking and entrepreneurship education programmes. Already, we know of the differential effects of COVID-19 on female professionals [64] and entrepreneurs [65,66]. Our finding of gender differences in terms of beliefs about entrepreneurship’s capacity for agentic-type goal fulfilment merits further investigation.

This study has two noteworthy limitations. Both limitations centre on the idea that COVID-19′s effect on individuals has been uneven (e.g., compare eCommerce business owners versus nightclub operators) and that this affects entrepreneurship-related outcomes. For example, Zhang and Huang [23] found a positive correlation between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and how the post-pandemic entrepreneurial environment is subjectively perceived. Yet, this study did not measure the idiosyncratic effects of COVID-19 on individual participants. This should be remedied in future research through, for example, a self-reported questionnaire such as the COVID Stress Scales [67]. The second limitation relates to the varied and dynamic nature of COVID-19 and lockdown restrictions. Future changes in lockdown restrictions are expected and different degrees of easing of lockdown measures will occur. More follow-up studies, especially longitudinal ones, tracking these dynamic and varied changes, will provide a more nuanced understanding.