A C A D E M I C P A P E R
Impact of positivity and empathy on social entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of perceived social support
Amna Younis
1| Peng Xiaobao
1| Muhammad Athar Nadeem
2|
Shamsa Kanwal
1| Abdul Hameed Pitafi
3| Gui Qiong
1| Duan Yuzhen
41School of Public Affairs - University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China
2School of Management - University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China
3School of Management - Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, Anhui, China
4College of Economic and Management - Anhui Open University, China
Correspondence
Duan Yuzhen, College of Economic and Management - Anhui Open University, China.
Email: [email protected]
Funding information
This research is supported by, Grant/Award Numbers: KY2160000003 and
201806a02020056
Social entrepreneurship is a growing area of interest among practitioners. Social entrepreneurship meets and satisfies social needs and brings social change through innovative ideas. This study aims to investigate the impact of positivity and empathy of individuals on social entrepreneurial intention. This study considers the mediating role of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy between the relationship of positivity, empathy, and social entrepreneurial intention. In addition, this study investigates per- ceived social support as a boundary condition between the relationship of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. Findings show that positivity and empathy positively influence social entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which subsequently positively influences social entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, results show that high perceived social support strengthens the relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. Discussions and implications based on the study findings are reported.
1 | I N T R O D U C T I O N
Social entrepreneurship is an increasingly popular topic in the field of entrepreneurship and is receiving much attention from practitioners (Liñán & Fayolle, 2015; Saebi, Foss, & Linder, 2019). Traditional entre- preneurial intention refers to the intention to start a business and launch a new venture to earn profit (Krueger, 2009). In contrast, social entrepreneurial intention refers to the willingness to start a business for the pursuit of social mission. Social entrepreneurs offer novel entrepreneurial solutions to grand challenges and social problems (Jurkowski, 2019; Siyal, Peng, & Siyal, 2018). Therefore, the goal of social entrepreneurs is to help others and not to serve their self- interests (Miller, Grimes, McMullen, & Vogus, 2012; Santos, 2012).
Several factors contribute in forming social entrepreneurial inten- tion. The current study investigates positivity and empathy, which we expect to be contributing factors to social entrepreneurial intention.
Positivity is a recently developed personality construct that directs individuals to view their lives under positive thoughts (Caprara et al., 2009). Positivity refers to“an individual's propensity to evaluate posi- tively or to be positively oriented toward various life domains,
including oneself and one's future and past experiences” (Caprara et al., 2009, p. 277). Positivity is an individual's judgment of himself, including self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1987), and life satisfaction (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985).
Similarly, empathy is defined as understanding others' views and experiencing compassion and warmth for others. In psychological research, empathy is associated with experiences of others (Davis, 2015) and shows behavior that helps others (Davis et al., 1999;
Eisenberg et al., 1989). Empathy is a key characteristic and an addi- tional antecedent of social entrepreneurs that distinguish them from business-minded entrepreneurs (Dees, 2012; Hockerts, 2017). How- ever, the present study investigates social entrepreneurial self- efficacy as a mechanism to better understand the relationships between positivity and empathy with social entrepreneurial inten- tions. Self-efficacy is one of the most pervasive and relevant self- regulating mechanisms (Bandura, 1991; Terblanche-Smit & Ter- blanche, 2011). Self-regulation mechanism is believed to play an essential role to perform certain tasks. Bandura's social cognitive the- ory (Bandura, 1986, 1991) holds that self-regulations of an individual determine his/her ability to set goals and approach behavior (Xiongfei,
J Public Affairs.2020;e2124. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 1 of 15
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2124
Khan, Ali, & Khan, 2019). Similarly, social entrepreneurial self-efficacy refers to the confidence of an individual in his/her ability to fulfill a social task (i.e., social entrepreneurial activities). Social entrepreneurs require information, knowledge, and support to initiate their social ventures; therefore, social support is a vital construct in social entre- preneurship literature (Farooq et al., 2018) and may contribute as a boundary condition between the relationship of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. Perceived social support is defined as how society can help individuals fulfill their social mission. Perceived social support may play an important role in the relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. Therefore, we conceptualize that perceived social support can moderate the relationship between social entrepre- neurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention.
Previous research has shown that positivity plays a vital role in pro- moting well being, health, and hindering maladjustment (Alessandri, Vecchione, et al., 2012; Caprara, Castellani, et al., 2016; Caprara, Eisenberg, & Alessandri, 2016; Khan & Khan, 2019). On the one hand, no attention to research has been given to the impact of positivity on social entrepreneurial intention. On the other hand, empathy has been extensively studied in different research contexts (Balakrishnan &
Fernandez, 2018; Bas-Sarmiento et al., 2019; Kardos, Leidner, Pléh, Soltész, & Unoka, 2017; Wang, Wang, Deng, & Chen, 2019). However, the concept of empathy in investigating the social entrepreneurial inten- tion of students has been scarcely studied (Bacq & Alt, 2018). There- fore, this study extends the study on the impact of empathy on social entrepreneurial intention of students. Social entrepreneurial self- efficacy is explored as a mechanism between the relationships of posi- tivity and empathy with social entrepreneurial intention. In addition, how perceived social support can act as a boundary condition between the relationship of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entre- preneurial intention is also an underdeveloped area of study in social entrepreneurial context. Scarce research evidence prompted us to investigate such relationships and fill the research gap. Thus, this study aims to provide an opportunity for a better understanding of these rela- tionships in social entrepreneurial context. Figure 1 shows the research model proposed for this study.
2 | L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W A N D H Y P O T H E S I S D E V E L O P M E N T 2.1 | Social entrepreneurship
In recent years, social entrepreneurship as a dynamic discipline has gained considerable academic interest due to its ability to address pressing global issues (Agarwal, Chakrabarti, Brem, & Bocken, 2018;
Asma et al., 2019; Stephan, Patterson, Kelly, & Mair, 2016). The defi- nition of social entrepreneurship includes meeting social needs (McMullen, 2011), bringing social change through innovative ideas (Nicholls, 2008), satisfying the need of unrest (Thompson, Alvy, &
Lees, 2000), and initiating market-based actions to build social values (Bacq & Janssen, 2011). Social entrepreneurship combines the
attributes of the business and social missions (Dees, 1998), addresses social needs, and promotes social change.
Social entrepreneurship can be distinguished from commercial entrepreneurship based on functions and indicative perspectives (Bacq & Janssen, 2011; Casson, 1982). Functional perspective distin- guishes social entrepreneurs from business entrepreneurs through orga- nizational form, temporal view, perception of opportunity, and performance measurement and mission (Ali, Wang, Khan, Pitafi, & Amin, 2019; Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006; Dacin, Dacin, & Matear, 2010). Indicative perspective deals with prosocial behavior as key and distinguishing characteristic, which triggers individuals' intention toward the formation of social enterprises (Grimes, McMullen, Vogus, & Miller, 2013; Khan, En, Raza, Khan, & Ali, 2020; Miller, Grimes, et al., 2012).
Business entrepreneurs operate their business activities to reinvest or distribute profits among their investors (Bacq & Janssen, 2011;
Sahasranamam & Nandakumar, 2018). In contrast to business entrepre- neurs, social entrepreneurs reinvest profits to fulfill their social mission (Sahasranamam & Nandakumar, 2018). Social entrepreneurs intend to work for the deprived segment of the society.
2.2 | Positivity and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy
Life satisfaction (Pavot & Diener, 2008), optimism (Carver, Scheier, &
Segerstrom, 2010), and self-esteem (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, &
Vohs, 2003) are individual characteristics that are known as positivity (Caprara et al., 2009). Positivity affects the lives of people in different functional areas, such as psychological, health, and well-being (Alessandri, Caprara, & Tisak, 2012). Organizational studies have examined the relationship between positivity and job-related out- comes, where positivity has been found as a strong predictor of job performance and organizational citizenship behavior (Alessandri, Vecchione, et al., 2012; Kanwal, Chong, & Pitafi, 2019a; Livi, Ale- ssandri, Caprara, & Pierro, 2015). Similarly, few studies have examined the impact of positivity components on organizational outcomes. For example, happiness, life satisfaction, optimism, and self-esteem have been found to be positively associated with extra role and helping behavior (Judge & Bono, 2001; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005;
Munyon, Hochwarter, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2010; Niranjana &
Pattanayak, 2005; Van Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostova, Latham, & Cum- mings, 2000). Furthermore, Antonovsky (1979) and Hobfoll (1989) reported that positivity shows a better level of work engagement.
Positive dimension eases self-regulation and allows individuals to put their positive assessments into action (Tenney, Poole, & Diener, 2016). Bakker (2011) stated that positivity is associated with individ- uals' sense of ability to have an impact on their surroundings.
Positivity is an essential personal resource that allows individuals to deal with stressors, environmental demands, and increased well- being (Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003;
Turner, Taylor, & Van Gundy, 2004). A positive cognitive triad leads individuals to accept a positive view of himself, his life, and the future (Alessandri, Caprara, et al., 2012; Caprara, Alessandri, & Barbaranelli,
2010; Caprara et al., 2009; Caprara, Steca, Alessandri, Abela, & McWhinnie, 2010; Kanwal, Chong, & Pitafi, 2019b).
Positivity is expected to operate at a basic level and divert the attention of an individual toward a positive outcome. Self-efficacy is expected to operate at the secondary level that helps an individual to turn his/her positivity into concrete action. Positive behavior and atti- tude about others strengthen the positive sense of self-efficacy (Bahadur, Khan, Ali, & Usman, 2020; Van Dyne et al., 2000). Positivity can strengthen the social entrepreneurial self-efficacy of an individual and increases his/her self-worth as a social contributor. As a result, such individuals are likely to accept their identity in society and show a high level of self-efficacy.
Based on the arguments mentioned, this study assumes that posi- tivity can enhance the social entrepreneurial self-efficacy of individ- uals. Therefore, the first hypothesis is proposed as:
Hypothesis 1 Positivity is positively associated with social entrepreneur- ial self-efficacy of an individual.
2.3 | Empathy and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy
Empathy is the ability of a person to understand feelings, thoughts, and desires of others (Shamay-Tsoory, 2011). Similarly, empathy is an essential quality in any remedial relationship either physical, spiritual, or social. Several authors defined empathy as the ability of a person to be in touch with the thoughts and feelings of others and respond socially (Hétu, Taschereau-Dumouchel, & Jackson, 2012; Laghi, Bianchi, Pompili, Lonigro, & Baiocco, 2019). Saban and Kirby (2019) stated that empathy is an emotional response to the emotional state of others. Empathy is not only the willingness to care for the griefs of others (Kim & Han, 2018) but is also associated with a real-life pro- pensity to help them (Bierhoff, Klein, & Kramp, 1991). Sterkenburg and Vacaru (2018) stated that empathy is linked with a high degree of sympathetic satisfaction and reduction in burnout.
A high level of empathy leads to a high level of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy by declining the visceral arousal of an individual when
presented with challenging conditions such as those practiced by benefi- ciaries of social entrepreneurship (Bacq & Alt, 2018; Bandura, 1982).
Davis (1980) and Hoffman (1976) stated that individuals who can feel compassion and warmth for others are less prone to experience personal distress in the face of others' experiences. Consequently, empathic indi- viduals are believed to be confident in helping the needy through forma- tion of social entrepreneurship ventures (Bacq & Alt, 2018). In contrast, individuals who feel less compassion and warmth for others may experi- ence a high degree of visceral arousal that results in enhancement of their sense of vulnerability and decrease their social entrepreneurial self- efficacy (Bacq & Alt, 2018; Bandura, 1982). Therefore, individuals with a high degree of empathy may have high social entrepreneurial self-effi- cacy. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 2 Empathy is positively associated with social entrepreneur- ial self-efficacy of an individual.
2.4 | Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention
Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as an individual's confidence in his/her abilities to execute a planned act successfully. Self-efficacy is the closest predictor of human behavior as it plays a crucial role in regu- lating motivation, cognitive, and emotional processes (Bandura, 1986).
Self-efficacy is widely recognized as a necessary precondition for the formation of entrepreneurial intention (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Bullough, Renko, & Myatt, 2014; Fitzsimmons & Douglas, 2011; Kanwal et al., 2019; McGee, Peterson, Mueller, & Sequeira, 2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy refers to confidence in one's ability to perform specific tasks and activities related to entrepreneurship (C. C. Chen, Greene, &
Crick, 1998; McGee et al., 2009; Pitafi, Kanwal, & Pitafi, 2019).
From the prosocial perspective, self-efficacy is regarded as agentic thoughts of oneself that focus on individuals. Prosocial litera- ture shows that self-efficacy is associated with high prosocial orienta- tion (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Regalia, 2001; Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999; Kanwal, Pitafi, Rasheed, Pitafi, & Iqbal, F I G U R E 1 Proposed research model
2019). Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy allows individuals to observe the feasibility of social entrepreneurship and contributes to the development of social entrepreneurial intention (Hockerts, 2017;
Mair & Noboa, 2006). Feeling competent and capable is a basic human motivation, and when this motivation is fulfilled in a social entrepre- neurial context, then individuals can be confident in becoming social entrepreneurs (Bacq & Alt, 2018; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3 Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy of an individual is posi- tively associated with social entrepreneurial intention.
2.5 | Mediating effect of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy
After establishing the relationship of positivity and empathy with social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (i.e., H1 and H2), this study explores how positivity and empathy enhance social entrepreneurial intention through social entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The central theme of our argument is that individuals who develop social entre- preneurial intention are not necessarily those who show only a high level of positivity and empathy but also individuals who channel their positivity and empathy to achieve social entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Given that positive and empathic individuals may not necessarily gain confidence and identify new business opportunities to bring social change, social entrepreneurial intention ultimately depends on the social entrepreneurial self-efficacy of individuals.
This study proposes that social entrepreneurial self-efficacy pro- vides confidence to individuals to undertake tasks and activities related to social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy is responsible for transmitting the effects of positivity and empathy on the intention of individuals to form social entrepreneurial inten- tion. Through an increase in social entrepreneurial self-efficacy, posi- tivity, and empathy affect social entrepreneurial intention because they make evaluating the information related to social issues and orienting feelings of individuals toward helping others possible. There- fore, assuming that social entrepreneurial self-efficacy acts as a cen- tral process that channels the influence of positivity and empathy into social entrepreneurial intention is possible.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis 4 Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the relation- ship between positivity and social entrepreneurial intention.
Hypothesis 5 Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the relation- ship between empathy and social entrepreneurial intention.
2.6 | Moderating role of perceived social support
Social support makes people aware of their importance and value in society. Perceived social support provides a sense of acceptability of
individuals that they are valued and cared for (Cohen & Wills, 1985;
Xiongfei, Khan, Zaigham, & Khan, 2019). Similarly, perceived social support refers to the actuality and perceptions of individuals that they are valued and part of a supportive social network; if they need help, they can receive help from their social network (Wills, 1985, 1991).
Perceived social support provides confidence to individuals that suffi- cient support will be on hand in times of need (Barrera, 1986; Raza, Khan, Khan, Ali, & Bano, 2019). Social support creates a sense of security that ultimately leads people to make better decisions (Langford, Bowsher, Maloney, & Lillis, 1997). Scholars have reported different sources of social support such as friends, family, neighbors, colleagues, community, and organizations (Farooq et al., 2018; Kanwal et al., 2019; Khan & Ali, 2018).
Social support is an essential and multiface construct in social entrepreneurial context and various types of social support linked with different outcomes (Farooq et al., 2018; Wright & Wachs, 2019).
Perceived social support is a valuable resource that provides confi- dence to individuals to fulfill required tasks (Khan, Moin, & Ahsan, 2013; Lazarus, 1991). Strong perceived social support provides help and resources to individuals for the accomplishment of goals (Karatepe, 2015). Similarly, social support assists individuals to meet challenges and provide additional resources that enable them to accomplish objectives (Cheng & O-Yang, 2018; Kanwal, Pitafi, Akhtar, & Irfan, 2019). Social support includes physical and intangible dimensions (Farooq, 2016; Moin, Ali, & Khan, 2012), and such dimen- sions include informational, emotional, and tangible support (Farooq, 2016; Khan, Cao, & Pitafi, 2019; Uchino, 2004; Wills, 1985, 1991).
Following the facets of perceived social support, the idea is that per- ceived social support can moderate the relationship of social entrepre- neurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. First, information is the blood of any idea, and social entrepreneurs require sufficient information to take social initiatives. Nascent entrepreneurs largely depend on information support from their social circle (Miralles, Giones, & Riverola, 2016), and success of an enterprise depends on timely decision making and implementation that can be achieved through accurate information (Farooq, 2016). Second, emotional support means to encourage and show care, concern, and sympathy for someone (Langford et al., 1997). Social entrepreneurs require emotional support for encouragement. This type of support means giving a sense of accep- tance and positive recognition from social networks through verbal or moral support (Khan, Ali, Khan, & Jehan, 2019; Slevin et al., 1996; Taylor, 2011). Third, social entrepreneurs also require tangible support from their social circle. Farooq (2016) stated that tangible support is the most needed form of social support. In addition, tangible/physical support implies the provision of potential material support, such as goods, machinery, and technology transfer (Heaney & Israel, 2008; House, 1981; Nand, Pitafi, Kanwal, Pitafi, & Rasheed, 2019). Farooq (2016) stated that every year, more than 50% of nascent entrepreneurs close their business plans due to lack of funds and other tangible resources.
Thus, this study proposes that perceived social support can mod- erate the relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and social entrepreneurial intention. High perceived social support may strengthen the relationship between social entrepreneurial self-
efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 6 Perceived social support moderates the positive relation- ship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entre- preneurial intention. When the perceived social support is high, the relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention will be strong.
3 | D A T A A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y 3.1 | Participants and procedure
The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of positivity and empathy on social entrepreneurial intention of students. This study collected data from different universities in China for statistical analy- sis. The instrument items were translated into the Chinese language by following the method of back translation as stated by Pitafi, Kan- wal, Ali, Khan, and Ameen (2018), and Brislin (1980). The English ver- sion of the questionnaire was translated into Chinese by two bilingual professors, both of whom were proficient in English and Chinese. To achieve equivalence, the Chinese version of the questionnaire was repeatedly translated into the English language by two independent professionals. Finally, the Chinese version of the questionnaire was used to collect the data. Approximately 410 questionnaires were dis- tributed among students. A total of 294 questionnaires were submit- ted. Nineteen questionnaires with incomplete data were removed from the sample. A total of 275 questionnaires were found usable with a response rate of 67%, which is acceptable (Pitafi, Liu, & Cai, 2018). Table 1 shows the demographic information of the sample.
3.2 | Instrument design
This study adapted the questionnaire items from previously published studies. Positivity was measured with five items, while the measure- ment items of positivity were adapted from Caprara et al. (2012).
Empathy was measured with three items and was adopted from Davis (1980). Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy was measured with 10 items and was adapted from Miller, Wesley, and Williams (2012) and Zhao, Seibert, and Hills (2005). Measurement items of social entrepreneurial intention (five items) were adopted from Liñán and Chen (2009). Furthermore, perceived social support was measured with four items and was adopted from Abebe (2012), Semrau and Werner (2014) and Sequeira, Mueller, and McGee (2007).
All the measurement items were used with modifications to keep in line with the objectives of the present study. A seven-point Likert scale was used. All the respondents were requested to record their responses from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
4 | D A T A A N A L Y S I S
4.1 | Common method bias (CMB)
The data were collected from a single source for the independent and dependent variable; hence, common method bias may exist (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). The author has con- ducted several procedures to investigate the potential bias in the cur- rent study. Firstly, a single factor showing a variance greater than 50%
indicates the threat of CMB in the data. To analyze the CMB, Harman's one-factor test was applied to check the problem associated with the CMB. The findings indicate that a single factor has a 35.30%
variance, which is less than 50% (Latif, Pitafi, Malik, & Latif, 2019;
Zulfiqar et al., 2019). Secondly, evidence of CMB may not exist if the correlation that was found is less (r< .90) (Lindell & Whitney, 2001).
Results from Table 3 indicated that all correlations are less than .90.
Thirdly, the common latent factor (CLF) approach was applied to study the possible issue of CMB (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Accordingly, the author calculated the regression weights of all constructs. The CLF was included in the research model and regression weights were repeatedly analyzed. After comparing the regression weights of both analyses, the author did not find any dominant factor emerging from the results. Therefore, the researcher's observations indicated that CMB is not a serious problem within this dataset.
4.2 | Measurement model
To examine the model fit, researchers need to examine fitness indices such as RMSEA, CFI, TLI, AGFI, GFI, and chi-square. The measurement model is acceptable and has achieved the threshold criteria of model fitness as pro- posed by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (1998) and Hu and Bentler (1999). All results (CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.83, GFI = 00.93, RMSEA = 0.05, CMIN/DF = 600.22/314 = 1.91) are within range.
4.3 | Validity and reliability
The author has applied several techniques to investigate the validity and reliability of the questionnaire items. The value of the factor load- ing was higher than 0.60, as stated by Fornell and Larcker (1981).
Convergent validity of the questionnaire was ensured through T A B L E 1 Demographic information of the sample
N Percentage
Gender
Male 182 66.2
Female 93 33.8
Age
21–30 years old 185 67.3
31–40 years old 81 29.5
41–50 years old 9 3.3
Education level
Bachelors/Undergraduate 73 26.5
Masters/Graduate 162 58.9
Doctoral degree 40 14.5
computing the values of Cronbach's alpha, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability (CR). Table 2 shows the calculated results of composite reliability. The value of CR ranged from 0.83 to 0.95 which is higher than the threshold value 0.70, as proposed by Nunnally (1978). Hinkin (1998) reported that the benchmark value of Cronbach's alpha should be higher than .70.
As shown in Table 2, the value of Cronbach's alpha ranged from .86 to .93. The value of AVE ranged from 0.55 to 0.83, which is higher than the benchmark value 0.50 which was stated by Bagozzi and Yi (1988).
Furthermore, Fornell and Larcker (1981) presented the criteria to ascertain the discriminant validity. Results from Table 2 indicated that MSV values were higher than ASV values, which ensured that the dis- criminant validity of the research model is acceptable. Additionally, the discriminant validity can be assured by comparing the correlation between constructs and the square root of AVE. If the square root value of AVE is higher than the correlation between constructs, then the result presented the discriminant validity of the study, as shown in Table 3.
With validity and reliability, this study also analyses the item load- ing and cross loading of all the items. Table 4 indicates that all con- structs were loaded (bold values) into their respective columns and yet some were poorly loaded onto other columns. Therefore, all results confirmed that the research model has good convergent valid- ity and reliability.
4.4 | Structural modeling
To analyze the mediating effect of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy, we initially used the structural equation modeling as shown in Figure 2. Results indicated that positivity was positively associated with social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (t= 2.75,β= .10,p< .001).
Empathy was also positively associated with social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (t= 8.39,β= .42,p< .001). Similarly, social entrepreneur- ial self-efficacy was found to be positively attributed to social entre- preneurial intention (t= 6.73,β= .76,p< .001). Figure 2 shows the structural model.
4.5 | Mediation test
Hypotheses 4 and 5 reported the mediating effect of social entre- preneurial self-efficacy on the relationship of positivity, empathy, and social entrepreneurial intention. For this purpose, boo- tstrapping sampling techniques were used with a confidence inter- val of 95% (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). Findings stated that social entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the rela- tionship between positivity and social entrepreneurial intention because CL (0.214, 0.128) did not include 0. Thus, H4 is supported.
H5 also hypothesized that social entrepreneurial self-efficacy can mediate the relationship between empathy and social T A B L E 3 Means, standard deviation, and correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Social entrepreneurial intention 5.14 1.37 0.76
2. Perceived social support 5.24 1.37 .261 0.91
3. Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy 4.08 0.81 .402 .358 0.74
4. Positivity 5.16 1.45 .650 .232 .363 0.80
5. Empathy 5.72 1.19 .343 .362 .620 .346 0.79
6. Education level NA NA −.014 .100 .138 .009 .108 NA
7. Age NA NA .055 .092 .192 .005 .153 .394 NA
8. Gender NA NA −.320 −.124 −.339 −.289 −.343 .030 .049 NA
Note:The mean is assessed based on average factor scores; standard deviation (SD) and correlations are from the second-order CFA output. The bold values are the square root of the AVE.
Abbreviations:M, mean;SD, standard deviation.
T A B L E 2 Results of confirmatory factor analysis
Variable name Items CA CR AVE MSV ASV
Social entrepreneurial intention 5 0.86 0.87 0.58 0.42 0.19
Perceived social support 4 0.93 0.95 0.83 0.13 0.10
Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy 10 0.91 0.92 0.55 0.38 0.20
Positivity 5 0.82 0.90 0.64 0.42 0.18
Empathy 3 0.79 0.83 0.63 0.38 0.19
Note:Discriminate validity: AVE > MSV.
Abbreviations: ASV, average shared variance; AVE, average variance extracted; CA, Cronbach's alpha;
CR, composite reliability; MSV, maximum shared variance.
entrepreneurial intention because CL (0.0889, 0.284) excluded 0. H5 is also validated. Therefore, H4 and H5 are validated by the existing dataset. Table 5 shows the results of the bootstrapping method.
4.6 | Moderation test
In order to minimize the possibility of multicollinearity, we first stan- dardized all the constructs of proposed research model as suggested T A B L E 4 Item loading and cross loading
Constructs Items SESE POS PSP SEI EMP
Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (SESE) SES01 .817 −.065 −.102 −.042 .123
SES02 .797 .072 .128 −.047 −.169
SES03 .774 .015 −.138 −.021 .067
SES04 .753 −.053 −.116 .209 .000
SES05 .742 .126 .070 −.268 −.084
SES06 .742 .034 −.019 −.063 .070
SES07 .728 −.017 .009 .130 −.065
SES08 .700 −.068 .091 −.006 .049
SES 09 .664 −.072 .010 .250 −.040
SES10 .663 .008 .108 −.092 .108
Positivity (POS) POS01 −.036 .873 .033 .030 −.098
POS02 .006 .863 −.051 −.031 .047
POS 03 −.030 .860 −.011 −.098 .151
POS04 .028 .741 −.097 .095 .093
POS 05 .066 .653 .081 .187 −.167
Perceived social support (PSP) PSP01 −.026 .000 .927 .022 .052
PSP02 .017 −.064 .927 .028 .030
PSP 03 −.033 .013 .907 −.046 .063
PSP 04 .050 .005 .872 .040 −.048
Social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) SEI01 −.102 −.079 .033 .893 −.080
SEI02 .010 −.072 −.084 .849 .162
SEI 03 −.006 .134 .008 .703 −.005
SEI04 .084 .082 .072 .689 −.009
SEI05 −.034 .245 .038 .647 .009
Empathy (EMP) EMP01 −.045 .002 .042 .115 .802
EMP02 .113 −.033 .025 .013 .799
EMP03 .062 .088 .043 −.092 .759
F I G U R E 2 Structural model.
Note: **p< .001
by Aiken and West (1991). Hierarchical regression analysis was used for moderation analysis. In H6, we hypothesized that the moderation effect of perceived social support with the relationship of social entre- preneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. Step-wise regression analysis was performed. Model 1 consists of the control variables. In Model 2, social entrepreneurial self-efficacy was shown as an independent variable. Results show that social entrepreneurial self-efficacy has a significant effect on social entrepreneurial intention (β= .336,p< .001). In Model 3, perceived social support as a modera- tor was included, and results reveal a significant relationship (β= .13, p< .001). Model 4 contained the interaction term (i.e., Social Entre- preneurial Self-efficacy*Perceived Social Support) (β = .16,p< .05).
Thus, H6 is also validated. Table 6 shows the results of the hierarchi- cal regression analysis.
Results revealed that perceived social support has interacted sig- nificantly and positively with the relationship of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. Figure 3 shows the graphical representation of the moderating effect of perceived social support, which strengthens the positive relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention.
5 | D I S C U S S I O N , I M P L I C A T I O N S , A N D L I M I T A T I O N S
5.1 | Discussion
This study investigated the impact of positivity and empathy on social entrepreneurial intention. Overall, this study analyzed the six hypoth- eses and the empirical results presented that all the relationships are significant and positive. Results show that positivity is associated with social entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Empathy has a significant relation- ship with social entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy has a positive relationship with social entrepreneurial intention. Further, social entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the relationships of positivity and empathy with social entrepreneurial intention. Finally, perceived social support moderates the relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention.
The outcome of H1 with regard to the relationship between posi- tivity and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy reveals that the positivity of students may enhance their social entrepreneurial self-efficacy toward the formation of social entrepreneurial intention (H1). A plau- sible explanation of these results is that the more the individuals are
inclined toward positivity, the more they considered themselves to manage the tasks and challenges, which can increase their social entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Our results are consistent with Bar- baranelli, Paciello, Biagioli, Fida, and Tramontano (2018). Similarly, our results were also consistent with the findings of Shahbazzadegan, Samadzadeh, and Abbasi (2013) and Shahbazzadegan et al. (2013).
For example, Shahbazzadegan et al. (2013) found that positivity increases athletes' self-efficacy.
The results presented that empathy is positively associated with social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (H2). A possible explanation of these results is that individuals who feel concern, compassion, and warm feelings for others are expected to evaluate their inner capabili- ties to perform social entrepreneurial tasks. Our results are compatible with the findings of Bacq and Alt (2018). Rogers, Dziobek, Hassenstab, Wolf, and Convit (2007) stated that empathy is consid- ered a highly valued virtue of human beings. Empathy is related to pro-social behavior (Lockwood, 2016) and also an essential part of our social fabric (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). According to Eisenberg and Miller (1987), empathy is associated with pro-social behavior, which evokes self-efficacy and sense of support for others.
Moreover, a positive relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention was found (H3).
According to Ryan and Deci (2000), competency and capability are essential human motivations. When such motivations are fulfilled in social entrepreneurial and self-efficacy contexts, individuals can have multiple chances to form a social entrepreneurial intention. The medi- ating role of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy highlights the impor- tance of self-efficacy in the formation of social entrepreneurial intention. Results presented that perceived social support moderate the positive relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention (H6). Perceived social support strengthened the positive relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. A plausible explana- tion of the result is when individuals believed that they can obtain social support for their social tasks, which can help them to fulfill their tasks and overcome the challenges by obtaining additional resources (Cheng & O-Yang, 2018; Khan, Khan, & Gul, 2019).
5.2 | Implications
This study has made significant theoretical contributions which may expand the growing literature of social entrepreneurship. First, this study addresses the essential role of positivity, which was overlooked T A B L E 5 Results of bootstrapping method
IV MV DV
Effect of IV on M (a)
Effect of M on DV (b)
Indirect effect (a*b)
Total effects
(c') Total effects (c) 95% CI Result
POS SESE SEI 0.324** 0.208* 0.067** 0.563** 0.630* (0.214,0.128) Supported
EMP SESE SEI 0.546** 0.334** 0.182** 0.145* 0.329** (0.0889,0.284) Supported
Note: IV = POS = Positivity, EMP=, Empathy, DV = SEI = Social Entrepreneurial Intention, MV = SESE = Social Entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
*p< .05;**p< .001.
in social entrepreneurship literature. Our results unleashed a new horizon of research for future researchers by investigating the impact of positivity on social entrepreneurial intention. Second, this study conceptualized how positivity is linked to social entrepreneurial inten- tion by examining the mediation of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Our findings have confirmed the mediating mechanism of social entre- preneurial self-efficacy between the relationship of positivity and social entrepreneurial intention. Finally, this study conceptualized how perceived social support can moderate the relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial inten- tion. Our findings show that high perceived social support strength- ened the relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
social entrepreneurial intention. This is a pioneer endeavor which examines the impacts of positivity and empathy on social entrepre- neurial intention in the Chinese context. The results of this study con- tribute to social entrepreneurial literature as well as in Chinese context, and findings would open new avenues for future research and debate.
Apart from theoretical contributions, our study has multiple prac- tical implications. Empathy is a concept that emphasizes the impor- tance of a deep understanding of the social and economic conditions of all segments of society, specifically those who are oppressed. To enhance empathy, developing a mechanism that enhances communi- cation between various groups in society is urgently needed. Such mechanism can help understand the differences that may exist among various segments of society and will help enhance empathy.
Researchers believed that training students for the empathic process through education is possible (Bano, Cisheng, Khan, & Khan, 2019;
A. M. Chen, Kiersma, Yehle, & Plake, 2015). For example, efforts should be carried out by forming groups in an educational context.
Students from different genders, racial backgrounds and ethnicities may gather and participate in an open dialogue. Such discussions and dialogues will help students understand various segments of the soci- ety. Consequently, when students interact and communicate with other students who belong to a lower segment of society, their knowl- edge will help them understand their problems and deprivation.
Therefore, such discussions and dialogues can enhance empathy.
Similarly, positivity can be improved by enabling individuals to appropriately handle their emotions and relationship with others. Pos- itivity allows individuals to implement their positive assessment. Con- sequently, positivity can facilitate individuals to have an impact on their surroundings and bring positive change to society. Subjects about positive psychology must be included in an educational context to enhance students' positive mentality. Experiencing positivity can T A B L E 6 Results for hierarchical regression analysis (DV = Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy)
Regression analysis
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Gender 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.09
Age 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.07
Education −0.03 −0.06 −0.07 −0.06
Main effects
Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy 0.336** 0.288* 0.32*
Moderator
Perceived social support 0.13* 0.13*
Interactions
Scial entrepreneurial self-efficacy * perceived social support
0.16*
R2 0.10 0.20 0.22 0.24
Adjusted R2 0.09 0.19 0.20 0.22
Change R2 0.10 0.09 0.01 0.02
F change 11.03 31.95 5.64 9.46
Note: *p< .05, **p< .001.
F I G U R E 3 Results of moderation analysis (Note:
IV = SESE = Social Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy,
MOD = PSS = Perceived Social Support, DV = SEI = Social Entrepreneurial Intention)
help students to enhance their self-efficacy and trust in their capabili- ties, which may lead to achievements and impact on society.
Groups can promote social change if they are organized based on the intention to bring social change. Common platforms in societies should exist, where people can share and discuss problems in society.
Essentially, they can share their expertise, knowledge, and support that they can provide to individuals who aim to start social ventures.
This study also emphasized the role of formal institutions. Social entrepreneurs can seek help through social support. However, the role of formal institutions is also crucial in the process of social entre- preneurship. Recently, Sahasranamam and Nandakumar (2018) have highlighted and examined the contingent role of formal institutions on social enterprises. Social entrepreneurs can bring social innovation by means of product and service innovation (Dwivedi & Weerawardena, 2018). Therefore, the role of formal institutions is crucial to promote such activities through the provision of incentives and resources, which can ultimately bring social change and create more jobs.
5.3 | Limitations and future research directions
Given the execution and design of this study, we are acknowledging the limitations of the present study, which can be addressed in future research. First, this study examined the positivity and empathy as potential antecedents of social entrepreneurial intention. Future stud- ies can adopt other factors (related to personality traits and pro-social behavior) to investigate this phenomenon, thereby expanding the existing research. Besides that, there is a growing interest in under- standing the similarities and differences between East and West.
Thus, future studies can consider cultural aspects to study social entrepreneurial intention. Second, it is believed that women are more empathic compared to men. Future research can investigate this phe- nomenon by conducting two independent studies and collect data separately from men and women to compare results. Third, this study utilized social entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a mediator. Results show that social entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the relation- ship between positivity, empathy, and social entrepreneurial intention.
However, future studies can adopt other variables for mediation mechanism. Fourth, this study has employed perceived social support as a moderating factor, whereas future research can consider other variables as a moderating factor. Finally, scholars can investigate the relationship between positivity and empathy. These outcomes can enrich our understanding that positivity may increase empathy.
6 | C O N C L U S I O N
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of positivity and empathy on social entrepreneurial intention. Results presented that positivity and empathy are positively associated with social entrepre- neurial self-efficacy, which may lead to social entrepreneurial inten- tion. This study found a positive relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention.
Additionally, this study has found that perceived social support can strengthen the relationship between social entrepreneurial self- efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. Results of this study not only contributed to the growing literature of social entrepreneurship but would also provide deep insights by investigating the impacts of positivity and empathy on social entrepreneurial intention.
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T
The first author (Amna Younis) is grateful to the Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC)authorities for the scholarship award and financial sup- port during master's research studies at the University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei. This work was supported by the Univer- sity of Science and Technology of China (USTC) introduces talents for scientific research and starts special fund project (The balance mecha- nism between commercial and public welfare of social enterprises in China, project no.: KY2160000003) and the Anhui province science and technology innovation strategy and soft science research special project (project no.: 201806a02020056).
C O N F L I C T O F I N T E R E S T
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. This research is supported by Fund number: KY2160000003 and 201806a02020056.
O R C I D
Amna Younis https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1784-7972 Shamsa Kanwal https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5236-869X Abdul Hameed Pitafi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2781-267X
R E F E R E N C E S
Abebe, M. A. (2012). Social and institutional predictors of entrepreneurial career intention: Evidence from Hispanic adults in the US.Journal of Enterprising Culture,20(1), 1–23.
Agarwal, N., Chakrabarti, R., Brem, A., & Bocken, N. (2018). Market driving at bottom of the pyramid (BoP): An analysis of social enterprises from the healthcare sector.Journal of Business Research,86, 234–244.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991).Multiple regression: Testing and inter- preting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alessandri, G., Caprara, G. V., & Tisak, J. (2012). A unified latent curve, latent state-trait analysis of the developmental trajectories and corre- lates of positive orientation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(3), 341–368.
Alessandri, G., Vecchione, M., Tisak, J., Deiana, G., Caria, S., &
Caprara, G. V. (2012). The utility of positive orientation in predicting job performance and organisational citizenship behaviors.Applied Psy- chology,61(4), 669–698.
Ali, A., Wang, H., Khan, A. N., Pitafi, A. H., & Amin, M. W. (2019).
Exploring the knowledge-focused role of interdependent members on team creative performance. Asian Business & Management, 18(2), 98–121.
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress and coping. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Asma, A., Xiaobao, P., Hassan, S., Akhtar, S., S. A., Khan, M. A., &
Khan, B. U. (2019). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions for educational programs.Journal of Public Affairs,19(2), 1–11. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pa.1925
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,30(1), 1–22.
Bacq, S., & Alt, E. (2018). Feeling capable and valued: A prosocial perspec- tive on the link between empathy and social entrepreneurial inten- tions.Journal of Business Venturing,33(3), 333–350.
Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneur- ship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and the- matic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373–403.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,16(1), 74–94.
Bahadur, W., Khan, A. N., Ali, A., & Usman, M. (2020). Investigating the effect of employee empathy on service loyalty: The mediating role of trust in and satisfaction with a service employee.Journal of Relation- ship Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2019.1688598 Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement.Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science,20(4), 265–269.
Balakrishnan, V., & Fernandez, T. (2018). Self-esteem, empathy and their impacts on cyberbullying among young adults.Telematics and Informat- ics,35(7), 2028–2037.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.American Psychologist,37, 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review,84(2), 191–191, 215.
Bandura, A. (1986).Social foundations of thought and action: A social cogni- tive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation.Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50(2), 248–287.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multi- faceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning.Child Development,67(3), 1206–1222.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2001).
Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behav- ior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80(1), 125–135.
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self- efficacy pathways to childhood depression.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76(2), 258–269.
Bano, S., Cisheng, W., Khan, A. N., & Khan, N. A. (2019). WhatsApp use and student's psychological well-being: Role of social capital and social integration. Children and Youth Services Review, 103(8), 200–208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.06.002
Barbaranelli, C., Paciello, M., Biagioli, V., Fida, R., & Tramontano, C. (2018).
Positivity and behaviour: The mediating role of self-efficacy in organisational and educational settings.Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(3), 707–727.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences.Journal of Autism and Developmen- tal Disorders,34(2), 163–175.
Barrera, M. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, mea- sures, and models.American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(4), 413–445.
Bas-Sarmiento, P., Fernández-Gutiérrez, M., Díaz-Rodríguez, M., Carnicer- Fuentes, C., Castro-Yuste, C., García-Cabanillas, M. J.,…Rodríguez- Cornejo, M. J. (2019). Teaching empathy to nursing students: A randomised controlled trial.Nurse Education Today,80, 40–51.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?Psychological Science in the Public Interest,4(1), 1–44.
Bierhoff, H. W., Klein, R., & Kramp, P. (1991). Evidence for the altruistic personality from data on accident research.Journal of Personality,59 (2), 263–280.
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions.Entrepreneur- ship Theory and Practice,18(4), 63–77.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),Handbook of Cross- Cultural Psychology: Methodology (pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Myatt, T. (2014). Danger zone entrepreneurs:
The importance of resilience and self-efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,38(3), 473–499.
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., & Barbaranelli, C. (2010). Optimal function- ing: Contribution of self-efficacy beliefs to positive orientation.Psy- chotherapy and Psychosomatics,79(5), 328–330.
Caprara, G. V., Castellani, V., Alessandri, G., Mazzuca, F., La Torre, M., &
Barbaranelli, C. (2016). Being positive despite illness: The contribution of positivity to the quality of life of cancer patients.Psychology &
Health,31(5), 524–534.
Caprara, G. V., Eisenberg, N., & Alessandri, G. (2016). Positivity: The dispo- sitional basis of happiness.Journal of Happiness Studies,18, 1–19.
Caprara, G. V., Fagnani, C., Alessandri, G., Steca, P., Gigantesco, A., Sforza, L. L., & Stazi, M. A. (2009). Human optimal functioning: The genetics of positive orientation towards self, life, and the future.
Behavior Genetics,39(3), 277–284.
Caprara, G. V., Guido, A., Nancy, E., Kupfer, A., Patrizia, S., Maria, G. C.,… John, A. (2012). The positivity scale.Psychological Assessment,24(3), 701–712.
Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Alessandri, G., Abela, J. R., & McWhinnie, C. M.
(2010). Positive orientation: Explorations on what is common to life satisfaction, self-esteem, and optimism.Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences,19(1), 63–71.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism.Clinical Psychology Review,30, 879–889.
Casson, M. (1982).The entrepreneur. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble books.
Chen, A. M., Kiersma, M. E., Yehle, K. S., & Plake, K. S. (2015). Impact of the Geriatric Medication Game®on nursing students' empathy and attitudes toward older adults.Nurse Education Today,35(1), 38–43.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self- efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?Journal of Business Venturing,13(4), 295–316.
Cheng, J., & O-Yang, Y. (2018). Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: The moderating role of perceived organizational support.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,72, 78–85.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin,98(2), 310–357.
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, T. M., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship:
Why we don't need a new theory and how we move forward from here.Academy of Management Perspectives,24(3), 37–57.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology,10, 85.
Davis, M. H. (2015). Empathy and prosocial behavior. In D. A. Schroeder &
W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 282–306). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Davis, M. H., Mitchell, K. V., Hall, J. A., Lothert, J., Snapp, T., & Meyer, M.
(1999). Empathy, expectations, and situational preferences: Personal- ity influences on the decision to participate in volunteer helping behaviors.Journal of Personality,67(3), 469–503.
Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits.Harvard Business Review,76(1), 54–67.
Dees, J. G. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem solving, and the future of social entrepreneurship.Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 321–334.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfac- tion with life scale.Journal of Personality Assessment,49(1), 71–75.
Dwivedi, A., & Weerawardena, J. (2018). Conceptualizing and operationalizing the social entrepreneurship construct.Journal of Busi- ness Research,86, 32–40.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., Mathy, R. M., &
Reno, R. R. (1989). Relation of sympathy and personal distress to prosocial behavior: A multimethod study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57(1), 55–66.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors.Psychological Bulletin,101(1), 91–119.
Farooq, M. S. (2016).Social support and entrepreneurial skills as antecedents of entrepreneurial behaviour. (Doctoral dissertation: PhD thesis). Uni- versiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Malaysia.
Farooq, M. S., Salam, M., Rehman, S., Fayolle, A., Jaafar, N., & Ayupp, K.
(2018). Impact of support from social network on entrepreneurial intention of fresh business graduates: A structural equation modelling approach.Education and Training,60(4), 1–19.
Fitzsimmons, J. R., & Douglas, E. J. (2011). Interaction between feasibility and desirability in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions.Journal of Business Venturing,26(4), 431–440.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Mar- keting Research,18(1), 39–50.
Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., Vogus, T. J., & Miller, T. L. (2013). Studying the origins of social entrepreneurship: Compassion and the role of embedded agency.Academy of Management Review,38(3), 460–463.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (1998).Multivari- ate data analysis(Vol. 5). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.
Heaney, C. A., & Israel, B. A. (2008). Social networks and social support. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, K. Viswanath & C. T. Orleans (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 89–210). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hétu, S., Taschereau-Dumouchel, V., & Jackson, P. L. (2012). Stimulating the brain to study social interactions and empathy.Brain Stimulation,5 (2), 95–102.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at concep- tualizing stress.American Psychologist,44(3), 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptations.
Review of General Psychology,6(4), 302–324.
Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84(3), 632–643.
Hockerts, K. (2017). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,41(1), 105–130.
Hoffman, M. L. (1976). Empathy, role-taking, guilt, and development of altruistic motives. In T. Lickona (Eds.),Moral development and behavior:
Theory, research, and social issues. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
House, J. S. (1981).Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison- Wiley Publishing Company.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari- ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1), 1–55.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits -self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emo- tional stability-with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-anal- ysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,86(1), 80–92.
Jurkowski, J. M. (2019). An interview with social entrepreneur Doug Rauch on his solution to food insecurity.Journal of Public Affairs,19(3), 1–3.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1997
Kanwal, S., Chong, R., & Pitafi, A. H. (2019a). China–Pakistan economic corridor projects development in Pakistan: Local citizens benefits per- spective.Journal of Public Affairs,19(1), 1–12.
Kanwal, S., Chong, R., & Pitafi, A. H. (2019b). Support for China–Pakistan eco- nomic corridor development in Pakistan: A local community perspective using the social exchange theory.Journal of Public Affairs,19(2), 1–12.
Kanwal, S., Pitafi, A. H., Ahmad, M., Khan, N. A., Ali, S. M., & Surahio, M. K.
(2019). Cross-border analysis of China–Pakistan economic corridor development project and local residence quality of life.Journal of Pub- lic Affairs, e2022.
Kanwal, S., Pitafi, A. H., Akhtar, S., & Irfan, M. (2019). Online self- disclosure through social networking sites addiction: A case study of Pakistani university students.Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems,17(1-B), 187–208.
Kanwal, S., Pitafi, A. H., Pitafi, A., Nadeem, M. A., Younis, A., & Chong, R.
(2019). China–Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC) development pro- jects and entrepreneurial potential of locals.Journal of Public Affairs, 19(2), e1954.
Kanwal, S., Pitafi, A. H., Rasheed, M. I., Pitafi, A., & Iqbal, J. (2019). Assess- ment of residents' perceptions and support toward development pro- jects: A study of the China–Pakistan corridor. The Social Sceince Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.08.001 (in press).
Karatepe, O. M. (2015). Do personal resources mediate the effect of per- ceived organizational support on emotional exhaustion and job out- comes?International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(1), 4–26.
Kardos, P., Leidner, B., Pléh, C., Soltész, P., & Unoka, Z. (2017). Empathic people have more friends: Empathic abilities predict social network size and position in social network predicts empathic efforts. Social Networks,50, 1–5.
Khan, A. N., & Ali, A. (2018). Factors affecting retailer's adopti on of mobile payment systems: A SEM-neural network modeling approach.Wireless Personal Communications, 5, 2529–2551. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11277-018-5945-5
Khan, A. N., Ali, A., Khan, N. A., & Jehan, N. (2019). A study of relationship between transformational leadership and task performance: The role of social media and affective organisational commitment.International Journal of Business Information Systems,31(4), 499.
Khan, A. N., Cao, X., & Pitafi, A. H. (2019). Personality traits as predictor of M-payment systems: A SEM-neural networks approach. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing,31(4), 89–110.
Khan, A. N., En, X., Raza, M. Y., Khan, N. A., & Ali, A. (2020). Sectorial study of technological progress and CO2emission: Insights from a develop- ing economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119862
Khan, A. N., Moin, M. F., & Ahsan, A. (2013). Mission possible: Rebuilding trust at work place.International Journal of Managment, IT and Engi- neering,3(1), 381–391.
Khan, N. A., & Khan, A. N. (2019). What followers are saying about trans- formational leaders fostering employee innovation via organisational learning, knowledge sharing and social media use in public organisa- tions? Government Information Quarterly, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.GIQ.2019.07.003
Khan, N. A., Khan, A. N., & Gul, S. (2019). Relationship between perception of organizational politics and organizational citizenship behavior: Testing a moderated mediation model.Asian Business and Management, 18(2), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-018- 00057-9
Kim, H., & Han, S. (2018). Does personal distress enhance empathic interaction or block it? Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 77–83.
Krueger, N. F. (2009). Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: Long live entre- preneurial intentions. In A. L. Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.),Under- standing the entrepreneurial mind(pp. 51–72). New York, NY: Springer.
Laghi, F., Bianchi, D., Pompili, S., Lonigro, A., & Baiocco, R. (2019). Cogni- tive and affective empathy in binge drinking adolescents: Does empa- thy moderate the effect of self-efficacy in resisting peer pressure to drink?Addictive Behaviors,89, 229–235.
Langford, C. P., Bowsher, J., Maloney, J. P., & Lillis, P. P. (1997). Social sup- port: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(1), 95–100.
Latif, K., Pitafi, A. H., Malik, M. Y., & Latif, Z. (2019). Individual cultural values and consumer animosity: Chinese consumers' attitude toward American products. SAGE Open, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/
2158244019871056
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational the- ory of emotion.American Psychologist,46(8), 819–834.
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural applica- tion of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,33(3), 593–617.
Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepre- neurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907–933.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs.Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy,86(1), 114–121.
Livi, S., Alessandri, G., Caprara, G. V., & Pierro, A. (2015). Positivity within teamwork: Cross-level effects of positivity on performance.Personality and Individual Differences,85, 230–235.
Lockwood, P. L. (2016). The anatomy of empathy: Vicarious experience and disorders of social cognition. Behavioural Brain Research, 311, 255–266.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent pos- itive affect: Does happiness lead to success?Psychological Bulletin,131 (6), 803–855.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods.Multivariate Behavioral Research,39(1), 99–128.
Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture get formed. In J. Mair, J. Robinson &
K. Hockerts (Eds.),Social entrepreneurship(pp. 121–136). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. L., & Sequeira, J. M. (2009). Entre- preneurial self-efficacy: Refining the measure.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,33(4), 965–988.
McMullen, J. S. (2011). Delineating the domain of development entrepre- neurship: A market-based approach to facilitating inclusive economic growth.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,35(1), 185–215.
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. (2012).
Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship.Academy of Management Review,37 (4), 616–640.
Miller, T. L., Wesley, C. L., & Williams, D. E. (2012). Educating the minds of caring hearts: Comparing the views of practitioners and educators on the importance of social entrepreneurship competencies.Academy of Management Learning & Education,11(3), 349–370.
Miralles, F., Giones, F., & Riverola, C. (2016). Evaluating the impact of prior experience in entrepreneurial intention.International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,12(3), 791–813.
Moin, M. F., Ali, A., & Khan, A. N. (2012). An analysis of Mission statement of Pakistani commercial (scheduled) banks using a nine points scale approach of Fred R. David.Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Buiness,4(2), 102–121.
Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2010).
Optimism and the nonlinear citizenship behavior-job satisfaction rela- tionship in three studies.Journal of Management,36(6), 1505–1528.
Nand, S., Pitafi, A. H., Kanwal, S., Pitafi, A., & Rasheed, M. I. (2019). Under- standing the academic learning of university students using smartphone: Evidence from Pakistan.Journal of Public Affairs, 20(1), 1–10.
Nicholls, A. (2008).Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Niranjana, P., & Pattanayak, B. (2005). Influence of learned optimism and organisational ethos on organisational citizenship behaviour: A study on Indian corporations.International Journal of Human Resources Devel- opment and Management,5(1), 85–98.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: Mc Graw-Hill Publ Co.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction.The Journal of Positive Psychol- ogy,3(2), 137–152.
Pitafi, A. H., Kanwal, S., Ali, A., Khan, A. N., & Ameen, M. W. (2018). Mod- erating roles of IT competency and work cooperation on employee work performance in an ESM environment.Technology in Society,55, 199–208.
Pitafi, A. H., Kanwal, S., & Pitafi, A. (2019). Effect of enterprise social media and psychological safety on employee's agility: Mediating role of com- munication quality.International Journal of Agile Systems and Manage- ment,12(1), 1–26.
Pitafi, A. H., Liu, H., & Cai, Z. (2018). Investigating the relationship between workplace conflict and employee agility: The role of enterprise social media.Telematics and Informatics,35(8), 2157–2172.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it.Annual Review of Psychology,63(1), 539–569.
Raza, M. Y., Khan, A. N., Khan, N. A., Ali, A., & Bano, S. (2019). Dark side of social media and academic performance of public sector schools stu- dents: Role of parental school support. Journal of Public Affairs.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2058
Rogers, K., Dziobek, I., Hassenstab, J., Wolf, O. T., & Convit, A. (2007).
Who cares? Revisiting empathy in Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,37(4), 709–715.
Rosenberg, M. (1965).Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilita- tion of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.Ameri- can Psychologist,55(1), 68–78.
Saban, M. T., & Kirby, A. (2019). Empathy, social relationship and co- occurrence in young adults with DCD.Human Movement Science,63, 62–72.
Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., & Linder, S. (2019). Social entrepreneurship research:
Past achievements and future promises.Journal of Management,45(1), 70–95.
Sahasranamam, S., & Nandakumar, M. K. (2018). Individual capital and social entrepreneurship: Role of formal institutions.Journal of Business Research,107, 104–117.
Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship.Journal of Business Ethics,111(3), 335–351.
Scheier, M. E., & Carver, C. S. (1987). Dispositional optimism and physical well-being: The influence of generalized outcome expectancies on health.Journal of Personality,55(2), 169–210.
Semrau, T., & Werner, A. (2014). How exactly do network relationships pay off? The effects of network size and relationship quality on access to start-up resources. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(3), 501–525.
Sequeira, J., Mueller, S. L., & McGee, J. E. (2007). The influence of social ties and self-efficacy in forming entrepreneurial intentions and moti- vating nascent behavior.Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship,12 (3), 275–293.
Shahbazzadegan, B., Samadzadeh, M., & Abbasi, M. (2013). The relation- ship between education of emotional intelligence components and positive thinking with mental health and self-efficacy in female run- ning athletes.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,83, 667–671.
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2011). The neural bases for empathy.The Neurosci- entist,17(1), 18–24.
