Compassion, Pro-social Motivation and Social...

Proceedings of the Third Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance

and Banking (AP15Singapore Conference) ISBN: 978-1-63415-751-3

17-19 July 2015 Paper ID: S580

1

www.globalbizresearch.org

Compassion, Pro-social Motivation and Social Entrepreneurship:

An Empirical Investigation

Chul Woo Moon,

School of Business,

Sungkyunkwan University, Korea.

[email protected]

You Sang Koh,

Industry and Strategy Department,

Samsung Economic Research Institute, Korea.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

This research aims to illuminate some of the affective and cognitive origins of social

entrepreneurship by extending and testing a recent theoretical framework of social

entrepreneurship. Our structural equation modeling analysis of 179 nascent social

entrepreneurs in South Korea indicates not only a direct positive linkage between compassion

and prosocial motivation, but also the indirect effects of prosocial motivation on social

enterprise creation behavior through perceived meaningfulness and perceived entrepreneurial

ability. This quantitative study is among the first to provide empirical evidence about the

psychological foundations of social entrepreneurs. Our findings also facilitate an

understanding of how the motives of social entrepreneurs differ from the motives of

conventional entrepreneurs.

_____________________________________________________________________ Keywords: Social entrepreneurship, social enterprise creation behavior, prosocial motivation,

compassion, cognitive process.

mailto:[email protected]

Proceedings of the Third Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and

Banking (AP15Singapore Conference) ISBN: 978-1-63415-751-3


2


1. Introduction

Theories and empirical evidence in the existing literature on social entrepreneurship are

largely insufficient to delineate the great qualities and motives of potential social entrepreneurs.

According to a recent series of qualitative review work (Dacin, Dacin, & Tracey, 2011;

Hoogendoorn et al., 2010; Mair & Martı´, 2006; Short et al., 2009; Weerawardena & Mort,

2006), previous scholarly efforts on the topic of social entrepreneurship have predominantly

been dedicated to conceptual studies or empirical research with qualitative methods. These

case studies have provided initial findings on certain individual characteristics of social

entrepreneurs, including skills (e.g., Thompson et al., 2000; Turner & Martin, 2005) and

abilities (e.g., Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004). However, studies that involve qualitative

methods are often limited in their suggestion of generalizable results (Short et al., 2009).

Furthermore, our empirical knowledge on the individual characteristics of social entrepreneurs

is still lacking (Hoogendoorn et al., 2010) in the sense that many different sets of individual

characteristics are likely to account for the diverse activities of social entrepreneurs (Dacin,

Dacin, & Matear, 2010). Hence, researchers (Dacin et al., 2011; Short et al., 2009) strongly

advocate for more research to expand upon existing organizational theories and, in particular,

to conduct large-sample empirical tests in order to sustain social entrepreneurship as a

meaningful academic inquiry.

The primary purpose of this research is to enrich existing empirical knowledge on the

psychological foundations of social entrepreneurs by extending the previous studies. This

research builds on the theoretical argument that affect, motivation, and cognition are three key

drivers for both conventional (Baron, 1998, 2008; Hayton & Cholakova, 2012; Shane, Locke,

& Collins, 2003) and social entrepreneurship behaviors (Dacin et al., 2011; Dees, 2007; Short

et al., 2009). In line with this, we expand upon a recent perspective that emphasizes the roles

of compassion and prosocial motivation in increasing the likelihood of founding new social

enterprises (Miller, Grimes, McMullen, & Vogus, 2012). Guided by concepts in the work of

Miller and colleagues, we suggest and empirically examine a theoretical model of social

enterprise creation behavior. Specifically, our model regards compassion as an affective

explanatory variable that invokes prosocial motivation, which is responsible for three

cognitive processes (i.e., perceived meaningfulness, appreciation of non-monetary

compensation, and perceived entrepreneurial ability) leading to social enterprise creation

behaviors. All of this is elaborated upon in the next section.

2. Theory and Hypotheses

Building on the psychological approach in the social entrepreneurship (e.g., Miller et al.,

2012), we delve into the association between prosocial motivation and social entrepreneurship




3


behaviors in individuals by looking at its mechanisms in three ways. In particular, we argue

that individuals are more likely to act on social entrepreneurship when they find

meaningfulness in their social entrepreneurship behavior (i.e., perceived meaningfulness),

when they value non-monetary compensation relative to monetary one (i.e., appreciation of

non-monetary compensation), and when they feel competent in their ability to establish new

social enterprises (i.e., perceived entrepreneurial ability). We elaborate on each of these

mechanisms following our discussion on compassion and prosocial motivation as preceding

factors.

2.1 Compassion and Prosocial Motivation

Compassion can be construed as a notable dispositional affect, which is likely to

characterize nascent social entrepreneurs. According to the Oxford Dictionaries online,

compassion is defined as “sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of

others.” Because compassion involves “being moved by another’s suffering and wanting to

help” (Lazarus, 1991: p. 289), it “arises in witnessing another’s suffering” (Goetz et al., 2010:

p. 351). A group of researchers (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2002; Shiota, Keltner, & John, 2006)

have regarded compassion as an enduring affective trait and thus examined the trait-like

tendency to experience compassion (Goetz et al., 2010). By virtue of being a dispositional

affect, compassion is broader (Nussbaum, 1996) and more enduring than empathy (Batson &

Oleson, 1991). Also, empathy refers to sharing the emotional state of others, whereas

compassion refers to an altruistic emotion in its own right (Lazarus, 1991). Inspired by the

argument that the decision to create a social enterprise hinges on the other-oriented emotion

(Dees, 2007), Miller and colleagues (2012) paid a special attention to compassion in terms of

its role in “compelling individuals to alleviate others’ suffering (Batson & Shaw, 1991; Omoto,

Malsch, & Barraza, 2009)” (p. 617) and suggested that compassion-driven cognitive ability

may directly and indirectly motivate certain individuals to exert greater efforts in creating

social enterprises.

Prosocial motivation describes the psychological state that drives nascent social

entrepreneurs to persistently commit to their social mission. As Grant (2008a) noted,

motivation is a broad term that covers the direction, persistence, and intensity of individual

behaviors (e.g., Latham & Pinder, 2005). Earlier, Batson (1987) defined prosocial motivation

as the individual desire to exert efforts to benefit others. The concept of prosocial motivation

focuses on a specific cause of these humanitarian efforts (Grant, 2008), which is a profound

concern for helping others (Grant, 2007). In this sense, social entrepreneurship may be

conceptualized as a way to one’s prosocial motivation (Miller et al., 2012).

In this research, we examine the relationship between compassion as a trait affect and

prosocial motivation as a state motivation by extending the previous research on social




4


entrepreneurship. While previous social entrepreneurship scholars have tended to use

compassion and prosocial motivation as interchangeable terms, without clearly differentiating

the concepts (Miller et al., 2012), we instead argue that the terms are conceptually distinct

from one another, and in fact, that one may result in the other. Indeed, compassion and

prosocial motivation have evolved separately in existing psychology and organizational

behavior literature. As noted above, both dictionary and scholarly definitions of compassion

are mainly focused on a feeling of concern for the well-being of others. In contrast, prosocial

motivation encompasses a persistency of active effort to benefit others. Conceptually, effort is

closer to behavioral outcomes than affect, and a causal relationship between compassion and

prosocial motivation has been postulated. The general tendency to value concern for the well-

being of others is known to be an individual trait that encourages prosocial motivation (Penner,

Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005). In other words, compassion motivates individuals to

have “a subsequent desire to help” (Goetz et al., 2010: p. 351) when they observe the suffering

of others (Tsui, 2013). Furthermore, compassion can promote a prosocial motivation to

alleviate the suffering of others, even at the expense of self-interests (Batson & Shaw, 1991).

Hypothesis 1: Compassion positively influences prosocial motivation.

2.2 Three Cognitive Processes between Prosocial Motivation and Social Enterprise

Creation Behavior

Relying on the theoretical framework of Miller and colleagues (2012), we focus on three

cognitive processes related to the extent to which individuals (1) believe that their

entrepreneurship behaviors may help address social problems by alleviating the suffering of

others, (2) appreciate the costs and benefits associated with social entrepreneurship in a

prosocial way, and (3) feel competent in establishing a social venture. In the context of our

empirical investigation, these processes are respectively termed perceived meaningfulness,

appreciation of non-monetary compensation, and perceived entrepreneurial ability. We next

delineate cognitive processes, which show how these three factors enable prosocially

motivated individuals to engage in social entrepreneurship activities.

a. Perceived Meaningfulness: Broadly, meaningfulness refers to an individual’s perception

that his or her behavior is useful and valuable (Kahn, 1990). Individuals recognize the

meaningfulness of their work by judging whether it is valuable in terms of their standards

(Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Perceived meaningfulness arises when individuals find that the

work requirements fit their beliefs and values (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) and that the work

is significant (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Perceived meaningfulness is a prominent cognitive

outcome that links motivation to attitudinal and behavioral upshots (Hackman & Oldham,

1980).




5


Hypothesis 2: Prosocial motivation positively influences social enterprise creation

behavior through perceived meaningfulness.

b. Appreciation of Non-Monetary Compensation: Although there has been some debate on

whether the essence of social entrepreneurship is social value proposition or profitability

(Short et al., 2009), it may be more plausible to consider that appreciation of non-monetary

compensation is a cognitive route that channels prosocial motivation toward creating a social

enterprise in terms of the unique nature of prosocial and altruistic individuals. According to

previous research on the non-profit sector (e.g., Preston, 1989; Weisbrod, 1983), altruistic

individuals tend to accept lower levels of earned income. Prosocially motivated individuals

may envision other possible benefits from their prosocial behavior (Grant & Berry, 2011). For

example, engendering a public image as an altruistic person is a crucial moral reward for

prosocial behavior (Winterich, Aquino, Mittal, & Swartz, 2013), which is conceptually similar

to the prosocial identity perspective of Miller and colleagues (2012). Moreover, individuals

possessing strong levels of prosocial motivation may feel compensated as long as they

enhance societal value by addressing social problems, even if the work is not necessarily

accompanied by financial rewards. Combined with the argument of Miller and colleagues for

internalizing societal value, we thus anticipate that non-financial benefits may be appreciated

by nascent social entrepreneurs, compelling them in turn to be involved in social enterprise

creation behavior.


behavior through appreciation of non-monetary compensation.

c. Perceived Entrepreneurial Ability. We presume that prosocially motivated individuals who

perceive that they would be successful social entrepreneurs will actually be involved in the

process of creating social enterprises. Strong prosocial motivation enhances an individual’s

confidence in proactively addressing the suffering of others (Batson, Sager, Garst, Kang,

Rubchinsky, & Dawson, 1997). This occurs because a prosocial mind enables individuals to

be receptive to diverse information and situations, and promotes a willingness to broaden their

perspective by stimulating them to engage in cognitive processes in an integrative way (Miller

et al., 2012). In fact, according to the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001), a

positive mindset helps individuals to be flexible, creative, open to various information, and

effective in dealing with cognitive demands. Thus, we posit that by broadening cognitive and

behavioral repertoires, prosocial motivation is likely to assist individuals in developing and

maintaining optimism and confidence about being able to successfully establish and manage a

social enterprise. Accordingly, we hypothesize that prosocially motivated individuals with

greater levels of confidence in their entrepreneurial ability to create social value will exert

greater efforts to establish social enterprises in market-based organizations.




6



behavior through perceived entrepreneurial ability.

3. Methods

3.1 Sample and Procedure

We analyzed data collected from individuals who were the attendees in 28 social

entrepreneurship training programs provided by The Korean Social Enterprise Promotion

Agency (KSEPA) during a period of time from 2011 to 2014. The objective of these programs

is to help individuals to develop and create viable business models for social enterprises and to

realize their pursuit of social values. These individuals are regarded as nascent social

entrepreneurs, because attending a training program is a gestation activity for creating a social

enterprise, which is a criterion in defining a nascent entrepreneur (Davidsson & Honig, 2003).

Our online survey was administered during the summer 2014. The link to the online survey

was electronically sent to 28 program managers, and subsequently forwarded to a total of 910

trainees. 187 responses were collected, resulting in a response rate of 21%. After excluding

incomplete surveys, our final sample was comprised of 179 respondents. Of the 179

respondents, 44% are female and 60% affiliate themselves with a religion. 48% of the

respondents have start-up experience. The average age is 37.7 years (s.d. = 11.5).

3.2 Measures

Respondents were first asked to state any specific social issues or business ideas that led

them to a social entrepreneurship training program. This initial description was intended to

remind respondents of their previous motives and behaviors in seeking to create a social

enterprise. They were then instructed to respond to our survey items based on this description.

The original English items were translated to Korean, and data was collected using the

Korean survey. One of the authors, who is fluent in Korean and English, blindly translated the

original English survey into Korean. Three Ph.D. students from a top business school in South

Korea reviewed the Korean survey and finalized it for readability.

Unless otherwise mentioned, self-questionnaires were reported on a 5-point Likert-type

scale (with scores ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

a. Compassion: We measured compassion for beneficiaries (alpha = .87) with five items,

including: (1) “It’s important to take care of the vulnerable people who may be the

beneficiaries or customers of my social enterprise idea,” (2) “When I see someone, who may

be the potential beneficiaries or customers of my social enterprise idea, hurt or in need, I feel

a powerful urge to take care of them,” (3) “Taking care of others, who may be the potential

beneficiaries or customers of my social enterprise idea, gives me a warm feeling inside,” (4)

“I often notice people in need of help who may be the potential beneficiaries or customers of

my social enterprise idea,” and (5) “I feel strong compassion for the potential beneficiaries or




7


customers of my social enterprise idea.” We adapted the five-item measure of compassion

from the dispositional positive emotion scales suggested by Shiota and colleagues (2006), and

then, the original items were modified to capture the respondents’ compassion for potential

social enterprise customers (for this and other measures, modification is denoted in italics).

b. Prosocial motivation: The four-item measure for prosocial motivation (Grant, 2008), which

was adapted from the self-regulation scales of Ryan and Connell (1989), was modified and

used to measure the prosocial motivation of potential social entrepreneurs (alpha = .91). These

items are: (1) “I am motivated to realize my social enterprise idea because I care about

benefiting others through my work,” (2) “I am motivated to realize my social enterprise idea

because I want to help others through my work,” (3) “I am motivated to realize my social

enterprise idea because I want to have a positive impact on others,” and (4) “I am motivated to

realize my social enterprise idea because it is important to me to do good for others through

my work.”

c. Perceived meaningfulness: Perceived meaningfulness (alpha = .88) was measured with

three items, including: (1) “My job activities to realize my social enterprise idea are

personally meaningful to me,” (2) “The work I do to realize my social enterprise idea is

meaningful to me,” and (3) “The work I do to realize my social enterprise idea is very

important to me.” The original items were adapted from Spreitzer (1995) and modified to

measure perceived meaningfulness of nascent social entrepreneurs.

d. Appreciation of non-monetary compensation: Two items (alpha = .67) were developed to

measure appreciation of non-monetary compensation among respondents. As discussed above,

non-monetary compensation can be measured by two proxies, including internalization of the

societal value created to one’s own utility and acceptance of lower levels of monetary income.

Thus, our items include: (1) “I feel compensated if I create societal value or have an impact

through realizing my social enterprise idea” and (2) “I willingly accept low personal income as

long as I create societal value or have an impact through realizing my social enterprise idea.”

e. Perceived entrepreneurial ability: Perceived entrepreneurial ability (alpha = .90) was

measured using the original six items from the perceived behavioral control scales of Liñán

and Chen (2009). These items are: (1) “To start a firm and keep it working would be easy for

me,” (2) “I am prepared to start a viable firm,” (3) “I can control the creation process of a new

firm,” (4) “I know the necessary practical details to start a firm,” (5) “I know how to develop

an entrepreneurial project,” and (6) “If I tried to start a firm, I would have a high probability of

succeeding.” Factors from these items indicate the extent to which an individual is confident

in creating a new venture.

f. Social enterprise creation behavior: We measured actual progress in creating a social

enterprise with seven items for representative gestation activities adapted from the Wave A




8


questionnaire of the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) 2 (see

http://www.psed.isr.umich.edu/psed/documentation). These items include: (1) “Have you

prepared a business plan?,” (2) “Have you received the first outside funding for the new

business?,” (3) “Have you prepared any physical space for the new business?,” (4) “Have you

registered the new business with the appropriate government agency?,” (5) “Has the product

or service that the new business will offer been developed?,” (6) “Have marketing or

promotional efforts been started for the product or service?,” and (7) “Has the first income

been received from the sale of goods or services for the new business?” Respondents rated

these items with two dummy variables (0 = no; 1 = yes). We calculated the index of social

enterprise creation behavior by aggregating scores of these items, ranging from zero (no

actions at all) to seven points (complete founding of a social enterprise). Rather than using a

dichotomous value (yes versus no), this calculated index allows us to measure the extent to

which each nascent social entrepreneur had actually engaged in creating a social enterprise to

realize the social values of which they were in pursuit.

g. Control variables: In order to better assess our hypothesized model and avoid alternative

interpretations of our findings, we controlled for gender (0 = male; 1 = female), affiliation

with religion (0 = no; 1 = yes), start-up experience (0 = no; 1 = yes), education for social

enterprise (0 = no; 1 = yes), and perceived influence of public support (“To what extent do you

think public support has influenced your consideration of founding a social enterprise?,” with

scores ranging from 1 = not influential at all to 5 = very influential). Some studies (Crant,

1996; Liñán & Chen, 2009) have found that nascent entrepreneurs are male-dominant. Other

demographic variables were not considered in our analysis, because previous studies have

reported inconsistent evidence on the linkages between most demographic factors and the

intentions and actions of entrepreneurship (Shook, Priem, & McGee, 2003). The self-

affiliation of individuals with a religion has been known to encourage prosocial and altruistic

behaviors (Saroglou, Pichon, Trompette, Verschueren, & Dernelle, 2005; Sprecher & Fehr,

2005), as well as to emphasize empathy as a core virtue, which is a significant antecedent of

prosocial motivation (Lam, 2002). Past studies (Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Krueger, 1993;

Mair & Noboa, 2006) have indicated that start-up experience is significantly related to

entrepreneurship. The relationship between education and entrepreneurship has not been

consistent, but business-related education has been shown to have a robust relationship with

enterprise creation behaviors (Davidsson & Honig, 2003). Given that most of the respondents

(85%) have college degrees, we thus decided to control for social enterprise-specific education

rather than the general education level of respondents. Social support is the factor that enables

the process of social entrepreneurship within a larger context (Mair & Noboa, 2006).




9


3.3 Common Method Variance Check

There might be potential common method biases in our data, because the data were

collected from survey items imbued with social desirability and responded to by a single

source at a single time (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). To address this

potential issue, we examined any misleading results emanating from common method

variances in two ways. First, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with

maximum-likelihood estimation procedures in order to compare the one-factor model and our

hypothesized five-factor model (i.e., compassion, prosocial motivation, perceived

meaningfulness, appreciation of non-monetary compensation, and perceived entrepreneurial

ability). According to Kline (2005), an acceptable model fit is inferred with values of χ²/df

ratio lower than 3, comparative fit index (CFI) and incremental fit index (IFI) greater than .90,

and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) less than or equal to .08. Table 1

shows the results of model composition between our hypothesized model and the alternatives.

The results indicate that our hypothesized five-factor model produced an acceptable and

significantly better fit (χ²[df = 80, n = 179] = 170.4, χ²/df = 2.13, CFI = .95, IFI = .95; RMSEA

= .08) to the data, whereas the fit indices of the alternative models are not acceptable. For

instance, the one-factor model did not yield an acceptable fit (χ²[df = 90, n = 179] = 771.8,

χ²/df = 8.58, CFI = .61, IFI = .61, RMSEA = .21).

------------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

------------------------------------

On balance, the results of CFA and a marker variable test show that common method biases

are not problematic in our data.

3.4 Analysis

Our theoretical model presupposes that compassion invokes prosocial motivation, which in

turn leads to social enterprise creation behavior through three mediation paths (i.e., perceived


ability). Therefore, a bootstrap analysis based on the Monte Carlo method following the

procedures recommended by Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (2010) was performed to provide

the most robust evidence on the significance and confidence interval (CI) values of the indirect

effects.

---------------------------------------

Insert Tables 2 and 3 about here

---------------------------------------

4. Results

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of variables are summarized in Table 2. The




10


patterns of correlations are mostly consistent with prior theories and empirical evidence.

Social enterprise creation behavior turned out to have moderate positive correlations with all

the antecedents considered in this study. Compassion is strongly correlated with prosocial

motivation. As expected, start-up experience is positively correlated with religious affiliation

and social enterprise creation behavior, but it is negatively correlated with gender (i.e., female).

Table 3 presents a summary of validity and reliability tests to determine the measurement

properties of our questionnaire. The results show that all factor loadings were statistically

significant at p < .001, ranging from .76 to .89 for compassion, .76 to .87 for prosocial

motivation, .80 to .89 for perceived meaningfulness, .62 to .83 for appreciation of non-

monetary compensation, and .79 to .96 for perceived entrepreneurial ability. We further

checked the construct validity of the proposed model by calculating average variance extracted

(AVE) and composite reliability (CR) values. All AVEs were over .5, indicating that all the

latent constructs obtained convergent validity (Hulland, 1999). All CRs were over .7 (Nunnally,

1978), which confirms that the latent constructs showed convergent validity representing the

internal consistency of scales. The discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the AVEs

and squared interconstruct correlation estimates (SICs). The results showed that all AVEs are

greater than the corresponding SICs, and thus all the latent constructs fulfilled discriminant

validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

We found a strong positive linkage between both variables (ß = .77, p < .001), thus

supporting Hypothesis 1.

Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 proposed indirect effects of prosocial motivation on social

enterprise creation behavior through three cognitive processes, including perceived


ability, respectively. Prosocial motivation was found to positively relate to all three cognitive

processes, including perceived meaningfulness (ß = .62, p < .001), appreciation of non-

monetary compensation (ß = .63, p < .001), and perceived entrepreneurial ability (ß = .34, p

< .001). However, it was demonstrated that perceived meaningfulness (ß = .22, p < .01) and

perceived entrepreneurial ability (ß = .23, p < .01) appeared to be positively associated with

social enterprise creation behavior, whereas appreciation of non-monetary compensation is not

significantly related to it (ß = .05, ns). Consequently, Hypotheses 2 and 4 were supported, but

Hypothesis 3 was rejected.

Finally, in order to ascertain the significance of the indirect effects of the fully mediated

relationships, we performed a parametric bootstrap procedure with 20,000 Monte Carlo

replications for the mediation role of the three cognitive processes with controls. The results of

the bootstrap tests appear in Table 4, showing the significant mediation effects of perceived

meaningfulness (Hypothesis 2; indirect effect = .16, p < .01, 95% CI = [.05, .31]) and




11


entrepreneurial ability (Hypothesis 4; indirect effect = .07, p < .01, 95% CI = [.02, .15])

between prosocial motivation and social enterprise creation behavior. Although not

hypothesized, our additional bootstrap analysis revealed the sequential mediations of prosocial

motivation, perceived meaningfulness (indirect effect = .17, p < .01, 95% CI = [.05, .31]), and

perceived entrepreneurial ability (indirect effect = .07, p < .01, 95% CI = [.02, .16]) between

compassion and social enterprise creation behavior. The bootstrapping results thus provide

supporting evidence for Hypotheses 2 and 4.

------------------------------------

Insert Table 4 about here

------------------------------------

5. Conclusion

This research explores the antecedents of social entrepreneurship. Building on a

psychological framework involving affect, motivation, and cognition as three key drivers for

social enterprise creation behaviors, we suggest that compassion inspires prosocially

motivated individuals to create social enterprises through three cognitive processes of

perceived meaningfulness, appreciation of non-monetary compensation, and perceived

entrepreneurial ability. As one of the first empirical studies to analyze a large sample of

working adults, our work contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature by providing

empirical knowledge on the psychological processes of social enterprise creation behavior.

References

Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. 2004. Social entrepreneurship and societal

transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40: 260-

282.

Arbuckle, J. L. 2011. Amos user’s guide: version 3.6, Chicago: SmallWaters Corp.

Arend, R. J. 2013. A heart-mind-opportunity nexus: Distinguishing social entrepreneurship for

entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 38: 313-315.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. 2006. Social entrepreneurship and commercial

entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30: 1-22.

Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. 1998. Goal-directed emotions. Cognition and

Emotion, 12: 1-26.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Barcklay, C. R., & Wellman, H. M. 1986. Accuracies and inaccuracies in autobiographical

memories. Journal of Memory and Language, 25: 93-103

Baron, R. A. 1998. Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs

think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 275-294.




12


Baron, R. A. 2008. The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management

Review, 33: 328-340.

Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group

behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 644-675.

Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. 2008. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational

research. Human Relations, 61: 1139-1160.

Batson, C. D. 1987. Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20): 65-122. New York: Academic Press.

Batson, C. D., & Oleson, K. C. 1991. Current status of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. In M.

S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 12): Prosocial behavior: 62-

85. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. 1997. Is

empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 73: 495-509.

Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. 1991. Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial

motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2: 107-122.

Brigham, K. H., De Castro, J. O., & Shepherd, D. A. 2007. A person-organization fit model of

owner managers’ cognitive style and organizational demands. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 31: 29-51.

Burke, A. E., FitzRoy, F. R. & Nolan, M. A. 2002. Self-employment, wealth and job creation:

the roles of gender, non-pecuniary motivation and entrepreneurial ability. Small Business

Economics, 19: 255–270.

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. 1993. A theory of performance.

In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations: 35-70. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crant, J. M. 1996. The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions.

Journal of Small Business Management, 34: 42-49.

Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2006. What (not) to expect when surveying executives.

Organizational Research Methods, 9: 133-160.

Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. 2011. Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future

directions. Organization Science, 22: 1203-1213.

Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. 2010. Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a

new theory and how we move forward from here? Academy of Management Perspective, 24:

37-57.

Davidsson, P. & Honig, B. 2003.The role of social and human capital among nascent

entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 301-331.




13


Dees, J. G. 2007. Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Society, 44: 24-31.

Dinh, J., Lord, R., Garnder, W., Meuser, J., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. 2014 Leadership theory and

research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives.

Leadership Quarterly, 25: 36-62.

Dutton, J. E. 1993. Interpretations on automatic: A different view of strategic issue diagnosis.

Journal of Management Studies, 30: 339-357.

Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., &

Carlo, G. 2002. Prosocial development in early adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 82: 993-1006.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39-50.

Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. Cultivated emotions: Parental socialization of positive emotions and

self-conscious emotions. Psychological Inquiry, 9: 279-281.

Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-

and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56: 218-226.

Gartner, W. B. 1988. ‘Who is an entrepreneur?’ is the wrong question. American Journal of

Small Business, 12: 11-32.

Germak, A. J., & Robinson, J. A. 2014. Exploring the motivation of nascent social

entrepreneurs. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(1): 5-21.

Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. 2010. Compassion: An evolutionary analysis

and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136: 351-374.

Golden, B. R. 1992. The past is the past – or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as

indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 848-860.

Gómez-Mejía, L. R, Haynes K. T, Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J.

2007. Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: evidence from

Spanish olive mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 106–137.

Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference.

Academy of Management Review, 32: 393-417.

Grant, A. M. 2008. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in

predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 48-

58.

Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic

and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management

Journal, 54: 73-96.

Grant, A. M., & Campbell, E. M. 2007. Doing good, doing harm, being well and burning out:

The interactions of perceived prosocial and antisocial impact in service work. Journal of




14


Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 665-691.

Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. 2007. Impact

and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence

behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 103: 53-67.

Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. 2008. Giving commitment: Employee support

programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 898-

918.

Gifford, S. 1993. Heterogeneous ability, career choice, and firm size. Small Business

Economics, 5: 249-259.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hayton, J. C., & Cholakova, M. 2012. The role of affect in the creation and intentional pursuit

of entrepreneurial ideas. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36: 41-67.

Herron, L., & Sapienza, H. J. 1992. The entrepreneur and the initiation of new venture launch

activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17: 49-55.

Hollenbeck, J., & Whitener, E. 1988. Reclaiming personality traits for personnel selection.

Journal of Management, 14: 81-91.

Hoogendoorn, B., Pennings, E., & Thurik, R. 2010. What do we know about social

entrepreneurship? An analysis of empirical research. International Review of

Entrepreneurship, 8: 1-42.

Huber, G. P. 1985. Temporal stability and response-order biases in participant descriptions of

organizational decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 943-950.

Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. 1985. Retrospective reports of strategic level managers:

Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6: 171-180.

Hulland, J. S. 1999. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A

review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 195-204.

James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. 2006. A tale of two methods. Organizational

Research Methods, 9: 233-244.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692-724.

Kickul, J., Gundry, L. K., Barbosa, S. D., & Whitcanack, L. 2009. Intuition versus analysis?

Testing differential models of cognitive style on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the new

venture creation process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33: 439-453.

Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:

Guilford.

Krueger, N. F. 1993. The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new

venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18: 5-21.




15


Krueger, N. F., & Dickson, P. R. 1994. How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Self-

efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences, 25(3): 385-400.

Lam, P. Y. 2002. As the flocks gather: How religion affects voluntary association participation.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41: 405-422.

Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. 2000. A comparison of approaches to forming

composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3: 186-

207.

Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. 2005. Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the

twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 495-516.

Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and adaptation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. 2009. Development and cross-cultural application of a specific

instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33:

593-617.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-

sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 114-121.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. 2002. To parcel or not to

parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9: 151-173.

Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S., & Amezcua, A. S. 2013. Entrepreneurial

processes in social contexts: How are they different, if at all? Small Business Economics, 40:

761-783.

Mair, J., & Martı´, I. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation,

prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41: 36-44.

Mair, J., & Martı´, I. 2009. Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study

from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24: 419-435.

Mair, J., & Noboa, E. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture

are formed. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: 121-135.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Miller, C. C., Cardinal, L. B., & Glick, W. H. 1997. Retrospective reports in organizational

research: A reexamination of recent evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 189-204.

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: 616-640.

Murphy, P. J., & Coombes, S. M. 2009. A model of social entrepreneurial discovery. Journal

of Business Ethics, 87: 325-336.

Nga, J. K. H., & Shamuganathan, G. 2010. The influence of personality traits and

demographic factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics,




16


95: 259-282.

Nicholls, A. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. USA:

Oxford University Press.

Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nussbaum, M. 1996. Compassion: The basic social emotion. Social Philosophy and Policy, 13:

27-58.

Omoto, A. M., Malsch, A. M., & Barraza, J. A. 2009. Compassionate acts: Motivations for

and correlates of volunteerism among older adults. In B. Fehr, S. Sprecher, & L. G.

Underwood (Eds.), The science of compassionate love: Theory, research, and applications:

257-282. Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. 2005. Prosocial behavior:

Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 365-392.

Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept.

Journal of World Business, 41: 56-65.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.

Polman, E., & Emich, K. J. 2011. Decisions for other are more creative than decisions for the

self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37: 492-501.

Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. 2003. Fostering meaningfulness in work. In K. S. Cameron, J.

E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new

discipline: 309-327. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. 2010. A general multilevel SEM framework for

assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15: 209-233.

Preston, A. E. 1989. The nonprofit worker in a for-profit world. Journal of Labor Economics,

7: 438-463.

Quiggin, J. 1997. Altruism and benefit-cost analysis. Australian Economic Papers, 36: 144-

155.

Rodell, J. B. 2013. Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and

what does is mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1274-1294.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. 1989. Perceived locus of causality and internalization:

Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

57: 749-761.

Santos, F. M. 2012. A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics,

111: 335-351.

Sagawa, S., & Segal, E. 2000. Common interest, common good: Creating value through

http://philpapers.org/rec/SANAPT-2




17


business and social sector partnership. California Management Review, 42: 105-122.

Saroglou, V., Pichon, I., Trompette, L., Verschueren, M., & Dernelle, R. 2005. Prosocial

behavior and religion: New evidence based on projective measures and peer ratings. Journal

for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44: 323-348.

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. 2005. Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve

the poor. Business Horizons, 48: 241-246.

Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. 2003. Entrepreneurial Motivation. Human Resource


Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.

Academy of Management Review, 25: 217-226.

Sharir, M., & Lerner, M. 2006. Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual

social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business, 41: 6-20.

Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & John O. P. 2006. Positive emotion dispositions differentially

associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1:

61-71.

Shiv, B., Loewenstein, G., & Bechara, A. 2005. The dark side of emotion in decision-making:

When individuals with decreased emotional reactions make more advantageous decisions.

Cognitive Brain Research, 23: 85-92.

Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. 2003. Venture creation and the enterprising

individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29: 379-399.

Short, E. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2009. Research in social entrepreneurship: Past

contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3: 161-194.

Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. 2005. Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 22: 629-651.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,

measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1465.

Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L. M., & Stride, C. 2014. Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The

role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of

International Business Studies, forthcoming.

Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. 2001. Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and

managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 145-153.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment. Academy of


Thompson, J., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. 2000. Social entrepreneurship – A new look at the people

and the potential. Management Decision, 38: 328-338.

Tsui, A. S. 2013. On compassion in scholarship: Why should we care? Academy of




18



Turner, D., & Martin, S. 2005. Social entrepreneurs and social inclusion: Building local

capacity or delivering national priorities? International Journal of Public Administration, 28:

797-806.

Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. 2006. Investigating social entrepreneurship: A

multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41: 21-35.

Weisbrod, B. A. 1983. Nonprofit and proprietary sector behavior: Wage differentials among

lawyers. Journal of Labor Economics, 1: 246-263.

Winterich, K. P., Aquino, K., Mittal, V., & Swartz, R. 2013. When moral identity

symbolization motivates prosocial behavior: The role of recognition and moral identity

internalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 759-770.

Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. 2009. A typology of social

entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business

Venturing, 24: 519-532.

Zhao, H, & Seibert, S. E. 2006. The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status:

A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 259-271.




19


Table 1: Comparison of Hypothesized and Alternative Models

Model χ2a df Δχ2 χ²/df IFI CFI RMSEA

Hypothesized five-factor model 170.4 80 ― 2.13 .95 .95 .08

An alternative four-factor modelb 330.5 84 160.1*** 3.93 .86 .86 .13

An alternative four-factor modelc 275.3 84 104.9*** 3.28 .89 .89 .11

An alternative three-factor modeld 573.2 87 402.8*** 6.59 .72 .72 .18

The alternative one-factor modele 771.8 90 601. 4*** 8.58 .61 .61 .21

a All chi-square statistics are significant at p < .05.

b Combining compassion and perceived meaningfulness

c Combining compassion and prosocial motivation

d Combining perceived meaningfulness, appreciation of non-monetary compensation, and perceived entrepreneurial ability

e Combining all variables

*** p < .001.




20


Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Gender .44 .50 ―

2. Religious affiliation .60 .49 .07 ―

3. Start-up experience .48 .50 -.17* .16* ―

4. Education for social enterprise .85 .36 -.10 .01 -.00 ―

5. Perceived influence of public

support 3.65 1.19 .08 -.13 -.13 .01 ―

6. Compassion 4.21 .66 .00 .17* .18* -.01 .03 ―

7. Prosocial motivation 4.28 .64 -.04 .17* .09 -.05 .06 .68** ―

8. Perceived meaningfulness 4.52 .59 -.11 .02 .04 .09 .16* .52** .54** ―

9. Appreciation of non-monetary

compensation 3.70 .91 -.16* .08 .12 -.01 .10 .41** .49** .29** ―

10. Perceived entrepreneurial

ability 3.37 .87 -.20** .01 .13 -.03 .06 .29** .26** .18* .47** ―

11. Social enterprise creation

behavior 2.90 2.46 -.06 .09 .18* .12 .14 .19* .22** .30** .27** .32* ―

a n = 179.

* p < .05. ** p < .01.




21


Table 3: A Summary of Convergent and Discriminant Validity Tests

Scale Factor loading

Average

variance

extracted

Composite

reliability

Squared interconstruct correlation

1 2 3 4 5

1. Compassion

Parcel 1 .76***

.70 .88 ― Parcel 2 .85***

Parcel 3 .89***

2. Prosocial motivation

Item 1 .76***

.70 .89 .57 ― Item 2 .87***

Item 3 .83***

Item 4 .88***

3. Perceived meaningfulness

Item 1 .85***

.71 .90 .35 .37 ― Item 2 .89***

Item 3 .80***

4. Appreciation of non-monetary

compensation

Item 1 .83*** .54 .71 .27 .39 .12 ―

Item 2 .62***

5. Perceived entrepreneurial ability

Parcel 1 .79***

.72 .90 .12 .10 .04 .35 ― Parcel 2 .96***

Parcel 3 .79*** a n = 179.

*** p < .001.




22


Table 4: Bootstrap Tests for Mediation

Indirect paths

Indirect

effect

Lower

level

95% CI

Upper

level

95% CI

Prosocial motivation → perceived meaningfulness → social

enterprise creation behavior .16** .05 .31

Prosocial motivation → appreciation of non-monetary

compensation → social enterprise creation behavior .06 -.09 .24

Prosocial motivation → perceived entrepreneurial ability → social

enterprise creation behavior .07** .02 .15

Compassion → prosocial motivation → perceived meaningfulness

→ social enterprise creation behavior .17** .05 .31

Compassion → prosocial motivation → appreciation of non-

monetary compensation → social enterprise creation behavior .06 -.09 .25

Compassion → prosocial motivation → perceived entrepreneurial

ability → social enterprise creation behavior .07** .02 .16

a n = 179; bootstrap resamples = 20,000; bias-corrected percentile method; two-tailed significance.

** p < .01.




23


Figure 1: Final Results of Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

a n = 179. Standardized path coefficients are reported. For ease of presentation, effects of control variables are not reported.

b Gender, religious affiliation, education for social enterprise, and perceived influence of public support were controlled.

c Gender and perceived influence of public support were controlled.

d Gender and start-up experience were controlled.

e Start-up experience, education for social enterprise, and perceived influence of public support were controlled.

** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Compassion Prosocial motivation

R2 = .60

Social enterprise

creation behaviore

R2 = .21

Perceived

meaningfulnessb

R2 = .42

Appreciation of non-

monetary

compensationc

R2 = .43

Perceived

entrepreneurial abilityd

R2 = .16

.77*** .63***

.34***

.62***

.05 ns

.23**

.22**

Compassion, Pro-social Motivation and Social...

Documents

Transcript of Compassion, Pro-social Motivation and Social...