This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Changing society for the better requires knowledge and skills to create something new and of value. However, deciding to undertake such a strenuous and often challenging venture is a question more related to the characteristics and motivation behind those skills and goes beyond the level of the decision-maker's personality. Such dilemmas become apparent to someone contemplating becoming a social entrepreneur, an individual seeking innovative (business) solutions to ever-present community and social issues. Social entrepreneurship encompasses a wide range of activities: non-profit ventures that tackle social problems, for-profit business organizations that try to reconcile profit and improving society goals, and philanthropism that supports investment portfolios (Mair & Martí, 2006). Although this field is quite broad and often hard to define (Short et al., 2009), all social entrepreneurship activities have one thing in common: furthering and accomplishing goals with important cultural and social agendas. Social entrepreneurship acts as a catalyst for societal change and a platform for research, development, and innovation (Gupta et al., 2020). In fact, social entrepreneurship has been recognized as a significant factor in tackling poverty (Ghauri et al., 2014), inequality (Haugh & Talwar, 2016; Lippmann et al., 2005), women empowerment (Datta & Gailey, 2012), institutional change (Chandra, 2017), and ecological sustainability (Bansal et al., 2019) issues. By keeping in mind the substantial positive effect of social entrepreneurship activities on society, in recent years, social entrepreneurship has attracted the interest of scholars from different backgrounds (Austin et al., 2006; Gupta et al., 2020; Phillips et al., 2015; Sassmannshausen & Volkmann, 2018). In general, research questions regarding social entrepreneurship are usually multidisciplinary and are interested in different micro and macro processes governing social entrepreneurship and its effect on environmental and societal changes.
In recent years, one research venture has become increasingly popular: studying social entrepreneurship at the level of the individual (Stephan & Drencheva, 2017). This work aims to understand who social entrepreneurs are and what variables on the individual level separate possible social entrepreneurs from other people. Social entrepreneurs differ from other entrepreneurs because they possess skills to ensure their organization's sustainability and use entrepreneurial means in understanding and solving social and environmental problems (Partzsch & Ziegler, 2011). Furthermore, several studies have attempted to describe the social entrepreneurial personality. For example, it was shown that social entrepreneurs give greater importance to prosocial-oriented values (Diaz & Rodriguez, 2003; Egri & Herman, 2000), are more open to change (Bargsted et al., 2013), and report greater levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, risk-taking, persistence, and optimism (Praszkier et al., 2009). Also, higher social entrepreneurship intentions are predicted by personality traits such as agreeableness and openness to experience (İrengün & Arıkboğa, 2015; Koe Hwee Nga et al., 2010). Finally, a prosocial personality defined mainly by high levels of altruism, empathy, and compassion was positively associated with intentions to engage in social entrepreneurship (Miller et al., 2012; Ruskin et al., 2016; Waddock & Steckler, 2016). While possessing these characteristics is relevant in becoming a social entrepreneur, one needs to understand that the nature of social entrepreneurship is primarily social and context-dependent. Individuals may possess a personality suitable for social entrepreneurship, but if they cannot identify, understand, and feel attached to their community's problems, they could be less inclined to pursue a social entrepreneurship opportunity. Stemming from this rationale, we aim to understand how group identity variables relate to the intentions to engage in social entrepreneurship. Specifically, we aim to study the interplay between patriotism and collective actions in predicting social entrepreneurship intentions.
Constructive and Blind Patriotism
National identity, the sense of belonging to one's nation (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), is relevant in developing a healthy society. Different social psychological approaches explain how individuals identify with their nation. These frameworks define national identification as a multidimensional construct containing different modes and content. Kosterman and Feshbach (1989) distinguish between two forms of national identification depending on how individuals construct their nationhood. They understand patriotism as a secure attachment characterized by national pride and loyalty. Nationalism contains the same national sentiments as patriotism, along with derogation and contempt toward outgroups that results in national domination seeking (Li & Brewer, 2004).
Similarly, Golec de Zavala and colleagues (Golec de Zavala & Cichocka, 2012; Golec de Zavala et al., 2009) differentiate between two forms of national identification depending on how securely attached people are to their nation. They conceptualized secure national identification as a stable attachment to one's nation characterized by simultaneous care toward one's nation and openness towards others. Its defensive counterpart, national narcissism, refers to the belief that one's nation is exceptional and deserves special treatment. Unlike nationalists, national narcissists seek recognition and respect for their nation (Cichocka & Cislak, 2020).
Patriotism, compared to other less secure forms of national identification, positively predicted civil rights support (Williams et al., 2008), engagement in politics (Schatz et al., 1999), voting intentions (Huddy & Khatib, 2007), and positive attitudes towards social change that benefits the ingroup (Iyer et al., 2003). On the other hand, defensively oriented national attachments seem to be linked to negative inter and intragroup outcomes. For example, nationalism predicted negative outgroup attitudes, including hostility (Li & Brewer, 2004), intolerance (Blank & Schmidt, 2003), and prejudice (Zick et al., 2008). National narcissism showcases a more subtle outgroup hostility (Golec de Zavala et al., 2019) in the forms of threat sensitivity (Cichocka et al., 2016; Golec de Zavala et al., 2016) and lower intergroup solidarity (Górska et al., 2020). However, some authors argue that patriotism might also have negative consequences (Bar-Tal & Staub, 1997; Johnson, 1997; Reykowski, 1997). In that regard, Staub and colleagues (Schatz et al., 1999; Staub, 1997) conceptualize patriotism as a two-dimensional construct. Specifically, they differentiate between two forms of patriotism based on how uncritically attached one feels to their country. Blind patriotism is thus defined as a biased positive evaluation of the country's practices highlighted by the glorification of the national group (Roccas et al., 2006). Both blind patriotism and national narcissism contain elements of an uncritical devotion to one's nation. However, while collective narcissists seek recognition as a response to their hypersensitivity to criticism (Golec de Zavala et al., 2016), blind patriots are more passive: they avoid criticism by unrealistically idealizing their nation (Schatz et al., 1999).
The counterpart of this blind national devotion, constructive patriotism, is characterized by a critical loyalty to one's country by questioning and criticizing current policies to create positive social change. Unlike more conventional forms of secure national attachment, constructive patriots can critically evaluate their nation's present state and work to improve it (Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016).
In summary, while both types of patriotism highlight positive emotions related to the country, blind patriots view criticism and social action as a form of national disloyalty. For example, a blind Bosnian patriot would support governmental decisions regardless of whether they would compromise their fellow citizens and would view individuals who oppose the Bosnian government as traitors. On the other hand, constructive Bosnian patriots would recognize individuals trying to change Bosnia and Herzegovina for the better as a welcome addition to Bosnian society.
Patriotism and Social Entrepreneurship Intentions
While, to our knowledge, previous studies have not attempted to study how national identity relates to social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs with a socially-oriented career identity were shown to focus on activities that have the highest potential for social change (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011). R. Jones and colleagues (2008) hypothesize that individuals gradually develop their social entrepreneur identities. Potential venture founders focus on social entrepreneurship by strongly identifying with a community, observing its present problems, rejecting conventional institutional and governmental solutions to that problem, and suppressing attempts to underplay the importance of these issues. In other words, social entrepreneurship intentions might be increased by 1) feeling attached to the country, 2) striving for the country to be better, and 3) feeling highly responsible for solving its issues. Therefore, we propose that becoming a social entrepreneur might involve strong positive feelings for one's country and perceived obligations to improve its present state.
The difference in attitudes towards social change inherent in constructive and blind patriotism has important implications for civic engagement, social innovation, and progressivism. For example, a critical mindset goes beyond current solutions and redefines problems by providing different paradigms about possible outcomes (Pithers & Soden, 2000). Possessing the skill to evaluate the present critically is crucial in developing civic responsibility (García-González & Ramírez-Montoya, 2021). Cruz-Sandoval and colleagues (2023) linked critical thinking with different dispositions relevant to social entrepreneurs: self-control, leadership, social awareness, and social value. Likewise, the capacity to critically evaluate entrepreneurial tasks seems to contribute to forming social entrepreneurship intentions (Bergner et al., 2022; Hockerts, 2017; Kruse et al., 2019).
Similarly, the critical component inherent in constructive patriotism might promote an orientation toward the needs of ingroup members. A body of work seems to support this idea. Constructive patriotism seems to be related to a higher perceived discrepancy between the present and ideal country representations (Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016, Study 3), which might be an inherent skill of critical thinkers (Lewin, 2013; Pithers & Soden, 2000; Rothì et al., 2005). Indeed, Williams and colleagues (2008) connected constructive patriotism with higher levels of critical thinking and concern for civil liberties, while blind patriotism correlated negatively with both variables. Richey (2011) found that constructive patriotism increased civic participation intentions, while blind national loyalty predicted fewer intentions to tackle societal problems.
Furthermore, constructive patriotism seems to predict more active forms of care for fellow ingroup members, such as political engagement (Rupar et al., 2021), and greater tendencies to help and contribute to the nation (Marzęcki, 2020; Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016, Study 3), as well as activism intentions and behavior (Chaitin et al., 2021). Elban and Aslan (2023) connected constructive patriotism to active citizenship behavior such as political literacy, participation and protest, and social responsibility. As a case in point, heterosexual LGBT activists in the United States are likely to explain their motivations by highlighting that to be better, their society should become more fair and open (Russell, 2011).
These findings imply that constructive but not blind patriots might show greater motivations for ingroup contributions. Constructive patriotism should strengthen behaviors with an underlying prosocial component by making current issues that plague society more salient. Constructive patriots should strive to make their nation a better place to live. By following this logic, one can ask oneself how constructive patriotism can be used to foster activities targeting social innovation, such as social entrepreneurship.
The Mediating Role of Collective Action
One possible construct that could explain the relationship between patriotism and social entrepreneurship is collective action intentions. Collective action refers to behaviors aimed at overturning inequality and producing long-term positive change (Leach et al., 2006; van de Vyver & Abrams, 2017; van Zomeren et al., 2008; Wright et al., 1990). Examples of these actions include participating in political protests, signing petitions for social change, voting for political candidates who aim to produce long-term change, and donating money to social change causes. The social identity model of collective action (van Zomeren et al., 2008; van Zomeren et al., 2012) proposes that motivations for collective action emerge when individuals become aware that their group is in a disadvantaged position and understand that they have the opportunity to change things in their favor. One must become firmly attached to a specific cause to engage in collective action. For example, politicized identity, defined as strong identification with social movement groups (Simon & Klandermans, 2001), was found to be the strongest predictor of social action intentions (van Zomeren et al., 2008; van Zomeren et al., 2012; Stürmer & Simon, 2004a, 2004b).
Furthermore, aside from a strong group identification, one needs to perceive social injustice (Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996; Klandermans, 2002; van Zomeren et al., 2008) and believe that one's group is capable of making positive societal changes (van Zomeren et al., 2008). On the other hand, beliefs that the social system can justify the needs of its citizens might hinder collective action intentions (Jost et al., 2004). In general, this line of research emphasized that social action intentions are determined by a strong relationship towards the ingroup and awareness that things should and can change for the better.
Individuals with strongly developed collective action intentions might be more motivated to engage in specific ventures related to achieving social change. For example, the tendency to engage in collective actions successfully predicted social change action on the behavioral level (e.g., participation in social-political protests; Giguère & Lalonde, 2010; Wlodarczyk et al., 2017). Qualitative research complements these findings by suggesting that participants with a strong motivation to change their community usually report being members of different organizations that tackle important issues in their environment (Messinger, 2011; Pachi & Barrett, 2012; Pachi et al., 2014).
Social entrepreneurship ventures can be seen as a venue for people to pursue positive social change. Montgomery and colleagues (2012) advocate that social entrepreneurship is a collaborative effort to create social good. Their idea emphasizes that social entrepreneurship presents a synergistic endeavor of individuals, groups, and institutions focusing on collective action. Collective movements can provide organizational goals as foundations for creating new social institutions (Rao et al., 2000). On the individual level, collective action seekers may use social organizations to achieve social change (Spear, 2006). Creating a socially oriented business enables access to political structures, legal advantages, and opportunities to form meaningful alliances (Tarrow, 1993). Therefore, collective action intentions might be a significant motivator in pursuing social entrepreneurship.
On the other hand, social entrepreneurs facilitate collective movements by acting on their initial intentions for collective change (Meyer, 2020). Specifically, one can understand collective action and social entrepreneurship as deeply intertwined but distinct processes. Social entrepreneurship represents a concretization of a previously formed collective action intention.
This line of work highlights that the critical component of country love could be crucial in understanding why some patriots seek social change and others do not. In other words, constructive patriots might be more willing to seek collective action to improve their country. Collective action intentions might promote the search for more sophisticated solutions to the country's present problems. One possibility for constructive patriots with collective action intentions might be to create businesses that directly tackle social problems and attempt to fight outdated policies (Montgomery et al., 2012). Therefore, higher collective action intentions might explain the relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions.
The Present Work
The present set of studies aims to extend the previous literature on patriotism and collective action by identifying mechanisms that might explain how two different types of patriotism relate to social entrepreneurship. By highlighting that the nation can change for the better (Chaitin et al., 2021; Marzęcki, 2020; Richey, 2011; Rupar et al., 2021; Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016; Williams et al., 2008), constructive patriotism should positively correlate with social entrepreneurship intentions (Hypothesis 1). Because it lacks a critical relationship with the nation, we expect blind patriotism not to be related to social entrepreneurship intentions (Hypothesis 2).
Also, we expect the positive relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions to be explained indirectly through collective action intentions. As mentioned previously, social entrepreneurship aims to solve fundamental social and community problems; high collective intentions could thus promote the tendency to engage in behaviors that produce social change (Giguère & Lalonde, 2010; Wlodarczyk et al., 2017). In other words, we expect that collective action intentions should mediate the relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions (Hypothesis 3). We do not expect this mediation effect to hold when considering blind patriotism as a predictor of social entrepreneurship intentions (Hypothesis 4).
We conducted two studies to test these hypotheses. Study 1 presents initial evidence of the positive relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions through collective action intentions. We also measured blind patriotism in Study 2, which allowed us to understand whether our proposed relationships are specific only to the constructive dimension of patriotism. Our studies extend the existing literature in two ways. First, previous work did not attempt to connect different forms of patriotism to social entrepreneurship. By showing how constructive patriotism might be related to social entrepreneurship intentions, it could be possible to view patriotism as a specific mechanism to increase tendencies to engage in socially-oriented entrepreneurship. Second, the successful implementation of social entrepreneurship has important implications for the quality of life in society. If fostering a strong critical outlook towards one's nation is related to social entrepreneurship intentions, one can contribute to the active mobilization of citizens in solving social problems and becoming more engaged in the community.
The local Ethics Committee has approved the studies, and consent was obtained from all participants. Across all studies, we followed APA ethics rules, reporting all measures and conditions. We describe our sampling plan, all data exclusions, and all measures in both studies. Data were analyzed using R (R Core Team, 2021), Version 4.0.4, using the packages dplyr (Wickham et al., 2020), psych (Revelle, 2019), and GPArotation (Bernaards & Jennrich, 2005) for data cleaning and preparation, Hmisc (Harrell, 2022) and lavaan (Rosseel, 2012) for correlational and mediation analyses. Datasets, analysis code, and research materials are available (see Simić, 2023).
Study 1
We conducted Study 1 to explore the interplay between constructive patriotism, collective action, and social entrepreneurship intentions. Additionally, we aimed to provide initial evidence of the hypothesized mediation effect of collective action intentions.
Method
Participants
Adults fluent in Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian residing in Bosnia and Herzegovina during data collection were eligible for participation. We recruited participants by sharing the online study link on social media and internet forums and using the snowball sampling procedure. A total of 329 participants completed the questionnaire. After removing careless responses (see below), we were left with 313 valid responses (Mage = 25.84, SDage = 11.05, Nmale = 81, Nfemale = 230, Nother = 2). Most participants identified as Bosniak (94%), while the remaining participants reported being Serbs, Croats or Others. By following Schoemann and colleagues (2017), we ran a sensitivity power analysis for a simple mediation model (Model 4, Hayes, 2018) using the Monte Carlo power analysis approach (1,000 replications; 20,000 draws per replication) for indirect effects. With our sample size and assuming weak correlations between the predictor, mediator, and outcome variables (r = .21), it was possible to detect a significant indirect effect (b = .03) with power of .80 and α = .05.
Materials and Procedure
After giving informed consent, all participants provided their socio-demographic information and filled out the Constructive Patriotism Scale (Schatz et al., 1999), the Collective Action Intentions Scale (Lantos et al., 2020; Tausch et al., 2011), the social entrepreneurship Intentions Scale (Wu et al., 2020), and a measure to detect careless responses. The study lasted approximately 5 minutes. A description of the mentioned measures follows.
Constructive Patriotism
We measured constructive patriotism with a seven-item scale (e.g., ''If you love Bosnia and Herzegovina, you should notice its problems and work to correct them''), originally a part of the Constructive and Blind Patriotism scale (Schatz et al., 1999). In this measure, participants needed to report their level of agreement/disagreement with all items on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Collective Action Intentions
By following previous work in measuring collective action intentions (Lantos et al., 2020; Tausch et al., 2011), we constructed a six-item scale to measure intentions to engage in actions to improve Bosnian society. We included the following behaviors: attending lectures about improving citizens' position in Bosnia and Herzegovina, actively participating in workshops about social issues in Bosnia and Herzegovina, voting for political candidates who aim to improve Bosnian society, participating in demonstrations that aim to improve the position of citizens in Bosnia and Herzegovina, donating money to organizations that aim to improve the Bosnian way of life, and signing petitions to improve the lives of citizens in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Participants answered all items using a seven-point scale (1 = not likely at all, 7 = very likely).
Social Entrepreneurship Intentions
To measure inclinations to engage in social entrepreneurship, we used the scale developed by Wu and colleagues (2020), which was based on previous work by Douglas and Shepherd (2002), Thompson (2009), Hockerts (2017), and Liñán and Chen (2009). Participants answered this four-item measure (e.g., ''I expect that at some point in the future, I will be involved in launching an organization that aims to solve social problems'') using a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Careless Responses
We used the Self-Reported Single Item (SRSI; Meade & Craig, 2012) to detect and exclude participants who provided careless responses. Participants were asked to respond to whether their data should be used in further analyses with a yes/no answer. We included only participants who answered with ''yes''.
Results and Discussion
Because all measures were used on a sample of Bosnian participants for the first time, we found it relevant to explore their component structure. We conducted a principal components analysis on all three measures and used parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) to decide the optimal number of components to be extracted. As expected, a one-component solution was suggested for the three measures with factor loadings ranging between .37 and .84.1 All measures showed acceptable to very good internal consistencies.
Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics and the correlations between the study variables. Constructive patriotism correlated positively and significantly with collective action and social entrepreneurship intentions. Collective action intentions also positively and significantly correlated with social entrepreneurship intentions.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between the Study Variables
| Variable | M | SD | α | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Constructive patriotism | 5.75 | 1.08 | .82 | .56** | .14* | |
| 2. Collective action intentions | 4.89 | 1.48 | .83 | .36** | ||
| 3. Social entrepreneurship intentions | 3.26 | 1.33 | .67 |
Note. M and SD represent the means and standard deviations of the study variables. Α represents the internal consistency coefficient.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
Finally, we tested a simple mediation model (Model 4; Hayes, 2018) with constructive patriotism as the predictor, collective action intentions as the mediator, and social entrepreneurship intentions as the outcome variable. We used the bootstrapping procedure on 10,000 bootstrapped samples to determine the significance of the indirect effect. Figure 1 contains the tested mediation model. Collective action intentions significantly mediated the effect of constructive patriotism on social entrepreneurship intentions, b = .25, 95% CI [.18, .35]. In other words, higher levels of intentions toward collective actions might explain the relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions. The results did not change when controlling for participants' ethnicity (see Supplemental Materials, Simić, 2023).
Figure 1
Study 1: The Tested Mediation Model Containing Constructive Patriotism as the Predictor, Collective Action Intentions as the Mediator, and Social Entrepreneurship Intentions as the Outcome Variable
Note. The figure contains unstandardized regression coefficients for each path. 95% CIs for each path are shown in brackets. R2 indicates the estimated coefficient of (multiple) determination.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Study 1 provided initial evidence that constructive patriotism is positively related to social entrepreneurship intentions (Hypothesis 1) and that this relationship might be explained by higher levels of collective action intentions (Hypothesis 3).
Study 2
Following recent practices in mediaton analysis (e.g., Fiedler et al., 2011), Study 1 failed to consider any alternative explanations for our results. In that regard, we ran Study 2, which included a measure of blind patriotism to understand whether it is also positively related to social entrepreneurship intentions. Additionally, due to the correlational nature of our data, we found it relevant to replicate the mediation effects identified in Study 1 (Cumming, 2012; Fiedler et al., 2011; Fritz et al., 2012). Finally, because the relationship between political attitudes and national identity is robust (e.g., Feldman & Johnston, 2014; Schatz et al., 1999; Wolak & Dawkins, 2017), we decided to explore whether controlling for participants' political orientation changes our results.
Method
Participants
We invited participants currently residing in Bosnia and Herzegovina by advertising the online questionnaire form on social media and internet forums (Facebook and Reddit), and using the snowball sampling strategy. We used the Monte Carlo power analysis approach for mediation models (Schoemann et al., 2017) to plan our sample size. To detect the mediation effect from Study 1 (b = .20), we needed to collect at least 100 responses when assuming correlations estimated in Study 1, with a power of .80 and α = .05. However, we decided to settle for double that number (N = 200). We did not detect any careless responses based on the SRSI. Our sample size consisted of 201 valid participants (Nmale = 56, Nfemale = 144, Nother = 1) with an average age of 26 years (M = 25.77, SD = 10.42). Bosniaks represented 75%, while Serbs and Croats occupied approximately 10% each of our total sample. The remaining participants identified as Others. With our sample size, detecting a significant mediation effect (b = .05) was possible when assuming weak relations between the variables (r = .26) and considering power at .80 and α = .05.
Materials and Procedure
After giving consent, we asked participants to provide us with their demographic information, such as gender, age, and political orientation (1 = extremely left, 7 = extremely right). Then, all participants filled out the Blind and Constructive Patriotism Scale (Schatz et al., 1999), the Collective Action Intentions Scale (Lantos et al., 2020; Tausch et al., 2011), the Social Entrepreneurship Intentions Scale (Wu et al., 2020), and the SRSI. The study lasted approximately 10 minutes. We will briefly describe the Blind Patriotism scale because it was not used in Study 1.
Blind Patriotism
We measured blind patriotism with the second part of the Constructive and Blind Patriotism Scale (Schatz et al., 1999) consisting of eleven items2 (e.g., ''Bosnia and Herzegovina is virtually always right.'') where participants reported their level of agreement/disagreement with all items on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Results and Discussion
Table 2 contains the descriptive statistics and correlational relationships between the study variables. A principal components analysis using the parallel approach for components extraction recommended a two-component solution for the Constructive and Blind Patriotism Scale. We identified three problematic items (Blind patriotism – Item 4, Blind patriotism – Item 6, and Blind patriotism – Item 11) based on the marker index (Gallucci & Perugini, 2007) that we excluded from further analyses. Component 1 (blind patriotism) explained 23% of data variance, with component loadings ranging from .44 to .74. Component 2 (constructive patriotism) was responsible for 18% of variation, and its items showed loadings from .48 to .80.3
Table 2
Study 2: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between the Study Variables
| Variable | M | SD | α | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Constructive patriotism | 5.69 | 1.01 | .80 | .00 | .41*** | .18** | -.10 | |
| 2. Blind Patriotism | 2.63 | 1.13 | .76 | -.02 | .04 | .29*** | ||
| 3. Collective action intentions | 5.06 | 1.36 | .85 | .39*** | .10 | |||
| 4. Social entrepreneurship intentions | 3.56 | 1.43 | .67 | .14* | ||||
| 5. Political orientation | 2.90 | 1.62 |
Note. M and SD represent the means and standard deviations of the study variables. α represents the internal consistency coefficient. We could not calculate the α coefficient for political orientation since it is a single-item measure.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 2 shows that constructive patriotism correlated positively with collective actions and social entrepreneurship intentions. On the other hand, we did not find significant correlations between those variables and blind patriotism. We tested the mediation model containing constructive and blind patriotism as predictors, collective action intentions as a mediator, and social entrepreneurship intentions as the outcome variable (see Figure 2) using the bootstrapping approach on 10,000 bootstrapped samples (Hayes, 2018).
Figure 2
Study 2: The Tested Mediation Model Containing Constructive and Binding Patriotism as the Predictors, Collective Action Intentions as the Mediator, and Social Entrepreneurship Intentions as the Outcome Variable
Note. The figure contains unstandardized regression coefficients for each path. 95% CIs for each path are shown in brackets. R2 indicates the estimated coefficient of (multiple) determination.
* p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Replicating Study 1's results, collective action intentions significantly mediated the relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions, b = .22, 95% CI [.12, .34]. The same mediation effect did not hold when considering blind patriotism as the predictor variable, b = -.01, 95% CI [-.08, .05]. Finally, the mediation effect of collective action intentions was stronger for constructive than blind patriotism, b = .24, 95% CI [.12, .37]. The results did not change when controlling for political orientation and participants' ethnicity (see Supplemental Materials, Simić, 2023).
Study 2 provided evidence in favor of our study hypotheses. Constructive (Hypothesis 1) but not blind patriotism (Hypothesis 2) was positively linked with social entrepreneurship intentions. Furthermore, higher levels of collective action intentions mediated the relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions (Hypothesis 3), which was not the case when blind patriotism was considered as the predictor (Hypothesis 4).
General Discussion
We conducted the present set of studies to examine how different modes of patriotism relate to intentions to engage in a social entrepreneurship venture. Study 1 provided preliminary findings of a positive relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions and the mediation effect of collective action intentions. Study 2 replicated the correlational patterns from Study 1 and once again identified collective action intentions as a significant mediator in the relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions. We also did not find evidence of a significant relationship between blind patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions. Furthermore, the estimated indirect effect through collective action intentions was stronger for constructive than blind patriotism, providing more evidence that this effect is specific only when considering constructive patriotism as a predictor of social entrepreneurship intentions (Coutts & Hayes, 2023; Hayes, 2018).
Our findings extend the existing literature about patriotism and social change-seeking (Chaitin et al., 2021; Marzęcki, 2020; Richey, 2011; Rupar et al., 2021; Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016; Williams et al., 2008) as well as collective action intentions (Giguère & Lalonde, 2010; Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996; Klandermans, 2002; van Zomeren et al., 2008; Wlodarczyk et al., 2017) to one specific activity related to resolving civic and social problems, namely social entrepreneurship. First, we found evidence of a positive relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions (Hypothesis 1). On the other hand, blind patriotism was not related to social entrepreneurship intentions (Hypothesis 2). These findings suggest that feeling attached to one's country might be a significant, but not crucial, component in pursuing social change through social entrepreneurship (R. Jones et al., 2008). Furthermore, we found a robust and significant indirect effect of constructive patriotism through collective action intentions in line with our mediation hypothesis (Hypothesis 3). It seems that showing love for the country in an unbiased and critical manner might foster the tendency to seek positive social change and thus be positively related to intentions to pursue business ventures that might contribute to these changes.
On the other hand, collective action intentions did not mediate the relationship between blind patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions (Hypothesis 4), suggesting that to be ready to seek changes, one needs to observe the situation in their country critically and not just showcase blind love to it. While high levels of positive emotions towards the nation are needed for an individual to seek social change (Simon & Klandermans, 2001; van Zomeren et al., 2008; van Zomeren et al., 2012), patriotism is not the only necessary factor in predicting whether an individual intends to seek social change. By not being able to observe that the situation in their country is far from ideal, the motivation to change things for the better might not develop (Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996; Klandermans, 2002; van Zomeren et al., 2008). In line with previous work, constructive, but not blind patriotism, related positively with intentions to achieve positive social change (i.e., collective action, Chaitin et al., 2021; Elban & Aslan, 2023; Rupar et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2008). Therefore, without the capacity to assess the state of the country critically (Lewin, 2013; Pithers & Soden, 2000; Rothì et al., 2005; Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016; Williams et al., 2008), the motivation to change things for the better might not develop (Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996; Klandermans, 2002; van Zomeren et al., 2008). Therefore, constructive patriotism might direct individuals towards collective action tendencies.
Furthermore, collective action tendencies predicted social entrepreneurship intentions. In line with the collective social entrepreneurship perspectives (Meyer, 2020; Montgomery et al., 2012; Spear, 2006), being motivated by collective actions might serve as a platform for forming social entrepreneurship intentions. Because social entrepreneurship can be seen as a specific form of activity to create positive change (Gupta et al., 2020), intentions to carry out a social entrepreneurship venture might emerge from a previously formed collective goal (Spear, 2006; Tarrow, 1993). In other words, individuals with greater intentions for collective actions could consider these activities worth pursuing because they might perceive social entrepreneurship as a specific framework through which collective action can be achieved. For example, constructive patriots might see social entrepreneurship as a tool to develop their democratic and civic skills (Germak & Robinson, 2014), create something of value for the greater community (Austin et al., 2006), and achieve an informal influence on political leaders to improve the present social situation (Alvord et al., 2004; Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). This pattern should not be evident for individuals with greater blind patriotism. Because that kind of identification is related to biased evaluation and glorification of the national group (Roccas et al., 2006; Staub, 1992, 1997; Schatz et al., 1999), individuals might not be able to see that their country needs positive change and thus seek social entrepreneurship ventures.
The studies have two important implications. Theoretically, our studies suggest that factors affecting social entrepreneurship intentions might go beyond stable personality traits and extend to individual differences in national attachment. Because we found a positive relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions in both studies, feeling a strong love for one's country might be relevant in pursuing a business with a social agenda. However, understanding the need for social changes and reforms and their active pursuit might present more crucial prerequisites in pursuing social entrepreneurship. Practically, our results corroborate recent work emphasizing the role of critical thinking in successful social entrepreneurship ventures (Bergner et al., 2022; Cruz-Sandoval et al., 2023; García-González & Ramírez-Montoya, 2021; Hockerts, 2017; Kruse et al., 2019). By encouraging different forms and venues to think about the quality of current practices and policies in a country, it is possible to undertake the first step to motivate citizens to seek solutions to issues that plague the community. While a critical mindset benefits potential social entrepreneurs, they should also feel emotionally attached to their nation (R. Jones et al., 2008). Therefore, fostering constructive patriotism might contribute to the rise of social entrepreneurship ventures or at least implementation ideas.
The relationship between patriotism and social entrepreneurship might be particularly relevant in the context of developing nations (such as Bosnia and Herzegovina) that are constantly faced with a plethora of negative socioeconomic processes such as unemployment, negative migration trends, and citizenship passivity (Čičić et al., 2019; B. Jones et al., 2013). Increasing the intentions to become and work as social entrepreneurs makes it possible to use available human capital to solve social issues and actively contain negative migration trends. Specifically, social entrepreneurship could indirectly help raise the quality of life in these countries. Social organizations led by patriotic individuals will probably remain related to their country of origin even if their influence expands regionally or globally. These organizations might help with the often slow development processes of their nations. Some possible benefits might include paying taxes locally, preferring local suppliers and products, and hiring like-minded individuals willing to change the country. Thus, developing critically minded patriotic citizens might be the first step in motivating the emergence of social entrepreneurship in the community.
Our work is not without limitations. First, by employing a cross-sectional design, we could not make causal conclusions about the reported findings. Second, our exploratory Study 1 assessed only constructive patriotism without measuring its blind counterpart. While we corrected this limitation in Study 2, due to the correlational nature of our data, it might be beneficial to replicate the pattern of interplay between the two patriotism modes to evaluate the robustness of our findings. Third, the specific cultural context binds and determines national identification processes (Pehrson et al., 2009), especially in culturally diverse societies and nations like Bosnia and Herzegovina. For example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosniaks show greater identification with the Bosnian national identity, while Serbs identify with their ethnicity more (see Turjačanin et al., 2017). Because our sample size was not balanced by ethnicity (the majority consisted of Bosniak participants), generalizing these results to other ethnic, national, and cultural contexts should be cautiously approached.
The directions for future research stem from the limitations of this work. First, as mentioned previously, our conclusions remain at a correlational level. Future research might attempt to manipulate constructive patriotism (see Gangl et al., 2016) and assess its causal relationship to social entrepreneurship and collective action intentions4. Another possibility would be to employ longitudinal designs to study the temporal unfolding of the relationship between patriotism and social entrepreneurship. These studies might be relevant in understanding when the relationship between constructive patriotism and social entrepreneurship intentions is the strongest and identify relevant periods where fostering constructive patriotism might generate the formation of social entrepreneurship intentions. Second, future studies could address the limitation of the underrepresentation of Croat and Serb participants in our work by attempting to replicate these findings within different contexts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Third, assessing how people perceive patriotic social entrepreneurs was outside the scope of this work. Some research suggests that the public generally mistrusts the authenticity of social organizations (DiMaggio & Anheier, 1990; Miller et al., 2012; Sud et al., 2009). Therefore, understanding whether the disclosure of constructive patriotism by a potential social entrepreneur might help to ameliorate these negative effects might be a worthwhile research question for future studies. Fourth, our studies focused on two extreme modes of national identification: constructive and blind patriotism. However, literature on group processes and social identity recognizes a form of patriotism that lies between these extremes. How conventional patriotism, defined as positive emotions and love towards the nation without biased national glorification and a critical attitude towards current national practices (Roccas et al., 2006; Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016), affects collective action and SE intentions remained an open question in this study. This is specifically relevant since conventional patriotism was also related to other (more passive) forms of citizenship engagement (Rupar et al., 2021) but less intention to contribute to the nation's well-being (Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016, Study 3). Also, it might be beneficial to understand how social entrepreneurship intentions relate to other insecure national attachment types. For example, measuring collective narcissism and blind patriotism might unravel whether avoidance or defiance of national criticism hinders some national identifiers in developing social entrepreneurship intentions.
To conclude, we have found that constructive patriotism might be related to social entrepreneurship intentions via higher collective action intentions. To be willing to tackle critical social problems within society, loving one's nation is not enough. Before deciding to act, we must also be aware that things can and should be changed for the better.