Unveiling the dynamics of entrepreneurship among disadvantaged communities in developing economies: a cognitive perspective

Johri, Amar et al. Article Unveiling the dynamics of entrepreneurship among disadvantaged communities in developing economies: a cognitive perspective Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Johri, Amar et al. (2024) : Unveiling the dynamics of entrepreneurship among disadvantaged communities in developing economies: a cognitive perspective, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2373352 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326396 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Unveiling the dynamics of entrepreneurship among disadvantaged communities in developing economies: a cognitive perspective Amar Johri, Mohammed Wamique Hisam, Mohammad Asif, Mohammad Shahfaraz Khan, Md. Faisal-E-Alam, Mohd Yasir Arafat, Zuhaib Ahmad & Asma Zaheer To cite this article: Amar Johri, Mohammed Wamique Hisam, Mohammad Asif, Mohammad Shahfaraz Khan, Md. Faisal-E-Alam, Mohd Yasir Arafat, Zuhaib Ahmad & Asma Zaheer (2024) Unveiling the dynamics of entrepreneurship among disadvantaged communities in developing economies: a cognitive perspective, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2373352, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2373352 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2373352 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 26 Jul 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 908 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 EntrEprEnEurship and innovation | rEsEarch articlE Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2373352 Unveiling the dynamics of entrepreneurship among disadvantaged communities in developing economies: a cognitive perspective amar Johria , Mohammed Wamique hisamb, Mohammad asifa , Mohammad shahfaraz Khanc, Md. Faisal-E-alamd , Mohd Yasir arafate, Zuhaib ahmadf and asma Zaheerg aCollege of administrative and Financial science, saudi electronic university, Riyadh, saudia arabia; bDepartment of Management, College of commerce and Business administration, Dhofar university, oman; cDepartment of Business administration, College of economics and Business administration, university of technology and applied sciences, salalah, oman; dDepartment of Management studies, Begum Rokeya university, Rangpur, Bangladesh; eDivision of Research and Development, Lovely Professional university, Phagwara, Punjab, india; fCentre of professional studies, aMu, aligarh; gDeparment of Marketing Faculty of economics and administration, King abdulaziz university, Jeddah, kingdom of saudi arabia ABSTRACT Entrepreneurship helps to mainstream the disadvantaged. in order to design policy for the promotion of entrepreneurship among disadvantaged people a proper understanding of entrepreneurship is imperative and cognition has been considered as the best interpreter of entrepreneurship. this study aimed to explore the driving forces and hindrances that influence disadvantaged individuals in their decision to initiate entrepreneurial endeavors. We are using a sample of 1173 people taken from the low-income population of india. the data is analyzed through the use of the logistic regression technique. the result reflects that attitude, subjective norms, self-efficacy, perceived opportunities and role models encourage indian disadvantaged to start business. this research contributes to two existing theories: challenge-based entrepreneurship and the theory of planned behavior. it also sheds light on a previously understudied group - disadvantaged entrepreneurs in developing economies. this knowledge can be used by policymakers to create programs that encourage entrepreneurship at the grassroots level. 1. Introduction the existing literature primarily focuses on examining how positive circumstances, such as prior entrepreneurial experience, self-efficacy (schmutzler et al., 2019), social capital and education, the ability to recognize opportunities and the presence of a supportive institutional environment, influence entrepreneurship. however, challenge-based entrepreneurship theory suggests that individuals adapt to challenging circumstances, which can foster creativity and work discipline, ultimately driving entrepreneurial endeavors. it recognizes that individuals facing challenging situations encounter both barriers to overcome and strengths to leverage. in recent times, a fledgling area of research has emerged, focusing on delving into the connection between various personal challenges and the world of entrepreneurship (Morris & tucker, 2023). this research also explores the strategies employed by entrepreneurs to overcome these challenges, as highlighted by researchers. however, our understanding in this field remains limited when it comes to comprehending why individuals facing low socio-economic situations, particularly those with limited incomes, choose to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits in emerging economic contexts. this challenge is especially pertinent within the substantial portion of the population that has been marginalized. © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT Mohd Yasir arafat [email protected] Division of Research and Development Lovely Professional university, Phagwara 144411, Punjab, india; Zuhaib ahmad [email protected] Centre of professional studies, aMu, aligarh. this article has been corrected with minor changes. these changes do not impact the academic content of the article. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2373352 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY received 23 october 2023 revised 18 May 2024 accepted 12 June 2024 SUBJECTS Business, Management and accounting; industry & industrial studies; Economics KEYWORDS Marginalized; india; disadvantaged entrepreneurs; cognition; developing economies REVIEWING EDITOR Eric liguori, Florida state university, united states 2 a. Johri Etal. Within the indian context, economic inequality stands as a pervasive issue, a point underscored. this inequality is often intertwined with social characteristics, as discussed by authors, and is influenced by institutional norms, as revealed by researchers. consequently, there is a pressing need to unravel the intricate dynamics behind the unconventional entrepreneurial activities undertaken by this outlier segment of the population. the primary objective of our study is to advance our comprehension of challenge-based entrepreneurship theory, as articulated by some authors. challenge-based entrepreneurship theory differs from the traditional view of entrepreneurs being driven by opportunity. it proposes that individuals facing various challenges such as economic hardship, social exclusion, or limited resources might be more likely to pursue entrepreneurship. our research focuses on investigating the factors that exert influence on entrepreneurship among marginalized entrepreneurs operating within emerging economies. this research contributes to existing knowledge in several significant ways. Firstly, it enhances challenge-based entrepreneurship theory by providing empirical support. in doing so, we conduct a quantitative study involving 1173 marginalized entrepreneurs from low-income backgrounds in india also suggested by Brito etal. (2022), and pidduck and clark (2021). secondly, it extends the theory of planned behavior (ajzen, 1991) by incorporating constructs related to opportunity, role models, and the fear of failure, and tests these constructs in a disadvantaged context of developing economy. as scholars have urged to extend the theory of planned behavior by adding different contextual variables and test this model into different context so as to enhance its applicability and prove its soundness (arafat et al., 2020; saleem et al., 2022). thirdly, the study contributes to the growing body of research on entrepreneurship by amplifying the voices of disadvantaged entrepreneurs from emerging economies, a group often overlooked and worthy of study (Maalaoui et al., 2020). as emphasized by researchers, it is crucial to explore these neglected actors and locations. lastly, the study carries important implications for policymakers aiming to promote entrepreneurship at the grassroots level. as this research explains what can motivate or discourage people to become entrepreneur. in this study, we define entrepreneurship as creation of new venture and disadvantaged entrepreneurship as creation of new venture by poor people who face low socio-economic situation. 2.Theoretical underpinnings and hypotheses to navigate the landscape of entrepreneurial intention among the underprivileged, this study adopts a modified version of a theory of planned Behavior (ajzen, 1991) as its framework. this choice is underpinned by several compelling reasons. First, the theory of planned Behavior (tpB) stands as a widely accepted cognitive model in the field and some recent studies have urged to use it (santos, 2023). second, it boasts a solid theoretical foundation and has garnered empirical validation through numerous studies (Yasir et al., 2023; pranić, 2023; Wang et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2022; aliedan et al., 2022; Krueger etal., 2000; roy etal., 2017). Moreover, saleem etal. (2022) have extended the theory of planned behavior in the context of disadvantaged and found support for the theory. remarkably, tpB has accrued over 20,000 citations as per the Web of science since its publication in 1991, attesting to its applicability in explaining a wide array of planned behaviors, including entrepreneurship. Given its extensive usage by entrepreneurship scholars in the context of entrepreneurial intention, our research aligns with this tradition, focusing on the entrepreneurial intentions of disadvantaged entrepreneurs. 2.1. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) at the core of the tpB lies the premise that intention precedes every behavior. intention is the product of an individual’s ability and motivation, signifying their likelihood and determination to engage in the target behavior. this theory posits that the stronger the intention, the higher the likelihood of behavior execution. this linkage between intention and action has been corroborated by numerous studies (cai et al., 2023; li et al., 2023; starfelt sutton & White, 2016; albarracín et al., 2001; han & stoel, 2017; schlaegel & Koenig, 2014; Webb et al., 2010). ajzen (1991) outlines three antecedents of intention: personal attitude, social norms, and pBc (perceived behavioral control). ‘attitude’ is defined as the extent to which a person assesses or action in coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 3 question favorably or unfavorably. intention is contingent upon individuals’ evaluations of the behavior, founded on the expectancy-value theory (Fishbein & ajzen, 1975). this model posits that the subjective assessment of outcomes directly influences attitude in proportion to the strength of belief. ‘subjective norms’, as defined by ajzen (1991), refer to the perceived social pressure, whether approval or disapproval, exerted on an individual regarding the pursuit of a particular behavior. significant referents include family members, significant others, and friends. subjective norms can either positively or negatively influence intention formation and subsequent action. distinguishing tpB from its predecessor, the theory of reasoned action, is the addition of the construct ‘perceived behavioral control’ (pBc). pBc embodies individuals’ perceptions of the easiness or difficulty associated with executing the target behavior. unlike the locus of control (rotter, 1966), pBc aligns closely with self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982). according to Bandura, confidence in one’s ability (perceived Behavioral control) exerts a profound influence on behavior performance. it not only impacts activity selection and preparation but also influences effort expended during performance and thought patterns. the theory of planned Behavior (tpB) has long been employed to investigate entrepreneurial intention, dating back to the seminal works owing to its robust applicability, the tpB has served as a foundational model for numerous studies, often subject to alterations that enhance its efficacy. in this manuscript, we embark on an exploration of the tpB’s cognitive constructs—attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control—augmented by additional factors such as fear of failure, opportunity perception, and role models. this augmentation arises from a wealth of literature (soam et al., 2023; saleem etal., 2022; tsai etal., 2016) revealing significant relationships between these variables and the intention to initiate entrepreneurial endeavors. our study represents a fusion of individual cognitive elements, including personal attitude, perceived self-efficacy, fear of failure, and perception of opportunities, with socio-cultural perceptions encompassing perceived social norm. this research delves into the intricate interplay of individual and socio-cultural influences on the intentions of disadvantaged individuals to embark on entrepreneurial journeys. Furthermore, we empirically examine the relationship between demographic characteristics and entrepreneurial intention. 2.2. Hypotheses as previously discussed, it has been noted in the earlier section that the components of the theory of planned Behavior (tpB) – namely, attitude, social norms, and self-efficacy – collectively play a significant role in shaping intention, consequently leading to entrepreneurial actions. it is worth mentioning that the tpB was originally developed and validated in western developed world, and in indian setting, people possibly will not necessarily share the same mindset and cognition framework as their western counterparts. Moreover, a majority of studies conducted in india have predominantly focused on student samples (soam et al., 2023; Malhotra & Kiran, 2023). Given these factors, it is both reasonable and pertinent to revisit extant scholarship and reaffirm the applicability of the tpB when researching disadvantaged groups. to address this, we hypothesize as follow: h1a: Favourable attitude toward entrepreneurship positively impacts the entrepreneurial intentions of disadvantaged individuals. h1b: Favourable subjective norms toward entrepreneurship positively impact the entrepreneurial intentions of disadvantaged individuals. h1c: Belief in one’s own capabilities, as perceived self-efficacy, positively impacts the entrepreneurial intentions of disadvantaged individuals. 2.2.1. Perceived opportunities perceived opportunities has been widely recognized and validated as a catalyst for entrepreneurial activities since the groundbreaking research on opportunity and entrepreneurship by shane and venkataraman (2000). numerous studies support the idea that perceived opportunities serves as a motivating factor for individuals to embark on new business ventures (ivasciuc & ispas, 2023; McMullen & shepherd, 2006; 4 a. Johri Etal. shane etal., 2003). however, it is important to acknowledge the possibility of an illusionary effect (Baron, 1998). according to ajzen (1991), the theory of planned Behavior (tpB), an individual’s beliefs and attitudes significantly influence their behavior. When presented with a range of opportunities, entrepreneurs assess the feasibility of capitalizing on them. during this evaluation, a positive attitude may grow toward the contemplated intention and behavior (ajzen, 1991). those individuals who harbor a favorable attitude are more expected to take the initiative to launch a new enterprise (arafat et al., 2019). numerous other scholars have also conducted tests demonstrating a positive relation between these two constructs (saleem et al., 2022; honjo, 2015). Based on this foundation, we formulate the following hypothesis: h2: perceiving opportunities positively influences the entrepreneurial intentions of disadvantaged individuals. 2.2.2. Fear of failure From both economic and psychological perspectives, fear of failure exhibits distinctive characteristics (laussel & le Breton, 1995). the economic viewpoint on anxiety related to failure centers around the inverse relationship between risk-taking behavior and entrepreneurial decision-making (arenius & Minniti, 2005). researchers have aimed to address this challenging relationship by attempting to reduce the risk perception (Koellinger et al., 2013; Wagner, 2007; arenius & Minniti, 2005). From a psychological perspective (cacciotti & hayton, 2015; Gómez-araujo & chandra, 2017; vaillant & lafuente, 2007), failure is seen as a characteristic that arises from the socio-cultural context. it is influenced by ingrained societal norms, such as the belief that failure is a shameful experience, which negatively affects an individual’s attitude (hessels et al., 2011). scholars have also argued that an individual’s perception of their own capabilities plays a role in their fear of failure (saleem et al., 2022; tsai et al., 2016). consequently, the fear of encountering unforeseen challenges can reduce the likelihood of starting a new venture. the following theory emerges from the aforementioned debate: h3: the fear of failure negatively impacts the entrepreneurial intentions of disadvantaged individuals. 2.2.3. Role model this concept elucidates how humans acquire knowledge and skills by actively participating in activities and observing the actions of others, subsequently emulating them. an individual’s decision to engage in a specific activity is often influenced by the opinions and behaviors of others, either through direct examples or by serving as positive role models (akerlof & Kranton, 2000; ajzen, 1991). it is believed that people acquire knowledge by observing others who they can relate to in a specific context and setting, ideally someone who excels in the field they are interested in and aspire to succeed in – essentially, learning by example or modeling (arenius & Minniti, 2005). this significantly impacts a potential entrepreneur’s career choice and, more specifically, their decision to embark on their entrepreneurial journey (arenius & Minniti, 2005). as highlighted by van auken et al. (2006), role models play a pivotal role in boosting individuals’ motivation to become entrepreneurs, as well as enhancing their self-efficacy and confidence. consequently, entrepreneurial propensity and the chances of engaging in entrepreneurial activities are positively affected (Byrne et al., 2019; Krueger et al., 2000; Krueger, 1993). the conceptual model based on hypothesized relationships was shown in Figure 1. h4: role models exert favourable impact on entrepreneurial intentions of disadvantaged individuals. 3. Methodology We have employed data acquired and gathered by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). GEM, which was founded in 1998 by Babson college and london Business school, is a global organization dedicated to investigating the factors influencing entrepreneurial activity in diverse economies, as outlined by Bosma and schutjens (2009). this data is sourced from publicly available platforms and already published; no further permission is required for its utilization in research endeavors. Further details regarding the public release can be found from the website (https://www.gemconsortium.org/about/ wiki). the adult population survey (aps) of GEM employs an extensive questionnaire to gather data coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 5 encompassing various cognitive aspects related to entrepreneurship. these data are valuable for analyzing individuals’ inclination and aspiration to initiate their own businesses. to access the aps dataset, we utilized the GEM website (www.gemconsortium.org), which encompasses interviews of 244,470 individuals from various countries taking part in GEM study. in the initial phase, we selected data specifically for india, resulting in 3,360 observations. after filtering out individuals falling into the low-income category, we identified data from 1,173 individuals. For a comprehensive understanding of the data gathering process for the GEM aps, readers can refer to the detailed explanation provided by reynolds etal. (2005). using the GEM data provides certain advantages over gathering fresh data for this study. numerous studies using GEM data have been conducted and published in reputable journals, attesting to the validity and reliability of this dataset (schmutzler etal., 2019). apart from documenting the extent of entrepreneurial activity, our research also gathers data on a range of explanatory factors that enrich our comprehension of entrepreneurship from diverse angles, including the domain of entrepreneurship among people with low income (reynolds etal., 2005). consequently, we hold the view that the GEM dataset is a fitting and highly appropriate resource for our research inquiry. the description of variables is given as under in table 1. 3.1. Binary logistic regression model logistic regression, a statistical technique employed to evaluate the impact of various predictor variables on a binary (non-metric) dependent variable, has been employed in this research paper. this choice of technique aligns with the research’s aim of predicting and explaining a two-group dichotomous dependent variable. there are similarities between logistic regression and multiple regressions in terms of their variables. the logistic regression model can be represented as follows: Y1 X1 X2 X3 Xn= + + +…+ logistic regression plays a crucial role in elucidating the connection between independent and dependent variables by determining the optimal model fit. Moreover, it offers the advantage of not requiring assumptions about data distribution (Greene, 2002). there are two compelling reasons for employing logistic regression in this research. 1. the dependent variable, ‘disadvantaged entrepreneurs,’ exhibits a binary nature. 2. Most of the independent variables also fall into binary or categorical categories. 4. Results – descriptive statistics descriptive statistics, as presented in table 2, reveal several key insights. specifically, 14 percent of the respondents express an intention to initiate their own business, while a significant majority, comprising 61%, view entrepreneurship as a desirable career path. additionally, 64% of individuals perceive Figure 1. Hypothesized relationship. Source: authors. 6 a. Johri Etal. entrepreneurship as a prestigious career choice. Furthermore, 46% of the respondents believe that there are favorable entrepreneurial opportunities available to them, while 38% express confidence in their entrepreneurial abilities to initiate a business venture. however, it is noteworthy that 42% of the respondents harbor concerns that the fear of failure may hinder them from embarking on an entrepreneurial journey. in terms of role models, 21% of the respondents report having entrepreneurial role models who may influence their career choices. on average, the respondents have an age of 35 years. 4.1. Correlation the correlation analysis, as presented in table 3, offers initial support for the hypotheses formulated in this study. the correlation matrix highlights that all variables, with the exception of risk perception, exhibit positive and statistically significant correlations with the intention to become an entrepreneur. Furthermore, demographic factors also display positive and significant correlations with entrepreneurial intention. 4.2. Regression the primary objective of this manuscript was to examine the impact of cognition on the start-up propensity of disadvantaged individuals in india. to achieve this objective and test the hypotheses, logistic Table 1. Variables description. Variable Label Description Dependent Disadvantaged entrepreneurs Respondents aged 18 to 64 express an intention to initiate a new business. this binary variable was assessed using the following question, ‘you intend to start a new business within next three years’ (0 = no, 1 = Yes). independent attitude ‘assign a value of 1 if the respondent answers “yes” to the question, “in your country (region), do most people believe that starting a business is an attractive profession?” and a value of 0 if the answer is “no.”’ social norms this binary variable is assigned a value of 1 when the respondent answers ‘yes’ to the question, ‘in your country (region), does a person who successfully starts up a new business gain high social status and prestige?’ and a value of 0 if the answer is ‘no’. self-efficacy this binary variable is assigned a value of 1 if the individual believes they possess the knowledge, skills, and experience required to start a business, and it is assigned a value of 0 otherwise. opportunity perception this binary variable is assigned a value of 1 if the respondents, ‘see good opportunities to start a firm in the area where they live’, and it is assigned a value of 0 otherwise. Fear of failure this binary variable is assigned a value of 1 if the individual indicates that ‘fear of failure would prevent them from setting up a business’, and it is assigned a value of 0 otherwise. Role model ‘this binary variable is assigned a value of 1 if the individual personally knows someone who has started up their own business in the last 2 years, and it is assigned a value of 0 otherwise’. Control Demographic factors age age of the respondent gender gender value 1 for men and 2 for women. education the respondents’ highest level of education was assessed, and their responses were standardized into five categories: ‘0 = no education’, ‘111 = some secondary’, ‘1212 = secondary degree’, ‘1316 = post-secondary’, and ‘1720 = university bachelor’s degree or higher’. First group serves as the reference category. Work status geMWoRK3. geM harmonized work status: 3 categories: namely: Working full time, not working, retired students. Table 2. Descriptive statistics. NMinimum Maximum Mean sD Disadvantaged entrepreneurs 1173 0 1 .14 .35 attitude 1173 0 1 .61 .49 social norms 1173 0 1 .64 .48 self-efficacy 1173 0 1 .38 .49 opportunity perception 1173 0 1 .46 .50 Risk perception 1173 0 1 .42 .49 Role model 1173 0 1 .21 .41 age 1173 18 64 35.23 12.40 gender 1173 1 2 education 1172 0 1720 Work status 1173 10 30 Valid N (listwise) 877 coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 7 regression analysis was con. to ensure the goodness of fit of the model, both the hosmer and lemeshow test and the omnibus goodness-of-fit test were performed. the omnibus goodness-of-fit test evaluates the null hypothesis, which suggests that all model coefficients are equivalent to zero, is valid, and it contrasts this with the alternative hypothesis, which suggests that at least one parameter is nonzero (ramos-rodríguez et al., 2012). in our study, the null hypothesis was rejected at the 0.01 significance level, signifying that the model is a suitable fit and aligns with the required criteria (please refer to table 4 for details). additionally, the researchers performed the hosmer and lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, where the null hypothesis of model fit is retained if p > .05. as depicted in table 3, the results affirm that the model is well-fitted and suitable for this study. to investigate the impact of theory of planned behavior determinants on entrepreneurial intention disadvantaged, the first group of hypotheses was put forth. hypothesis h1a posited that the attitude of the disadvantaged group towards entrepreneurship would positively influence their entrepreneurial intention. Given that the marginal value for this variable is both positive and not more than 0.05, we cannot reject the hypothesis. Furthermore, the odds ratio for this predictor is 1.8, indicating that individuals with an entrepreneurial mindset or an interest in starting their own business are approximately twice as likely to do so compared to the general population. according to h1b, the ambition of disadvantaged persons to become entrepreneurs is positively and significantly impacted by favorable social norms. We were unable to reject this hypothesis since the marginal effect for this variable is significant and positive. according to the odds value of 1.86 for this predictor, those who view entrepreneurship as a high-status vocation are roughly twice as likely to make a business choice. self-efficacy was presented as having a favorable relationship with disadvantaged people’s ambition to start their own business in hypothesis h1c. the marginal effect for this variable is significant and positive (p .01, Wald statistics = 7.533), thus we were unable to reject the hypothesis that the perception of knowledge and abilities has a positive influence on entrepreneurial intention. individuals who possess entrepreneurial self-efficacy are almost twice more likely to embark on new ventures, as indicated by the odds ratio for this variable. according to hypothesis number two, the perception of opportunities influences the inclination to start a business favorably. the finding supports the assumption that perceived opportunities have a positive impact on start-up (p <.001; so, the hypothesis is accepted). people who see entrepreneurial chances in their region have a 2.1 times higher likelihood of establishing a business than the rest of the community, according to the odds value for the perceived opportunities factor. interestingly, the aspirations of individuals from low-income backgrounds to become entrepreneurs are not significantly affected by their fear of failure. as a result, hypothesis h3, which proposed that fear of failure has a negative effect, was rejected due to the lack of a significant marginal effect for this variable. role models are seen to encourage risk-taking, according to hypothesis number four. the findings support the hypothesis (p <.001). the odds ratio for this variable shows that the likelihood that someone would start their own business is two times higher among those who have role models. age and gender, Table 3. Correlations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Disadvantaged entrepreneurs 1 2. Personal attitude .16** 1 3. social status .14** .31** 1 4. Perceived opportunities .20** .18** .13** 1 5. Fear of failure −.04 .05 .06 .02 1 6. self-efficacy .19** .17** .13** .26** −.10** 1 7. Role models .13** .05 .03 .11** .03 .11** 1 8. age −.07* −.06 −.05 −.01 .01 −.01 .03 1 9. gender −.10** −.07* −.05 −.08* −.03 −.11** −.10** .04 1 10. education level .10** .03 .07* −.01 −.01 .05 .07* −.28** −.20** 1 11. Work status −.18** −.06 −.04 −.06 .02 −.15** −.12** −.15** .39** .11** 1 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. 14 a. Johri Etal. albarracín, d., Fishbein, M., Johnson, B. t., & Muellerleile, p. a. (2001). theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 142–161. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.142 aliedan, M. M., Elshaer, i. a., alyahya, M. a., & sobaih, a. E. E. (2022). influences of university education support on entrepreneurship orientation and entrepreneurship intention: application of theory of planned behavior. Sustainability, 14(20), 13097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013097 arafat, M. Y., Khan, a. M., saleem, i., Khan, n. a., & Khan, M. M. (2020). intellectual and cognitive aspects of women entrepreneurs in india. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 11(3), 278. https://doi.org/10.1504/iJKMs.2020.109092 arafat, M. Y., saleem, i., & dwivedi, a. K. (2019). understanding entrepreneurial intention among indian youth aspiring for self-employment. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, retrieved from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/331639601_understanding_entrepreneurial_intention_among_indian_youth_ aspiring_for_self-employment/citations arenius, p., & Minniti, M. (2005). perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-1984-x Bandura, a. (1982). self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122 Baron, r. a. (1998). cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when enterpreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 275–294. retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.org/repEc:eee :jbvent:v:13:y:1998:i:4:p:275-294 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(97)00031-1 Bosma, n., & schutjens, v. (2009). Mapping entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurial attitudes in European regions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 7(2), 191–213. retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ ids/ijesbu/v7y2009i2p191-213.html https://doi.org/10.1504/iJEsB.2009.022806 Brito, r. p. d., lenz, a. K., & pacheco, M. G. M. (2022). resilience building among small businesses in low-income neighborhoods. Journal of Small Business Management, 60(5), 1166–1201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2022.2041197 Byrne, J., Fattoum, s., & diaz Garcia, M. c. (2019). role models and women entrepreneurs: entrepreneurial superwoman has her say. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(1), 154–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12426 cacciotti, G., & hayton, J. c. (2015). Fear and entrepreneurship: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12052 cai, B., chen, Y., & ayub, a. (2023). “Quiet the Mind, and the soul Will speak”! Exploring the boundary effects of green mindfulness and spiritual intelligence on university students’ green entrepreneurial intention–Behavior link. Sustainability, 15(5), 3895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053895 Ferreira, J. J., & Fernandes, c. i. (2017). the impact of entrepreneurship education programs on student entrepreneurial orientations: three international Experiences. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47949-1_20 Ferreto, E., lafuente, E., & leiva, J. c. (2018). can entrepreneurial role models alleviate the fear of entrepreneurial failure? International Journal of Business Environment, 10(2), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1504/iJBE.2018.095809 Fishbein, M., & ajzen, i. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. addison-Wesley. retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233897090_Belief_attitude_intention_ and_behaviour_an_introduction_to_theory_and_research Gómez-araujo, E., & chandra, B. M. (2017). socio-cultural factors and youth entrepreneurship in rural regions socio-cultural factors and youth entrepreneurship in rural regions. Review of Business Management, 19(64), 200– 218. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v0i0.2695 han, t. i., & stoel, l. (2017). Explaining socially responsible consumer behavior: a meta-analytic review of theory of planned behavior. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2016.1251870 hessels, J., Grilo, i., thurik, r., & van der Zwan, p. (2011). Entrepreneurial exit and entrepreneurial engagement. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21(3), 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-010-0190-4 ivasciuc, i. s., & ispas, a. (2023). Exploring the motivations, abilities and opportunities of young entrepreneurs to engage in sustainable tourism business in the mountain area. Sustainability, 15(3), 1956. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su15031956 Keh, h. t., der Foo, M., & lim, B. c. (2002). opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: the cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.00003 Khan, a. M., arafat, M. Y., raushan, M. a., & saleem, i. (2020). Examining the relevance of intellectual capital in improving the entrepreneurial propensity among indians. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.4018/iJKM.2020010106 Khan, a. M., arafat, M. Y., raushan, M. a., saleem, i., Khan, n. a., & Khan, M. M. (2019). does intellectual capital affect the venture creation decision in india? Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-019-0106-y Khan, M. a., arafat, M. Y., & raushan, a. (2019). Measuring the influence of intellectual capital on entrepreneurial intentions: Evidences from india. International Journal of Intelligent Enterprise, 22. Kim, M. s., huruta, a. d., & lee, c. W. (2022). predictors of entrepreneurial intention among high school students in south Korea. Sustainability, 14(21), 14168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114168 Koellinger, p., Minniti, M., & schade, c. (2013). Gender differences in entrepreneurial propensity. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 75(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00689.x Krueger, n. (1993). the impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879301800101 coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 15 Krueger, n. F., reilly, M. d., & carsrud, a. l. (2000). competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(98)00033-0 laussel, d., & le Breton, M. (1995). a general equilibrium theory of firm formation based on individual unobservable skills. European Economic Review, 39(7), 1303–1319. retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eecrev/ v39y1995i7p1303-1319.html https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(94)00092-E li, c., Murad, M., & ashraf, s. F. (2023). the influence of women’s green entrepreneurial intention on green entrepreneurial behavior through university and social support. Sustainability, 15(13), 10123. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310123 Maalaoui, a., ratten, v., heilbrunn, s., Brannback, M., & Kraus, s. (2020). disadvantage entrepreneurship: decoding a new area of research. European Management Review, 17(3), 663–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12424 Malhotra, s., & Kiran, r. (2023). Examining the relationship between entrepreneurial perceived behaviour, intentions, and competencies as catalysts for sustainable growth: an indian perspective. Sustainability, 15(8), 6617. https://doi. org/10.3390/su15086617 McMullen, J. s., & shepherd, d. a. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379628 Morris, M. h., & tucker, r. (2023). the entrepreneurial mindset and poverty. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(1), 102–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1890096 noguera, M., alvarez, c., & urbano, d. (2013). socio-cultural factors and female entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0251-x pidduck, r. J., & clark, d. r. (2021). transitional entrepreneurship: Elevating research into marginalized entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 59(6), 1081–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1928149 pranić, l. (2023). What happens to the entrepreneurial intentions of Gen Z in a crony capitalist Economy amidst the covid-19 pandemic? Sustainability, 15(7), 5750. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075750 ramos-rodríguez, a. r., Medina-Garrido, J. a., & ruiz-navarro, J. (2012). determinants of hotels and restaurants entrepreneurship: a study using GEM data. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 579–587. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.08.003 reynolds, p., Bosma, n., autio, E., hunt, s., de Bono, n., servais, i., lopez-Garcia, p., & chin, n. (2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor: data collection design and implementation 1998-2003. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 205– 231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-1980-1 robinson, a. t., & Marino, l. d. (2015). overconfidence and risk perceptions: do they really matter for venture creation decisions? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(1), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11365-013-0277-0 rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976 roy, r., akhtar, F., & das, n. (2017). Entrepreneurial intention among science and technology students in india: extending the theory of planned behavior. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(4), 1013– 1041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0434-y saleem, i., arafat, M. Y., Balhareth, h. h., hussain, a., & dwivedi, a. K. (2022). cognitive aspects of disadvantaged entrepreneurs: Evidence from india. Community Development, 53(4), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1972016 santos, s. c. (2023). Editor’s note: poverty, entrepreneurship and opportunity horizons. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 28(03), 2301002. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1084946723010021 schlaegel, c., & Koenig, M. (2014). determinants of entrepreneurial intent: a meta-analytic test and integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 291–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12087 schmutzler, J., andonova, v., & diaz-serrano, l. (2019). how context shapes entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a driver of entrepreneurial intentions: a multilevel approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(5), 880–920. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1042258717753142 shane, s., & venkataraman, s. (2000). the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. in Entrepreneurship: Concepts, theory and perspective (vol. 34; pp. 171–184). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-48543-8_8 shane, s., locke, E., & collins, c. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. [articles and chapters]. retrieved from https:// digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/830 shiri, n., shinnar, r. s., Mirakzadeh, a. a., & Zarafshani, K. (2017). cultural values and entrepreneurial intentions among agriculture students in iran. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(4), 1157–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0444-9 soam, s. K., rathore, s., Yashavanth, B. s., dhumantarao, t. r., s, r., & Balasani, r. (2023). students’ perspectives on entrepreneurship and its intention in india. Sustainability, 15(13), 10488. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310488 starfelt sutton, l. c., & White, K. M. (2016). predicting sun-protective intentions and behaviours using the theory of planned behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychology & Health, 31(11), 1272–1292. https://doi.org /10.1080/08870446.2016.1204449 tsai, K. h., chang, h. c., & peng, c. Y. (2016). Extending the link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention: a moderated mediation model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 445–463. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11365-014-0351-2 vaillant, Y., & lafuente, E. (2007). do different institutional frameworks condition the influence of local fear of failure and entrepreneurial examples over entrepreneurial activity? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(4), 313– 337. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620701440007 16 a. Johri Etal. van auken, h., stephens, p., Fry, F. l., & silva, J. (2006). role model influences on entrepreneurial intentions: a comparison between usa and Mexico. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(3), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-006-0004-1 Wagner, J. (2007). Exports and productivity: a survey of the evidence from firm-level data. The World Economy, 30(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.00872.x Wang, X. h., You, X., Wang, h. p., Wang, B., lai, W. Y., & su, n. (2023). the effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention: Mediation of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and moderating model of psychological capital. Sustainability, 15(3), 2562. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032562 Webb, t. l., sniehotta, F. F., & Michie, s. (2010). using theories of behaviour change to inform interventions for addictive behaviours. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 105(11), 1879–1892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03028.x Yasir, n., Babar, M., Mehmood, h. s., Xie, r., & Guo, G. (2023). the environmental values play a role in the development of green entrepreneurship to achieve sustainable entrepreneurial intention. Sustainability, 15(8), 6451. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su15086451