Keywords
institutional distrust
social capital
social norms
fear of failure
economic uncertainty
proactive behavior
emerging adulthood
psychological determinants
How to Cite
Abstract
The article presents a comprehensive socio-psychological analysis of the barriers to youth entrepreneurial activity under conditions of profound societal transformations taking place in Ukraine due to martial law, economic instability, and post-war recovery processes. The study focuses on the contradiction between young people’s declared readiness to engage in entrepreneurial activity and their actual involvement in establishing and developing their own businesses. Entrepreneurial activity is conceptualized as a crucial mechanism of economic self-realization, social mobility, and the development of youth agency, as well as a strategic resource for national recovery in times of crisis. At the same time, the contemporary social context is characterized by high levels of uncertainty, security risks, and instability, which may intensify socio-psychological barriers and complicate the realization of entrepreneurial intentions.
The purpose of the study was to identify the specific socio-psychological barriers to youth entrepreneurial activity, determine their relationships with entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention, and analyze the role of socio-economic factors in shaping relevant attitudes and behavioral tendencies. Particular attention was paid to examining how these barriers mediate the influence of the social context on the formation of entrepreneurial readiness and to what extent they weaken the relationship between intention and actual behavior in conditions of societal turbulence.
The theoretical framework of the research is grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior, which conceptualizes intention as the immediate predictor of behavior formed under the influence of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Additionally, the concept of self-efficacy is employed as a key psychological mechanism that determines an individual’s belief in their capacity to successfully achieve desired goals. Within the proposed model, socio-psychological barriers are understood as a system of socially determined factors (normative, network-based, institutional, and role-related) that influence entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention through mechanisms of social support or disapproval, access to resources, and perceived control over circumstances.
The research design was cross-sectional and correlational, employing structural equation modeling techniques. The sample included young people of different ages and socio-economic backgrounds. The operationalization of variables involved measuring the intensity of socio-psychological barriers (fear of failure, deficit of social capital, institutional distrust, and negative social norms toward entrepreneurship), indicators of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and the strength of entrepreneurial intention. Socio-demographic characteristics, including subjective assessment of material well-being, were also taken into account.
The findings revealed statistically significant relationships between socio-psychological barriers and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. In particular, higher levels of fear of failure, institutional distrust, and perceived deficit of social capital were associated with lower confidence in one’s ability to initiate and successfully implement entrepreneurial activity. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, in turn, emerged as a significant predictor of entrepreneurial intention, confirming its role as a key psychological resource. Structural modeling demonstrated that self-efficacy partially mediates the impact of socio-psychological barriers on entrepreneurial intention, indicating an indirect mechanism of influence.
The analysis of differences based on material well-being showed that youth with higher levels of subjectively assessed income reported lower fear of failure and a lower deficit of social capital, as well as higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy compared to those with lower income levels. This finding supports the interpretation of socio-economic status as a resource factor that reduces perceived risk and mitigates psychological barriers to entrepreneurial engagement. At the same time, no significant differences between financial groups were found with regard to negative social norms, suggesting the relative universality of the normative context of entrepreneurship in contemporary Ukrainian society.
Special attention was devoted to examining the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and actual behavior in conditions of social uncertainty. The results indicate that during periods of societal transformation, the link between intention and real action may weaken under the influence of external constraints, instability, and security-related risks. This highlights the need to expand classical models of entrepreneurial behavior by incorporating macro-social contextual factors and the specific characteristics of crisis conditions.
The practical implications of the study involve identifying directions for minimizing the impact of socio-psychological barriers within a socio-psychological framework. These directions include: developing supportive social networks and mentoring programs; fostering positive normative perceptions of entrepreneurship through educational and informational initiatives; enhancing entrepreneurial self-efficacy through training programs aimed at developing self-regulation skills, decision-making competence, and tolerance for uncertainty; and creating a safe educational and entrepreneurial environment that reduces fear of failure and the stigmatization of unsuccessful attempts.
Overall, the findings confirm that youth entrepreneurial activity is a multidimensional socio-psychological phenomenon shaped not only by individual characteristics but also by features of the social environment and economic context. Socio-psychological barriers act as significant determinants of reduced entrepreneurial self-efficacy and weakened intention, particularly in conditions of societal instability. At the same time, strengthening psychological resources and social support mechanisms can facilitate the transformation of potential readiness for entrepreneurship into actual economic engagement.
Future research perspectives include the use of longitudinal designs to examine the dynamics of entrepreneurial intentions over time, as well as the expansion of samples to include diverse regions and social groups. Further investigation is also needed into the impact of educational programs and state initiatives supporting youth entrepreneurship on reducing socio-psychological barriers and strengthening entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Keywords: entrepreneurial intention, institutional distrust, social capital, social norms, fear of failure, economic uncertainty, proactive behavior, emerging adulthood, psychological determinants.
Date of receipt of the article: November 16, 2025
Date of recommendation for publication: December 23, 2025
Date of publication: January 30, 2026
References
Авраменко, В. (2021). Педагогічні умови формування підприємницької компетенції дітей та учнівської молоді в закладах неформальної (позашкільної) освіти: уроки європейського досвіду. Педагогічні науки: теорія, історія, інноваційні технології, (10), 211–224. https://library.sspu.edu.ua/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/pedagogichni-nauky_10_2021.pdf#page=211
Карамушка, Л. М., & Нагорна, Н. С. (2025). Комплекс методик для дослідження психологічної готовності здобувачів освіти до соціального підприємництва та чинників її розвитку. Організаційна психологія. Економічна психологія. https://doi.org/10.31108/2.2025.3.36.13
Креденцер, О. В. (2019). Психологія розвитку підприємницької активності персоналу освітніх організацій. Логос.
Achkasova, O. (2024). The role of social entrepreneurship in solving the problem of youth unemployment. Visnyk (Kharkiv National University).
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework. Publication Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/593884
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Barrero, J. P., Delgado-García, J. B., & Pérez-Fernández, H. (2024). Training entrepreneurs in culturally diverse countries: Influence of social norms on entrepreneurial intention. The International Journal of Management Education, 22, 101059.
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.40633190
Crowley, F., & Barlow, P. (2022). Entrepreneurship and social capital: A multi-level analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.
Davies, T. (2002). Developing enterprise skills in the young: Towards a model for evaluating emerging practice. Education + Training, 44(4/5), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910210432003
Dembytska, N. (2019). Модифікація тесту загальної схильності до підприємництва для школярів. Психологічний часопис, 5(11), 133–148. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/psch_2019_5_11_11
Donnellon, A., Ollila, S., & Middleton, K. W. (2014). Constructing entrepreneurial identity in entrepreneurship education. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 490–499.
Drahomirov, O., & Loboda, V. (2023). Factors in the development of entrepreneurial competence of the individual in the educational environment. Psychological Journal, 9(1), 122–130.
Drucker, P. F. (2007). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. Routledge.
Draycott, M., & Rae, D. (2011). Enterprise education in schools and the role of competency frameworks. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551111114905
Dwerryhouse, R. (2001). Real work in the 16–19 curriculum: AVCE business and Young Enterprise. Education + Training, 43(2), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005457
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 37–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/256630
Gibb, A. A. (1993). Enterprise culture and education: Understanding enterprise education and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals. International Small Business Journal, 11(3), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/026624269301100301
Gibb, A. A. (1994). Do we really teach (approach) small business the way we should? Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.1994.10600412
Gibb, A. A. (2008). Entrepreneurship and enterprise education in schools and colleges: Insights from UK practice. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 6(2), 48–77.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Schindehutte, M. (2021). Understanding the dynamics of entrepreneurship. Emerald Group Publishing.
Lackéus, M., & Williams Middleton, K. (2011). Venture creation programs: Entrepreneurial education through real-life content. Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference.
Lackéus, M., & Williams Middleton, K. (2015). Venture creation programs: Bridging entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. Education + Training, 57(1), 48–73.
Maheshwari, G., Kha, K. L., & Arokiasamy, A. R. A. (2022). Factors affecting students’ entrepreneurial intentions: A systematic review (2005–2022) for future directions in theory and practice. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Van Nostrand.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B. (2007). The central question in entrepreneurial cognition research 2007. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00161.x
Rae, D. (2000). Understanding entrepreneurial learning: A question of how? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6(3), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550010346497
Revans, R. W. (1991). Action learning and the third dimension. Management Decision, 29(6), 15–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749110139191
Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). Three views of entrepreneurial opportunity. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 77–96). Springer.
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.
Tsou, E., Steel, P., & Osiyevskyy, O. (2023). The relationship between entrepreneurial intention and behavior: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation.
United Nations Development Programme. (2024). Impact of war on youth in Ukraine: 2024 research.
United Nations Development Programme. (2025). Unlocking the potential of youth in Ukraine.
Zubiashvili, I., & Melnychuk, T. (2025). Empirical research of students’ attitude towards entrepreneurship. Psychological Journal, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.31108/1.2025.11.3.1
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Tetiana Melnychuk