Xu, F., Kellermanns, F., Jin, L., Xi, J., “Family Support as Social Exchange in
Entrepreneurship: Its Moderating Impact on Entrepreneurial Stressors-well-being
Relationships”. Journal of Elsevier Incorporation, Journal of Business Research (120), 2020,
pp.59–73. Reviewed by Anne Katrine E. Gonzales.
In the article, the researchers focused on family support as a social exchange in
entrepreneurship and its moderating effect on the association between entrepreneurial stressors
and well-being. They seek whether perceived family support can differentially shape well-being
across different entrepreneurial contexts particularly financial and workload stressors depending
on the nature of the economic and social exchange relationship. Moreover, they analyzed the diary
data gathered using multilevel modeling analysis in determining the impact of family support on
the relationships between variables being tested.
The role of family embeddedness in entrepreneurship demonstrates that specific family
embeddedness actions generate positive or negative outcomes for both ventures and entrepreneurs
(p.59). From these inconsistent effects and from showing the varying effects within different social
exchange relationships, the researchers theorize and test how family members and entrepreneurs
initiate interpersonal exchanges and how entrepreneurs or their ventures are benefiting from these
relationships, depending upon such supportive resource. Furthermore, researchers call for dynamic
inferences about the effects of the family system on the dynamic entrepreneurial process. Thus,
they incorporate time into the theoretical model and explore the temporal patterns within the
proposed relationships. Facilitating the contributions with time-based and temporal hypotheses,
spurs researchers to contemplate two models, i.e., between-person differences and within-person
processes. From these notions, the researchers sought to determine whether perceived family
support can differentially shape well-being across different entrepreneurial contexts depending on
the nature of the social exchange relationship.
There are sampled 61 active Chinese entrepreneurs, classified as independently in charge
of new ventures, who participated in the study. They completed a survey that assessed their
demographics and was asked to respond to daily surveys every evening over two consecutive
weeks. The researchers utilized the experience sampling method (ESM), to collect diary data,
which is the optimal method for separating the between-and within-person relationships in
temporal constructs. They measured the daily entrepreneurial stressors using the Daily Inventory
of Stressful Events (DISE), daily perceived family support using the 2-Way Social Support Scale,
daily entrepreneurial well-being using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule in which all of
these variables are tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for reliability. Also, they
controlled for both the person- and firm-level characteristics to rule out potential confounding
effects. They utilized shortened versions of all these measures, which is in line with the daily
survey strategy and other studies focusing on daily processes in entrepreneurial settings.
The researchers ran several multilevel models following a stepwise approach to test all
hypotheses to simultaneously model the between-person level (Level 2) and within-person level
(Level 1). They mean-centered all independent variables to model between-person relationships
and all independent variables to model within-person relationships because in which according to
them, “this approach avoids multicollinearity and generates reliable statistical estimations” (p.65).
The dependent variable, entrepreneurial well-being, and control variables remained uncentered.
They proposed hypotheses relative to both between- and within-person relationships. Accordingly,
they conducted two preliminary analyses to confirm the decision. They conducted homology tests
to check whether these two levels of analysis differed significantly. They ran unconditional cell
means models to check the within-person variances (intraclass correlation, ICC). Then they used
a full maximum likelihood estimation, subsequently ran the main effect models, including both
fixed and random effects. They also included interaction effects across all levels to examine the
hypotheses. Lastly, they used two indices to assess the model fit and effect sizes. They have cited
numerous related studies that support the application of these different models in analyzing the
relationship between variables in the study.
The researchers seek to determine whether perceived family support can differentially
shape well-being across different entrepreneurial contexts depending on the nature of the exchange
relationship at both the between- and within-person levels. Through the researchers’ used methods
and data gathering procedures, they have found evidence that high levels of family support
attenuate the relationships between the financial stressor and the well-being indicators but
strengthens the relationships between the workload stressor and the well-being indicators. These
results demonstrate family support process models are central to between-person heterogeneity.
In this research, the researchers have proposed different predictions about the impact of
family support on well-being across entrepreneurial contexts in terms of the type of exchange
relationship in entrepreneurs’ daily work lives. Their theories, claims, and methods of gathering
data and analysis are supported by numerous citations from literature and past studies. They also
applied a reliability test specifically, Confirmatory Factor Analysis when measuring the variables.
Accordingly, they utilized brief measures because entrepreneurs experience considerable time
constraints. Capturing these variables in entrepreneurial contexts is particularly challenging. The
article has shown significant results regarding the relationship between entrepreneurial stressors
and well-being when family support as the social exchange in entrepreneurship was taking into
consideration. Although they only found between-person effects, the advantage of the combination
of between- and within-person approaches offers a better and more coherent understanding of the
function of individual differences in the relationships of these constructs by acknowledging both
enduring structures and dynamic processes in family embeddedness. Overall, this article, upon
knowing the context of the study, did a commendable job with its improved methods and also with
its suggestion for future researchers.
However, social exchange relationships normally occur between entrepreneurs and their
family members, thus, collecting data from a single source might lead to common method variance.
They should consider the potential reciprocal relationships between entrepreneurial stressors and
family support, like if entrepreneurs can provide equal support to family members. By limiting
empirical analyses to Chinese entrepreneurs, they might have neglected to consider how specific
cultural, social, and economic factors can shape these familial relationships. This can be a good
source of improvement for future studies to incorporate context-specific theoretical concepts into
the hypothesized relationships by considering time-based and multilevel approaches.