|
|
|
| The Impact of Social Status Perception on Entrepreneurial Commitment: A Comparative Perspective of Temporal and Spatial Dynamics |
| Zhu Hongming1,Tang Yanzhao1,Xiao Xionghui2 |
| (1.School of Management, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China;2.School of Business, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract As a comprehensive representation of behavioral and emotional engagement, entrepreneurial commitment has a significant impact on the growth and achievement of entrepreneurs, as well as the survival and success of new enterprises. Exploring the source of entrepreneurial commitment is not only a research topic of interest for academics, but also a major concern for entrepreneurs. However, most of the existing studies start from the demographic characteristics and individual personalities to analyze the impact of individual factors on entrepreneurial commitment, such as age, entrepreneurial motivation, overconfidence, entrepreneurial alertness, risk tolerance, entrepreneurial experience, etc. The impact of entrepreneurs′ perceptions of social status as a result of their interactions with the environment on their entrepreneurial commitment has been largely ignored.#br#Entrepreneurs′ perception of social status encompasses not just objective socio-economic status, but also the perception and cognition of the environment and opportunities; it includes both the perception of current status and the imprint of past status and the expectation of future status. This study employs the spatial-temporal comparison perspective rather than the traditional perspective of current subjective status, to better comprehend the complex signals that underpin social status perception, as well as to supplement our limited understanding of its dynamics and comparability. Specifically, this paper depicts the psychological reality of entrepreneurs′ perception of social status from five aspects: subjective social status, social status perception bias, social status neighborhood comparison, social status subjective mobility and social status mobility expectation. The aim is to address the questions of what information is underlying entrepreneurs′ perceptions of their social status, and what impact they have on entrepreneurs′ entrepreneurial commitment.#br#Based on the empirical analysis of data from China Labor-force Dynamic Survey (CLDS) in 2016, this study has the following findings. First, when the subjective social status is low, entrepreneurs show a higher level of entrepreneurial commitment, which is mainly driven by desperate desire, the cognition of resource disadvantage and the imprint of diligence and resilience. Second, there is a negative correlation between social status perception bias and entrepreneurial commitment. The larger the cognitive bias, the more likely it will bring an illusion of being content with the status quo, which is not conducive to strengthening entrepreneurial commitment. Third, entrepreneurs who believe their social status is higher than the neighborhood average have a lower level of entrepreneurial commitment, whereas those who believe their social status is lower have a higher level of entrepreneurial commitment. Fourth, there is a significant positive relationship between social status mobility and entrepreneurial commitment. Because of their previous experience of successfully accomplishing social mobility, entrepreneurs with a sense of upward mobility will have a better sense of self-efficacy which will stimulate a higher entrepreneurial commitment. Fifth, empirical evidence does not support the impact of social status mobility expectations on entrepreneurial commitment. According to this study, negative expectations have a negative effect on entrepreneurial commitment, but positive expectations have no such effect. Overall, this study enriches the entrepreneurial literature in a variety of ways. First, this study expands the antecedents of entrepreneurial commitment from a new theoretical perspective of social status perception. Important impacting elements such as subjective social status, perception bias, neighbor comparison, and subjective mobility are found and it contributes tothe studies on demographic characteristics and entrepreneurial personalities. Second, based on the perspective of spatial and temporal comparison, this study provides a broadening horizon of social status perception. The majority of previous organizational writing on social status perception is focused on individuals' current social status being perceived in a static manner. This study brings the subjective sense of social status to five dimensions, which contribute to a better understanding of the complicated mechanisms underlying social status perception. Finally, this study adds valuable insights to existing research from an interdisciplinary perspective of entrepreneurship and sociology. Although social status has long been a hot topic in sociology research, it is rarely explored in entrepreneurship studies. This paper complements research on the impact of individual sociality on economic behavior by extending insights related to theperception of social status to the field of entrepreneurship. At the same time, it enriches the research context of social status perception and contributes to sociology research.#br#
|
|
Received: 24 November 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] TANG J. Environmental munificence for entrepreneurs: entrepreneurial alertness and commitment [J]. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 2008, 14(3): 128-151.
[2] TREFFERS T, KLYVER K, NIELSEN M S, et al. Feel the commitment: from situational emotional information to venture goal commitment [J]. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 2018, 37(3): 215-240.
[3] 陈建安, 陶雅, 陈瑞.创业承诺研究前沿探析与未来展望[J]. 外国经济与管理, 2014, 36(6): 24-31.
[4] LIU W M, ALI S R, SOLECK G, et al. Using social class in counseling psychology research [J]. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2004, 51(1): 3-18.
[5] KISH-GEPHART J J, CAMPBELL J T. You don′t forget your roots: the influence of CEO social class background on strategic risk taking [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2015, 58(6): 1614-1636.
[6] 范晓光, 吕鹏. 中国私营企业主的社会构成: 阶层与同期群差异[J]. 中国社会科学, 2017, 38(7): 70-87.
[7] COTE S. How social class shapes thoughts and actions in organizations [J]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2011, 31: 43-71.
[8] 马凌远, 李晓敏. 民营企业家社会经济地位主观认知与个人慈善捐赠[J]. 统计研究, 2021, 38(1): 105-118.
[9] UY M A, FOO M-D, ILIES R. Perceived progress variability and entrepreneurial effort intensity: the moderating role of venture goal commitment [J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2015, 30(3): 375-389.
[10] ABREU M, ONER O, BROUWER A, et al. Well-being effects of self-employment: a spatial inquiry [J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2019, 34(4): 589-607.
[11] FESTINGER L. A theory of social comparison processes [J]. Human Relations, 1954, 7(2): 117-140.
[12] ULRICH D. Intellectual capital= competence × commitment [J]. MIT Sloan Management Review, 1998, 39(4): 15-27.
[13] ERIKSON T. Entrepreneurial capital: the emerging venture′s most important asset and competitive advantage [J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2002, 17(3): 275-290.
[14] HAYWARD M L, SHEPHERD D A, GRIFFIN D. A hubris theory of entrepreneurship [J]. Management Science, 2006, 52(2): 160-172.
[15] VOHORA A, WRIGHT M, LOCKETT A. Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies [J]. Research Policy, 2004, 33(1): 147-175.
[16] PETRAKIS P E. On the ideal duration of entrepreneurial resources commitment [J]. Technology and Investment, 2010, 1(1): 49-58.
[17] KRAUS M W, PIFF P K, MENDOZA-DENTON R, et al. Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: how the rich are different from the poor [J]. Psychological Review, 2012, 119(3): 546-572.
[18] KRAUS M W, TAN J J X, TANNENBAUM M B. The social ladder: a rank-based perspective on social class [J]. Psychological Inquiry, 2013, 24(2): 81-96.
[19] 陈云松, 范晓光. 阶层自我定位、收入不平等和主观流动感知(2003—2013)[J]. 中国社会科学, 2016,37(12): 109-126，206-207.
[20] SINGH-MANOUX A, MARMOT M G, ADLER N E. Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status[J]. Psychosomatic Medicine, 2005, 67(6): 855-861.
[21] 郭永玉, 杨沈龙, 李静,等. 社会阶层心理学视角下的公平研究[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(8): 1299-1311.
[22] WOLFF L S, SUBRAMANIAN S V, ACEVEDO-GARCIA D, et al. Compared to whom? subjective social status, self-rated health, and referent group sensitivity in a diverse us sample [J]. Social Science & Medicine, 2010, 70(12): 2019-2028.
[23] NG W, DIENER E. What matters to the rich and the poor? subjective well-being, financial satisfaction, and postmaterialist needs across the world [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2014, 107(2): 326-338.
[24] STEPHENS N M, MARKUS H R, FRYBERG S A. Social class disparities in health and education: reducing inequality by applying a sociocultural self model of behavior [J]. Psychological Review, 2012, 119(4): 723-744.
[25] 马骏, 罗衡军, 肖宵. 私营企业家地位感知与企业创新投入[J]. 南开管理评论, 2019, 22(2): 142-154.
[26] 陈钢, 王栋. 社会地位会影响企业融资约束吗——来自A股民营上市公司的经验证据[J]. 经济管理, 2020, 42(2): 160-174.
[27] 陈卫民, 李晓晴. 阶层认同和社会流动预期对生育意愿的影响——兼论低生育率陷阱的形成机制[J]. 南开学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021,27(2): 18-30.
[28] CHIVERS D. Success, survive or escape? aspirations and poverty traps [J]. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2017, 143: 116-132.
[29] MILLER D, BRETON-MILLER I L. Underdog entrepreneurs: a model of challenge-based entrepreneurship [J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2017, 41(1): 7-17.
[30] MARQUIS C, TILCSIK A. Imprinting: toward a multilevel theory [J]. The Academy of Management Annals, 2013, 7(1): 195-245.
[31] ALICKE M D, SEDIKIDES C. Self-enhancement and self-protection: what they are and what they do [J]. European Review of Social Psychology, 2009, 20(1): 1-48.
[32] SEDIKIDES C, GREGG A P. Self-enhancement: food for thought [J]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2008, 3(2): 102-116.
[33] ROTHBAUM F, WEISZ J R, SNYDER S S. Changing the world and changing the self: a two-process model of perceived control [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42(1): 5-37.
[34] KAHNEMAN D, TVERSKY A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk [J]. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1979, 47(2): 263-291.
[35] LARRICK R P, BURSON K A, SOLL J B. Social comparison and confidence: when thinking you′re better than average predicts overconfidence (and when it does not) [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2007, 102(1): 76-94.
[36] SITKIN S B, PABLO A L. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1992, 17(1): 9-38.
[37] GUVEN C, SRENSEN B E. Subjective well-being: keeping up with the perception of the joneses [J]. Social Indicators Research, 2011, 109(3): 439-469.
[38] MAURER J, MEIER A. Smooth it like the 'joneses' ? estimating peer-group effects in intertemporal consumption choice [J]. The Economic Journal, 2008, 118(527): 454-476.
[39] BANDURA A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change [J]. Psychological Review, 1977, 84(2): 191-215.
[40] HSU D K, WIKLUND J, COTTON R D. Success, failure, and entrepreneurial reentry: an experimental assessment of the veracity of self-efficacy and prospect theory [J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2017, 41(1): 19-47.
[41] 周键, 徐凤增.创业者是天生的吗——创业自我效能感的中介效应[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2019, 36(19): 74-80.
[42] CHEN C C, GREENE P G, CRICK A. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 1998, 13(4): 295-316.
[43] ZHAO H, SEIBERT S E, HILLS G E. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005, 90(6): 1265-1272.
[44] 苏芳, 毛基业. 应对环境变化的战略路径转换过程：内外部正反馈和管理者刻意行为的影响[J]. 管理世界, 2019, 35(10): 172-185，220.
[45] LOCKE E A.Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3(2): 157-189.
[46] GENICOT G, RAY D. Aspirations and inequality [J]. Econometrica, 2017, 85(2): 489-519.
[47] YANG P Y, CHANG Y C. Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion: the moderating effects of entrepreneurial commitment [J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 83(2): 403-421.
[48] ADLER N E, EPEL E S, CASTELLAZZO G, et al. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy, white women[J]. Health Psychology, 2000, 19(6): 586.
[49] 李春玲. 当代中国社会的声望分层——职业声望与社会经济地位指数测量[J]. 社会学研究, 2005,20(2): 74-102，244.
[50] RITTERMAN M L, FERNALD L C, OZER E J, et al. Objective and subjective social class gradients for substance use among Mexican adolescents [J]. Social Science & Medicine, 2009, 68(10): 1843-1851.
|
|
|
|
