Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Family Business Strategy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfbs

Business stressors, family-business identity, and divorce in family business: T

A vulnerability-stress-adaptation (VSA) model
⁎
Paul Sanchez-Ruiz , Ileana Maldonado-Bautista, Matthew Rutherford
School of Entrepreneurship, Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A considerable amount of research focuses on how divorce in enterprising families influences family business
Divorce outcomes. Yet, the impact that family businesses have on the divorce of enterprising families remains relatively
Vulnerability-stress-adaptation model under-researched. We contribute to the emerging enterprising family heterogeneity literature by building upon
Family-to-business identity alignment the Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation (VSA) model and explore two questions regarding the influence of family
Debt
businesses on divorce: Do family business-related stressors influence divorce? And, if so, what adaptive processes
Sales revenue
help enterprising families to cope with family business-related stressors? We hypothesize that high levels of debt
and high sales revenue levels (as stressors) positively and significantly affect the rate of divorce in family
businesses. In addition, we contend that a strong identity alignment between family and business moderates the
stressors-divorce relationship, reducing the divorce rate. Our empirical assessment of divorce in family busi-
nesses employs two large cross-sectional data sets—the 1997 (N = 2495) and 2002 (N = 583) American Family
Business Surveys.1 Overall, we find that our stressors do increase the rate of divorce, but this can be mitigated by
identity alignment.

1. Introduction Within the nascent enterprising family heterogeneity literature

Over the years, family business scholars have recognized the influ-
ence of enterprising families on a number of family business outcomes
(e.g., Goel, Mazzola, Phan, Pieper, & Zachary, 2012; Yu, Lumpkin,
Sorenson, & Brigham, 2012). Yet, we still know little about the re-
ciprocal relationship. That is, how family businesses affect enterprising
families (Astrachan, 2010; Pieper, Astrachan, & Manners, 2013). Noti-
cing this gap, several argue that failing to clearly articulate the im-
plications of family businesses for enterprising families may result in an
imprecise understanding of numerous family business and family rela-
tions phenomena (Jaskiewicz, Combs, Shanine, & Kacmar, 2016;
Jaskiewicz & Dyer, 2017). In the present study, we contribute to that
literature by directing attention to the role of family businesses on one
key, less desirable, and dramatic marital outcome for enterprising fa-
milies—i.e., divorce.
(e.g., Combs, Jaskiewicz, Shanine, & Balkin, 2018; Jaskiewicz, Combs
et al., 2016), divorce has re-emerged as a focus from which to better
understand the bidirectional effects between enterprising families and
their family businesses (Jaskiewicz & Dyer, 2017). Pioneering studies
(e.g., Galbraith, 2003) have informed us about the negative effects of
divorce on family business outcomes, including, family business fi-
nancial performance (Cole & Johnson, 2007; Rutherford, Muse, &
Oswald, 2006), entrepreneurial behaviors (Randerson, Bettinelli,
Fayolle, & Anderson, 2015), family capital (Dyer, Nenque, & Hill,
2014), and liquidation of family businesses (Astrachan & Jaskiewicz,
2008; Galbraith, 2003). Although we have some understanding of the
impact of divorce on family business outcomes, studies have not yet
directly explored the bidirectional relationship.
A central requirement for fully understanding the bidirectional ef-
fects of divorce, in the family business context, is to first identify the

⁎
Corresponding author at: 104 Business Building, Stillwater, OK, 74078-4011. United States.
E-mail address: paul.sanchez_ruiz@okstate.edu (P. Sanchez-Ruiz).
1
Special thanks to the Mass Mutual/Raymond Institute American Family Business Surveys (Astrachan, Klein et al., 2002).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.03.005

Available online 21 July 2018

1877-8585/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al.
business-related factors directly influencing divorce; and second, to
identify those factors that may lead to marital stability (Amato, 2010;
Gottman, 2014). To do so, we borrow a framework from the family
science literature that is equipped to help us better understand the
factors that predict both marital dissolution and marital stability: The
Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation (VSA) model (Karney & Bradbury,
1995).2 Based on the VSA model, we examine two questions related to
the divorce of enterprising families: Do family business-related stressors
influence divorce? And, if so, what adaptive processes help enterprising
families cope with family business-related stressors, such that reduce
divorce?
Regarding our first question—family business-related stressor-
s—extant research has revealed that some family businesses (as
heterogeneous) emphasize specific strategic actions (such as max-
imizing debt and sales revenue) for the survival of the family busi-
ness (e.g., Colli, 2012; McKelvie & Wiklund 2010; Wiklund,
Davidsson, & Delmar, 2003). However, evidence suggests that such
actions can also lead to stress (Danes, 2006), compromise family
relationships (Glover & Reay, 2015), and even sacrifice family needs
(Rothbard, 2001; Sharma, 2004). Therefore, we submit that these
strategic actions can gradually become family business-related stres-
sors for enterprising families (Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007; Dunne &
Hughes, 1994). Thus, adversely affecting marriages even to the point
of dissolution (Cooke & Rousseau, 1984).
Regarding our second question—adaptive processes—it is well
documented that a strong family identity (i.e., shared values and
goals among couples) plays a key role in the ultimate success or
failure of marital unions (e.g., Gottman, 2014; Neff & Karney, 2009).
In this way, we build on the family-to-business identity fit literature
(Zellweger, Eddleston, & Kellermanns, 2010; Zellweger, Nason,
Nordqvist, & Brush, 2013), suggesting that the extent to which en-
terprising families seek alignment between family values and busi-
ness goals creates continuity in both family relationships and busi-
ness activities over time (Anglin, Reid, Short, Zachary, & Rutherford,
2017). Thus, we find support in the literature to suggest that a strong
family-to-business identity alignment (hereafter F-BIA) would help
enterprising families better navigate through family business-related
stressors (Dyer, 2006). In turn, enterprising families would be able to
sustain marital unions.
Our study offers several theoretical and practical contributions.
First, we promote theoretical development in the broad family
business research by exploring outcome variables that deserve more
attention (Yu et al., 2012). Second, we complement the family
business literature (e.g., Powell et al., 2017) by introducing a family
science framework that adds to the understanding of the bidirec-
tional effects between enterprising families and their family busi-
nesses (e.g., Astrachan, 2010; Pieper et al., 2013). Third, we in-
tegrate the F-BIA construct to the VSA model as a specific adaptive
process that enterprising families could use to manage family busi-
ness-related stressors. Fourth, we inform the family relations litera-
ture by complementing the prevailing view on the potential risk
factors for divorce (e.g., Amato, 2010; Gottman, 2014).
2
After a thorough examination of the divorce literature, we found that the
VSA is a framework that conceptualizes the dynamic process of marriage into a
single, cohesive model in order to best explain how and why marriages change
over time (Rodrigues et al., 2005). That is, the extant literature on divorce
focuses on numerous and diverse predictors for divorce—nearly 200 variables
that have changed little during the last few decades (for reviews, see, Amato,
2010; Amato & Previti, 2003). Therefore, the VSA model summarizes (similar
and overlapping) factors for marital functioning (and/or divorce) in three
comprehensive dimensions, including couples’ enduring vulnerabilities,
stressful experiences or stressors, and adaptive processes. As a result, the VSA
model was a departure from past research considering any one of these factors
separately as a contributor to marital outcomes.
168
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179
2. Theory and hypothesis development
2.1. Divorce
Divorce refers to the dissolution of marital unions. In the United
States, approximately 50% of first marriages end in divorce (Bramlett &
Mosher, 2002; Martin & Bumpas, 1989); second marriages reported
even higher rates of divorce relative to first marriages (Cherlin, 2009);
and 75% of separations resulted in divorce (Bloom, Hodges, Caldwell,
Systra, & Cedrone, 1977). According to Heaton (2002), divorce is a
stable phenomenon that can be emotionally and physically damaging
for divorcing families. Given the high rates and the detrimental con-
sequences of divorce, research on the subject continues to be a major
topic of scholarly interest (for reviews see, Amato, 2010; Gottman,
2014; Kitson & Morgan, 1990; Sayer & Bianchi, 2000; White, 1990).
After a thorough examination of the divorce literature, we found
numerous risk factors for divorce—about 10,000 studies and nearly 200
variables (Amato, 2010; Amato & Previti, 2003). For example, domestic
violence, teen marriage, poverty, unemployment, low levels of educa-
tion, a weak commitment to marriage, and conflict, among others. In
addition, research on divorce has galvanized somewhat around three
theoretical perspectives for which to understand the various risk factors
for divorce—i.e., social exchange theory, behavioral theory, and crisis
theory (see, Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & George, 2001;
Rodrigues, Hall, & Finchman, 2005). The first perspective, research
employing social exchange theory, suggests that divorce is influenced
by the presence of interpersonal and financial barriers (Kurdek, 1993;
Lewis & Spanier, 1982). The second, research using behavioral theory,
posits that individual perceptions and expectations about marriage
(e.g., the satisfaction of individual needs) influence marital couples’
intentions (positive or negative) towards divorce (Kelly, Finchman, &
Beach, 2003). The third, research using crisis theory, focuses on the
processes of adaptation marital couples follow after facing significant
stress (such as divorce) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983).
Though the above theoretical perspectives have laid a solid foun-
dation for which to understand the various factors for divorce, ac-
cording to Rodrigues et al. (2005) understanding the effects on marital
failure and marital stability appear to be dispersed. Consequently, some
scholars (e.g., Cohan & Bradbury, 1997; Neff & Karney, 2009;
Rodrigues et al., 2005) suggest that the VSA model (Karney & Bradbury,
1995) can integrate the three abovementioned theoretical perspectives
into a single, more comprehensive model to help explain the factors for
divorce and the factors for marital stability. For example, vulner-
abilities (as explained by social exchange theory), stressors and adap-
tation processes (as explained by crisis theory), and intentions to di-
vorce (as explained by behavioral theory).
Despite the fact that the VSA model has been widely used to explain
divorce in families (Amato, 2010), this vast and rich literature has
largely overlooked specific and important risk factors—embedded in
the family business context—that may affect the marital stability of
enterprising families. Moreover, when considering that divorce has
been related to poor financial performance and failure in family busi-
nesses (Galbraith, 2003; Rutherford et al., 2006), a focus on the risk
factors for divorce and marital stability in family business research is
not only warranted but also timely (Jaskiewicz & Dyer, 2017). Below,
we briefly summarize the VSA model conceptualizations of divorce and
adapt them to the family business context to state our hypothesis. Our
orienting framework is shown in Fig. 1.
2.2. The vulnerability-stress-adaptation model
Understanding the sources of divorce and marital stability is central
to the VSA model (Karney and Bradbury, 1995; Karney & Bradbury,
1995, 1997), which emerged from a stress model of individual psy-
chopathology (Zubin & Spring, 1977). The VSA model proposes that
marital outcomes, such as divorce and/or marital stability, are a
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al.
Fig. 1. Business Stressors, Family-Business Identity, and Divorce in Family
Businesses.
function of vulnerabilities, stressors, and adaptive processes. The first
domain in the VSA model holds that spouses bring vulnerabilities (e.g.,
individual characteristics and sociodemographic variables) to their
newly formed families (Amato & Previti, 2003; Kelly & Conley, 1987),
and that such vulnerabilities are thought to influence divorce (Karney &
Bradbury, 1995; Langer, Lawrence, & Barry, 2008). The second domain
of the VSA model holds that families are also impacted by stressors that
can occur due to external (e.g., death of a family member, or loss of a
job, work-related stressors) and/or internal factors (such as relationship
variables and spouses’ vulnerabilities) (Davila & Bradbury, 2001;
Heaton & Albrecht, 1991). As such, spouses who report high levels of
stress also tend to report higher levels of marital dissatisfaction (Cohan
& Bradbury, 1997), which often end in divorce. And, the third domain
of the VSA model posits that adaptive processes represent the behaviors
by which spouses respond to stressors and solve marital problems
(Hanzal, 2008). Taken together, the VSA model links vulnerabilities
and stressors as predictors of marital dissatisfaction, and adaptive be-
haviors as predictors of marital stability.
2.2.1. Vulnerabilities of enterprising families
Research in the broad family relations literature suggests that per-
sonality traits (e.g., negative affect) and demographic variables (such as
educational attainment) significantly relate to divorce and marital
stability (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). For example, spouses high in ne-
gative affect are more prone to perceive stress and get divorced than
those low in negative affect (Tolpin, Cohen, Gunthert, & Ferrehi, 2006).
Accordingly, negative affect influences how people cope with stress and
perceive the quality of their interpersonal relationships (Barelds, 2005;
McCrae, 1990). Research has also suggested that educational attain-
ment has implications for divorce and marital stability. For example,
people who are less educated generally have lower income levels and
are more likely to divorce (Kerckhoff, 1976). In contrast, higher edu-
cational attainment is significantly related to decreases in divorce rates
(Heaton, 2002). Similarly, Faust and McKibben (1999) suggest that
higher education, such as college and graduate school, facilitate better
communication and shared meanings in marital unions. In addition to
the association of individual-level vulnerabilities with divorce, research
has also highlighted the importance of context-dependent vulner-
abilities (e.g., daily interactions at the workplace) for divorce (Neff &
Karney, 2009; Rodrigues et al., 2005). These findings serve to illustrate
the relevance and applicability of the VSA model for explaining the
influence family businesses (as context-dependent vulnerabilities) may
have on the divorce in enterprising families.
Unlike nonfamily businesses that may have few (if any) family ties
in the workplace (Carr & Hmieleski, 2015), family businesses con-
tinuously overlap family and business dimensions (Tagiuri & Davis,
1996). At times, family and business can be two seemingly in-
compatible domains—each one has a specific and distinct set of values
and goals (Jaskiewicz, Combs et al., 2016; Jaskiewicz & Dyer, 2017).
For example, in the family domain, couples seek family satisfaction,
169
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179
cohesion, adaptability, health, and functioning (Hampson, Beavers, &
Hulgus, 1988; Olson & Wilson, 1982); while in the business domain,
enterprising families seek organizational goals, financial (e.g., growth)
and non-financial (e.g., reputation) (Chua, Chrisman, Steier, & Rau,
2012). Consequently, some argue that the constant domain overlapping
between family and business creates a competition for resources—i.e.,
time and resources for the family business and time and resources for the
family (Carr & Hmieleski, 2015; Olson et al., 2003). Eventually, such
competition can trigger negative feelings and reactions among en-
terprising families (Astrachan & McMillan, 2003; Danes, Zuiker, Kean,
Arbuthnot, 1999; De Vries, 1993). Ultimately, weakening their emo-
tional connections (Morris & Kellermanns, 2013; Pieper et al., 2013)
and resulting in divorce (Galbraith, 2003).
Given the daily interactions of family and business, therefore, sev-
eral suggest that enterprising families are indeed vulnerable to ex-
perience divorce (e.g., Fitzgerald & Muske, 2002; Nicholson, 2008a,
2008b; Schulze, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2003). Thus, we find support to
assume that virtually all enterprising families are potentially vulnerable
to the seemingly incompatible relationships—as business owners and as
family members. The resulting vulnerability can prove to be very
challenging and distressing for some enterprising families, even to the
point of marital failure, as we note below.
2.2.2. Family business-related stressors
In the family business literature, scholars have noted that work-re-
lated stress can have a significant negative impact on enterprising fa-
milies; and that family stress can have a significant negative impact on
family businesses (Harvey & Evans, 1994; Jennings & McDougald,
2007; Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2004). For example, extant research
suggests that work-related stressors (such as heavy workload and long
working hours) can significantly contribute to lowering the subjective
well-being of enterprising families (Cardon & Patel, 2015; LePine,
Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). Ultimately, leading to the divorce of en-
terprising families (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007; Schulz, Cowan,
Cowan, & Brennan, 2004).
Though the effects of work-related stressors on enterprising families
are well documented (e.g., Pieper, Astrachan, & Neglia, 2016), we
contend that there are other sources of stressors that are particularly
problematic for enterprising families; and that these have received less
scholarly attention. For example, extant research suggests that the vast
majority of enterprising families have most of their wealth tied to their
family businesses (Abdellatif, Amann, & Jaussaud, 2010; Berrone, Cruz,
Gomez-Mejia, & Larraza-Kintana, 2010; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). That
is, the need for the wellbeing of enterprising families largely depends on
the success of their family businesses; and by extension, when the fa-
mily business underperforms, a loss of the family emotional and fi-
nancial capital results (Dyer et al., 2014). This, in turn, might lead to
grief and be a highly traumatic experience for enterprising families that
may end in divorce (Shepherd and Haynie, 2009).
Accordingly, because for some enterprising families the success of their
family businesses is their primary objective (Astrachan, 2003; Colli, 2012;
Sharma, 2004), they engage in specific strategic actions. For example,
some enterprising families tend to maximize debt (e.g., Dobbs & Hamilton,
2007; Romano, Tanewski, & Smyrnios, 2001) and work to increase sales
revenue (e.g., Eddleston, Kellermanns, & Sarathy, 2008; Sharma,
Chrisman, & Chua, 1997). Indeed, Mishra and McConaughy (1999) found
that 66% of successful family businesses reported high levels of debt (more
than 50% of their equity is leveraged by debt). Similarly, Stafford, Duncan,
Danes, and Winter (1999) found that enterprising families risked family
assets (not business assets) to secure business loans (from financial in-
stitutions) for the growth and success of their family businesses. Further,
Olson et al. (2003) found that more than half of all the enterprising fa-
milies surveyed expected to increase sales revenue in the following years
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al. Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179

for the success and continuity of their family businesses. In addition, Hypothesis 2. Family-to-business identity alignment (F-BIA) is
Astrachan and Kolenko (1994) indicate that enterprising families per- negatively related to divorce in family businesses, ceteris paribus.
ceived sales revenue as the key to the success of their family businesses.
Despite the benefits of such strategic actions, however, it has also
been found that such actions can gradually generate stress (i.e. family
2.3. The moderating effect of family-to-business identity alignment (F-BIA)
business-related stressors) for enterprising families (Danes, 2006; Danes
& Lee, 2004). That is, the need for success creates strain and imbalance
A strong F-BIA can be created when family members feel a strong
between family and business, eventually leading to the failure of both
sense of belonging to their family businesses (Anglin et al., 2017). The
domains (McClendon & Kadis, 1991; Rodriguez, Hildreth, & Mancuso,
integration of the various values that originate from the family to the
1999). Therefore, we argue that family business-related stressors stem
business, thus explains how the F-BIA arises (Zellweger et al., 2010).
from the opportunistic behaviors to achieve success, but at the expense
Consequently, family members are likely to view their family businesses
of melding family relationships.
as extensions of their families when upholding the same meanings,
Recent findings help to substantiate our contention that family
values, beliefs, and goals (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Sundaramurthy &
business-related stressors (in the form of maximized debt and sales
Kreiner, 2008). For example, a common family responsibility is to see
revenue) may put enterprising families at risk of divorce. For example,
the family business prosper (Cabrera-Suarez, De Saá-Pérez, & García-
Glover and Reay (2015) found that enterprising families “feared losing
Almeida, 2001); in turn, enterprising families are motivated to con-
everything [business and family] if debt repayment became impossible”
tribute to the family business. Thus, the formation of a strong F-BIA
(p. 174). Similarly, Jaskiewicz, Lutz, and Godwin (2016) found that
assigns a profound meaning to the extension of the family with the
family businesses that pursue high sales revenue levels also jeopardize
business, affecting the behaviors of enterprising families and the family
their family legacy and reputation, thus risking the continuation of both
business strategy (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Zellweger et al., 2010).
family relationships and business actions. Taken together and following
In this way, the F-BIA construct captures the degree to which the
the advice of Sparrowe and Mayer (2011), we find support for our
identity alignment between family and business is present in en-
theorizing that enterprising families confront significant family busi-
terprising families. This alignment is key because the close and often
ness-related stressors (high levels of debt and sales revenue) as they aim
inseparable ties between family and business activates managerial
to capitalize on growth opportunities (Fombrun & Wally, 1989), ad-
participation and facilitates communication among enterprising family
versely affecting their marriages, even to the point of dissolution
members (e.g., Klein, Astrachan, & Smyrnios, 2005). Indeed, family
(Cooke & Rousseau, 1984).
businesses with high levels of family communication (e.g., sharing
Hypothesis 1a. High debt-levels are positively related to divorce in ideas, feedback, goals, and expectations) are more successful than those
family businesses, ceteris paribus. that do not communicate effectively (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2007).
Consequently, enterprising families with a strong F-BIA would be more
Hypothesis 1b. High sales revenue-levels are positively related to
likely to create supportive behaviors among enterprising family mem-
divorce in family businesses, ceteris paribus.
bers and would speed-up decision-making (Mustakallio, Autio, & Zahra,
2002). Ultimately, developing consensus regarding the strategic actions
of the family business (Zellweger et al., 2010).
2.2.3. Adaptive processes
The extant literature supports the notion that a strong F-BIA can
In addition, the VSA model posits that the negative effects of
help enterprising families cope with the family business-related stres-
‘stressors’ on marital unions can be repaired through ‘adaptive processes.’
sors that they continually face (e.g., high debt- and sales revenue-levels)
Adaptive processes reflect the behaviors that marital couples undertake
(e.g., Glover & Reay, 2015; Jaskiewicz, Lutz et al., 2016). In turn, a
in the presence of stressors (such as disagreements in goals), which
strong F-BIA would reduce the negative effects of family business-re-
moderate the effects of stressors on the union (Hanzal, 2008). For ex-
lated stressors on the perceptions of marital dissatisfaction. For ex-
ample, Cohan and Bradbury (1997) examined the relationship between
ample, it has been found that a strong F-BIA helps enterprising families
stressors and marital instability through social support. That is, the
develop long-term goals and strategies for both the family and the fa-
extent to which spouses provide support to each other (e.g., marital
mily business (e.g., Sharma et al., 1997), enhance a family business’s
communication) buffers the effects of stressors on their marital unions.
ability to identify and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities
In addition, there is evidence suggesting that families at risk for divorce
(Kellermanns, Eddleston, Barnett, & Pearson, 2008), secure transge-
enact family identity (constructed around the meanings derived from
nerational intra-family succession (Ward, 1997), and enhance family
the ebbs and flows of family values and goals) as a protective me-
commitment to the family business (Astrachan, Klein, & Smyrnios,
chanism to repair marital unions (Hutchinson, Afifi, & Krause, 2007).
2002). Therefore, we contend that a strong F-BIA will reduce the ne-
Accordingly, in the face of family business-related stressors, we
gative effects of family business-related stressors, such that enterprising
suggest that enterprising families can leverage their identity align-
families experience less divorce. Thereby,
ment—between the ‘who we are as a family’ and the ‘who we are as a
family business’—to protect their marital unions. Family identity up- Hypothesis 3a. Family-to-business identity alignment (F-BIA)
holds the values and goals that help enterprising families navigate moderates the relationship between high debt-levels and divorce (i.e.,
through relationship problems (Shepherd & Haynie, 2009); while Hypothesis 1a), such that F-BIA will reduce the negative effects of
business identity reflects enterprising families’ definitions and views family business-related stressors, in turn enterprising families
about their businesses, creating a sense of oneness and shared destiny experience less divorce.
(Nag, Corley, & Gioia, 2007; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). In that way, a
Hypothesis 3b. Family-to-business identity alignment (F-BIA)
strong identity alignment between family and business would help
moderates relationship between high sales revenue-levels and divorce
enterprising families reduce the negative effects of family business-re-
(i.e., Hypothesis 1b), such that F-BIA will reduce the negative effects of
lated stressors on their marriage (Anglin et al., 2017; Zellweger et al.,
family business-related stressors, in turn enterprising families
2013). Below, we provide arguments to support our contention that F-
experience less divorce.
BIA serves as an adaptive process that may reduce the impact of family
business-related stressors on divorce, but here we submit:

170
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al.
3. Method
3.1. Sample and data
Our empirical assessment of divorce in family businesses applies the
2002 MassMutual Financial Group/Raymond Institute American Family
Business Survey (hereafter 2002 AFBS).3 The 2002 AFBS is regarded as
“one of the largest and most comprehensive surveys ever conducted on
family businesses” (Rutherford et al., 2006, p. 323) and has been
identified as an ideal data set to be used in family business research
(e.g., Lane, Astrachan, Keyt, & McMillan, 2006; Rutherford, Kuratko, &
Holt, 2008; Zellweger, 2007).
The 2002 AFBS addressed a variety of issues related to the nature,
structure, beliefs, and performance of a broad cross-section of family
businesses in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, re-
presenting 12 industries: agriculture, construction, financial services,
biotech, manufacturing, mining, real estate, retail, services, tele-
communications, transportation, and wholesale. The questionnaire was
mailed to 38,000 businesses where at least two of the business’ directors
had the same last name, yielding 1059 completed surveys. Those
completing the questionnaires were senior executives where over 85%
reported that they were the chief executive officer, president, or board
chairman. Moreover, many participants indicated that they were re-
lated to the owning family (69.3%). And, these leaders (90%) expected
to keep the business under family ownership and control over the next 5
years (Astrachan, Allen, & Spinelli, 2002; MassMutual Financial Group/
Raymond Institute 2002 American Family Business Survey, 2002).
After excluding cases with extensive missing data on hypothesis-
relevant variables (e.g., debt-level, sales revenue-level, F-BIA, and di-
vorce rate), 583 presented sufficient data to conduct this analysis.
Participating family businesses varied considerably based on size and
sales revenues. The average number of full-time employees was 160. Of
those reporting sales revenues (N = 583), the mean annual sales rev-
enue was $30 million. Overall, we contend that this data set is parti-
cularly relevant to our study given that it captures a very specific but
dramatic family event—i.e., the divorce of enterprising families.
Indeed, the 2002 AFBS captures divorce as an unexpected family event
that has been regarded as a changing factor for family structures, in-
teractions, and functions (Jaskiewicz & Dyer, 2017).
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Dependent variable
For the dependent variable, we employ the divorce rate measure (di-
vorced family member employees/total family members employed)
used by researchers (Rutherford et al., 2006) who criticize measuring
divorce in family businesses as simply the measure of the total number
of family member divorced employees (Galbraith, 2003). In that way,
we control for the size of family businesses and prevent larger family
businesses with more family member employees and statistically more
opportunity for divorces to occur. Items used to calculate the divorce
rate were: “How many family members have been divorced in the past
five years?” and “How many family members are employed in the
business?”4;
3
Our study results from the Mass Mutual/Raymond Institute American
Family Business Survey (Astrachan, Klein et al., 2002).
4
“The AFBS assumes that the senior ranking family business owner com-
pleted the survey; and that she/he should consider in their responses only fa-
mily member employees involved with the family business (Astrachan, Klein
et al., 2002; MassMutual, 2002). However, it is plausible that the respondent
could have erred and counted all family members who divorced—and not only
or limited to family member employees (Rutherford et al., 2006). Therefore, the
possibility exists that the divorce rate variable may vary in its degree of pre-
cision across respondents.”
171
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179
3.2.2. Independent variables
Independent variables of debt, sales revenue, and F-BIA were included
in this analysis.
3.2.2.1. Debt. The 2002 AFBS provides a measure of debt-to-equity
ratio which was captured by asking: “Excluding trade payables, your debt
averages approximately what percent of your equity?” Response categories
were coded: no debt = 1, 1–25% = 2, 26–50% = 3, 51–100% = 4,
101–200% = 5, over 200% = 6.
3.2.2.2. Sales revenue. The 2002 AFBS provides multiple measures of
sales revenue. Following the advice of Hoy, McDougall, and Dsouza
(1992), we utilized a historical measure of sales revenue rather than a
perception of future sales revenue (e.g., “What percentage increase in
sales revenue do you anticipate in the coming year?”). This one-year
historical measure has been used in previous family business studies
and provides the benefit of objectivity (Rutherford, Buller, & McMullen,
2003; Schulze et al., 2003), as it is easier to measure past sales revenue
results than projective sales revenue (Rutherford et al., 2006). Thus,
sales revenue was represented here by the level of sales revenue (in
millions) achieved during the previous fiscal year (e.g., “approximately
what was the sales revenue last year? (in millions)”).
3.2.2.3. F-BIA. As noted, family-to-business identity alignment is a
broad construct with no precise operationalization due to the fact that it
can be conceptualized in many ways (Zellweger et al., 2010).
Accordingly, we sought out and adopted a similar operationalization
to the one employed by O'Boyle, Rutherford, and Pollack (2010), as our
items are intended to reflect the degree to which enterprising families
identify themselves with their family businesses based on a value
congruence approach.
Five items in the 2002 AFBS evaluated the extent to which values
were discussed (see Table 1). The items asked value congruence be-
tween the family and the business. We did not endeavor in the present
research to examine specific dimensions of F-BIA (Zellweger et al.,
2013). Rather, we used frequency of values-based dialogue and dis-
cussion as a proxy for the degree of F-BIA in family businesses. An EFA
of the five-items converged on a single factor with one Eigenvalue
greater than 1.0 accounting for 76% of the variance. No skewness or
kurtosis values exceeded 1.0, and Cronbach’s alpha for these items was
acceptable (α = .89). All items significantly loaded on the F-BIA latent
variable in the CFA (p < .01).
3.2.3. Control variables
Several variables not directly relevant to the hypotheses were con-
trolled for the purpose of the analyses. We control for family business
size, age, legal form, and industry effects to prevent larger, older, and
more professionalized businesses from skewing the data (Holt,
Rutherford, & Kuratko, 2010). We also control for variables that
somehow may be related to the hypotheses in the present analyses.
Thus, we control for family control (i.e., number of family members
involved in ownership, board, and TMT), family experience (i.e.,
number of generations involved in the family business), family com-
mitment (i.e., the extent to which enterprising families are committed
to the family business), transgenerational family control intentions (i.e.,
whether the next leader is a family member = coded 1, or not = coded
0), prenuptial agreements (i.e., whether the enterprising families have
prenuptial agreements = coded 1, or not = coded 0), education (i.e.,
the degree of education), and gender (i.e., male = 1, and female = 0).
We control for these variables given that they may explain a significant
portion of unique variation in divorce of enterprising families (Amato,
2010; Cole & Johnson, 2007; Galbraith, 2003).
4. Statistical analyses
The data were modeled in three hierarchical ordinary least squares
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al. Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179

(OLS) regression models to test Hypotheses 1:3. Regression model 1

Uniqueness
tests the direct effects of the control variables (industry, legal form,
0.40 family business size and age, family control, family experience, trans-

0.25

0.20

0.32

0.36
generational family control intentions, family commitment, prenuptial
agreements, education, and gender) on divorce. Regression model 2
Factor Loadings

tests the direct effects of business-related stressors (debt and sales

revenue) and adaptive processes (F-BIA) on divorce. And, regression
model 3 tests the direct effects of family business-related stressors (debt
0.70

0.84

0.88

0.79

0.76
and sales revenue) and its interaction terms (debt x F-BIA and sales
revenue x F-BIA) on divorce. Hierarchical OLS regressions add to our
Family and FB values

Values compatible

understanding of the data by building successive regression models, in

each one adding more predictors. In addition, hierarchical OLS re-
Family values

gression analysis provides a unique partitioning of the total variance

Influence

FB goals

explained across different regression models (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). In

Item

this case, three hierarchical regression models were used to test whe-
ther family business-related stressors and adaptive processes influence
5) Please rate the extent to which…as family, you agree with the family business
3) Please rate the extent to which…your family and family business share similar

the divorce rate of enterprising families (H1:3). Overall, the hier-

1) Please rate the extent to which…your family has influence on your family

2) Please rate the extent to which…your family shares similar values (3.90/

4) Please rate the extent to which…as family, you find that your values are

archical regression analyses demonstrate the unique variance explained

by our variables over and above the 3 regression models.

5. Results
compatible with those of the family business (4.25/1.06).

In Table 2, we present means, standard deviations, and bivariate

correlations among the variables we examined. The descriptive statis-
tics are worthy of comment. The mean divorce rate in enterprising fa-
milies is 0.08, indicating that less than one-tenth of the family members
involved in family businesses have experienced one divorce in the last 5
years. The mean of debt-level (Hypothesis 1a) is 2.5, indicating that half
of the family businesses in this sample leverage on debt financing, with
at least 50% of their equity on average. The mean sales revenue-level
(Hypothesis 1b) is 0.03, suggesting that most enterprising families
Matching Conceptualizations with Measures and Internal Consistency and Factor Analysis (2002 AFBS, N = 583).

achieved approximately $30 millions of dollars in sales revenue in the

business (4.16/1.14).

past fiscal year on average. The mean of F-BIA (Hypothesis 2) is 4.06,

values (3.96/1.17).

goals (4.16/1.87).

indicating that the vast majority of enterprising families present a

strong F-BIA.
Measures

In terms of the control variables, we note that the variable ‘pre-

1.13).

nuptial agreement’ has a mean of 0.3, which reflects that only 30% of
the enterprising families have at least one prenuptial agreement. The
variable family control has a mean of 0. 9. This reflects that the vast
majority of family businesses are owned, managed, and controlled by
The degree to which enterprising families identify with family

one dominant family coalition. Further, the family commitment vari-

able has a mean of 3.7, which reflects that the vast majority of en-
terprising families exhibit strong commitment towards the business.
The transgenerational family control intentions variable has a mean of
0.72, which reflects a strong desire to keep the business within the same
family. Similarly, the family experience variable has a mean of 2.1,
indicating that on average the number of generations (that own stock,
business’ goals and family’s values.

are active in the business, and participate on the board) is two. Mean
firm age is 65 years; while mean firm size is 1.7. This supports the idea
that the majority of family businesses in our sample are in a growth
stage and are relatively small (have at least 170 employees). In addi-
Means and standard deviations are in parentheses.

tion, the gender variable has a mean of 0.85. This suggests that the vast
Conceptualization

majority of family businesses have more male family members involved

in the business. The education variable has a mean of 3.73, which re-
flects that on average family business leaders have some college ex-
perience. The legal form variable has a mean of 2.7, indicating that S
Corporation is the most prominent legal form for the majority of family
business in our sample. Lastly, the mean for industry is 0.4, which re-
flects that almost 60% of the family businesses are in the manufacturing
FB = Family business.

sector.
Prior to estimating our variables of interest used in the hierarchical
F-BIA (Cronbach’s

OLS regression models, Pearson correlation coefficients were estimated

alpha = .89)

to determine whether correlations between pairs of variables presented

Variable

serious problems for estimation of the specified hierarchical regression

Table 1

models (Table 2). The correlation table includes both continuous and
categorical variables. Overall, bivariate correlation coefficients

172
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al. Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (2002 AFBS, N = 583).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Divorce Rate 0.08 0.20 1.00

2. Industry a 0.40 0.50 0.04 1.00
3. Legal form 2.70 1.60 −0.02 0.04 1.00
4. Firm Size 1.70 5.92 0.02 −0.03 0.04 1.00
5. Firm Age 64.24 31.31 0.02 −0.12** −0.11** 0.08** 1.00
6. Family 0.90 0.30 0.02 −0.03 −0.00 −0.07* −0.04 1.00
Control
7. Family 2.10 0.93 0.02 −0.10 **
−0.09 **
0.11 **
0.70 **
−0.07* 1.00
Experience
8. TFCI a 0.72 0.45 −0.06 −0.02 −0.06 0.02 0.06 0.10 **
0.01** 1.00
9. Family 3.70 1.51 −0.03* −0.03 −0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03* 0.18 0.50** 1.00
Commitme-
nt
10. Prenuptial 0.30 0.45 0.09** −0.00 0.02 0.12** 0.12** −0.04 0.17* 0.02 0.07 1.00
Agreements
a

11. Education 3.73 1.00 0.00 −0.02 0.02 0.05** 0.20** −0.09 0.20** −0.14* −0.05 0.07* 1.00
12. Gender a 0.85 0.35 0.03 0.04 0.03 −0.04 −0.09* 0.08* −0.07* −0.03 −0.11** −0.00 −0.02* 1.00
13. Debt 2.42 1.33 0.08* −0.04 −0.04 0.02 −0.04 −0.05 −0.03 −0.07* −0.06 −0.01 0.07 −0.04 1.00
14. Sales 1.83 56.20 0.10 0.00 −0.03 0.26** 0.09** −0.03 0.09** −0.05 −0.01 −0.05 0.05 −0.01 0.07* 1.00
Revenue
15. F-BIA 4.06 1.00 −0.08 **
0.03 0.06*
0.03 −0.09 0.06 −0.03 0.07 *
0.23 **
−0.02 0.05 *
0.04 −0.04 −0.04* (.89)

Notes: a signifies binary variables; TFCI = Transgenerational Family Control Intentions; F-BIA = Family-to-business identity alignment; Alpha coefficients are in
parentheses; *p < .05; **p < .01.

between the dependent variable and the various independent variables
were relatively low (r is highest for debt at 0.08 and sales revenue at
0.10; while the r for F-BIA at −0.08). This preliminary analysis suggests
that debt and sales revenue are consistent with our theory that family
business-related stressors are related to divorce in family businesses.
However, the family commitment and F-BIA constructs are moderately
correlated (r = .23). Although we expected the above constructs to be
related in some way (given that both can measure aspects of the
identification alignment between the family and the business), in order
to establish discriminant validity between the measures of F-BIA and
family commitment we assess their relationship with our dependent
variable (family commitment r = −0.03 and F-BIA r = −0.08).
Therefore, the correlation is notably lower for the family commitment
construct when compared to the correlation between divorce and F-BIA.
In addition, only the relationship between divorce and F-BIA was sig-
nificant (r = −0.08, p < .05), suggesting that family commitment and
F-BIA are related to some extent but quite distinct. Overall, some other
measures are slightly correlated but do not appear in regressions si-
multaneously, obviating potential multicollinearity issues.
Moreover, we calculated variance inflation factors (VIF) and max-
imum condition index (MCI) to check for the presence of multi-
collinearity inherent in our four-main hierarchical OLS regression
models, including interaction terms. The VIFs and MCIs for each vari-
able were within the acceptable range; both are below the levels of 10
and 30, respectively, which would be no reason for concern (Belsley,
Kuh, & Welsch, 1980; Fox, 1991; Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1985)
(Table 2). The average VIF was 1.05 and MCI was 6.93 for model 1; for
model 2, 1.12 and 10.81 respectively; and VIF was 2.48 and MCI was
11.40 for model 3. Given the low individual and average VIF and MCI
values, we found no evidence of multicollinearity concerns in our
sample (Chatterjee & Price, 1991; Pedhazur, 1997). Even though our
VIF and MCI numbers are low, we cannot rule out that our interaction
term variables are picking up some of the effect (debt x F-BIA = 16.16
and sales revenue x FBIA = 17.14). Further, we did not detect any
coefficient instability (Greenberg & Parks, 1997) and we found no
evidence of heteroscedasticity using White and Breusch-Pagan tests
(Kennedy, 2003) among the variables we added hierarchically.
5.1. Regressions models and hypotheses tests
5.1.1. Regression model 1: direct and linear effects of control variables on
divorce rate
We used hierarchical OLS regression models to test whether busi-
ness-related stressors and adaptive processes influence divorce rate in
family businesses (Table 3). In regression model 1, divorce was first
regressed against the control variables (i.e., industry, legal form, firm
size, firm age, family control, family experience, transgenerational fa-
mily control intentions, family commitment, prenuptial agreements,
education, and gender). We note that prenuptial agreement estimates
had a significant effect on divorce rate in family business, at (β = .112,
p < 0.01). This supports our expectation that, when predicting divorce
in family businesses, relationships between business-related and family-
related variables must be controlled for because they may vary in their
influence on the divorce rate. The adjusted R2 for the regression model
1 is 0.012.
5.1.2. Regression model 2: direct and linear effects of predictors
(Hypothesis 1a, Hypothesis 1b, and Hypothesis 2)
Regression model 2 adds the business-related stressors (debt and
sales revenue) and adaptive processes (F-BIA). In general, the analysis
reveals that model 2 (ΔR2 = .025, p < .01) explains a significant
amount of additional variance over and above model 1. In addition, we
find that business-related stressors, both debt (β = .112, p < .01) and
revenue (β = .113, p < .01) are linearly, positively and significantly
related to divorce. These results suggest that family businesses with
increased (high) debt- and revenue-levels experience higher rates of
divorce. Thus, hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported. Furthermore,
adaptive processes in the form of F-BIA is linear, negatively and sig-
nificantly associated with divorce rate (β = −0.077, p < .05). This
result supports the idea that enterprising families with stronger F-BIA
experience fewer rates of divorce (Hypothesis 2).
5.1.3. Regression model 3: direct and linear effects of interaction terms
(Hypothesis 3a and Hypothesis 3b)
In regression model 3, we show the results of both interaction terms:

173
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al. Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179

Table 3
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Influencing Divorce Rate in Family Businesses (2002 AFBS, N = 583).
Predictor variables Regression Model 1 Regression Model 2 Regression Model 3 Curvilinear Effects
Controls Direct Effects (Hypothesis 1a, Hypothesis 1b, and Interaction Terms (Hypothesis 3a,
Hypothesis 2) Hypothesis 3b)

B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

Model 1:
Intercept 0.065 0.010 – 0.023 0.018 – 0.020 0.018 – 0.022 0.018 –
Industry 0.010 0.018 .024a 0.010 0.018 .025a 0.012 0.017 .029 a 0.009 0.018 0.022
Legal form −0.003 0.005 −0.023 0.000 0.005 −0.002 −0.001 0.005 −0.004 −0.000 0.005 −0.001
Firm Size −0.001 0.002 −0.015 −0.001 0.002 −0.035 −0.002 0.002 −0.039 −0.002 0.002 −0.038
Firm Age −0.007 0.040 −0.011 −0.006 0.040 −0.009 −0.016 0.040 −0.023 −0.008 0.040 −0.012
Family Control 0.025 0.028 0.037 0.035 0.028 0.053 0.038 0.028 0.058 0.037 0.028 0.055
Fam Experience 0.007 0.013 0.032 0.005 0.013 0.024 0.008 0.013 0.038 0.006 0.013 0.027
TFCI −0.022 0.021 −0.048a −0.025 0.021 −0.056a −0.024 0.021 −0.054 a
−0.025 0.021 −0.055
Commitment 0.003 0.007 0.024 0.007 0.007 0.052 0.006 0.007 0.045 0.007 0.007 0.049
Prenuptial 0.049 0.018 .112** 0.050 0.018 .112** 0.050 0.018 .114** 0.050 0.018 .113**
Education 0.000 0.009 −0.001 −0.003 0.009 −0.015 −0.005 0.009 −0.023 −0.003 0.009 −0.016
Gender 0.024 0.024 .041a 0.035 0.024 .060a 0.028 0.024 .049 a 0.034 0.024 0.058

Model 2:
Debt 0.016 0.006 .112** 0.015 0.006 .104** 0.015 0.006 .104**
Sales Revenue 0.189 0.070 .113** 0.165 0.068 .099** 0.163 0.068 .097**
F-BIA −0.018 0.010 −0.077* −1.15 0.549 −4.97* −0.018 0.010 −0.077*

Model 3:
Debt x F−BIA −0.018 0.009 −0.085*
Rev x F−BIA −33.98 16.39 −4.902*

Curvilinear Effects:
Debt sq. −0.005 0.004 −0.216
Rev sq. −0.022 0.082 −0.028
2
R 0.012 0.025 0.042 0.034
Adj. R2 0.011 0.022 0.035 0.029
ΔR 2
0.012 0.012 0.017 −0.008
F for ΔR2 7.308** 7.416** 4.353* 5.649*
Max VIF 1.05 1.12 2.48 2.40
MCI 6.93 10.81 11.40 11.21

*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; † p < .10, two-tailed.
β signifies standardized slopes; a signifies slopes that are y-standardized for binary variables.
Notes: In Regression Model 4, debt-level, revenue-level, and FB-Identity were centered at their means.
Fam Experience = Family experience;
TFCI = Transgenerational Family Control Intentions
Commitment = Family Commitment.
Debt sq. = Debt squared.
Rev sq. = Sales Revenue squared.
VIF = Variance Inflation Factors.
MCI = Maximum Condition Index.

a) debt * F-BIA and b) sale revenue * F-BIA, including the direct effects
together in the same model. Overall the model is significant
(ΔR2 = .042, F = 4.353, p < .05), indicating an additional contribu-
tion of the significance of the interaction terms. In this full model, the
direct effects of debt and sales revenue are significant (β = .104,
p < .01 and β = .099, p < .01, respectively). In this full model, the
direct effect of F-BIA is significant, negatively related to divorce
(β = −4.97, p < .05). Furthermore, the interaction term between debt
* F-BIA is linear, negatively and significantly related to divorce
(β = −0.085, p < .05). Similarly, the interaction term between sale
revenue * F-BIA is linear, negatively and marginally significant on di-
vorce (β = −4.902, p < .05). In sum, hypothesis 3a and 3b were
supported. Finally, these results indicate the influence of both direct
effects and interaction terms included together.
6. Supplemental analysis
Several post hoc tests were conducted to cross-validate our approach
and findings by using the 1997 American Family Business Survey
(hereafter 1997 AFBS). While data for both sets of data were collected
in virtually the same manner (i.e., the sampling frames were seemingly
the same), these data are not longitudinal—i.e., the family businesses
sampled in 2002 were not the same family businesses sampled in 1997;
and, they were not matched over time. In addition, we could not vali-
date the relationship between F-BIA and divorce, nor the interaction
effects, given that the 1997 AFBS does not capture variables related to
our F-BIA construct.
6.1. Curvilinear effects in the 2002 AFBS
In addition to testing the direct linear relationship between family
business-related stressors and divorce, we explore the theoretical pos-
sibility of curvilinear relationships. That is, low and high levels of
business-related stressors could perhaps lead to some more unified
business relationships among enterprising families (Glover & Reay,
2015; Rothstein, 1992), relative to moderate levels of family business-
related stressors. Therefore, we empirically determine whether the
business-related stressors—divorce relationship changes when squared
terms of debt and sales revenue are considered. In other words, we test
a curvilinear relationship between debt and sales revenue with divorce
to examine whether enterprising families despite facing family busi-
ness-related stressors stay together for one common purpose—i.e., the
family business.
To conduct this curvilinear analysis, we conducted OLS regression

174
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al. Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (1997 AFBS, N = 2495).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Divorce Rate 0.09 0.24 1.00

2. Industry a 1.50 0.82 0.03 1.00
3. Legal form 1.60 0.90 0.01 −0.00 1.00
4. Firm Size 1.33 4.62 0.01 0.11** −0.01 1.00
5. Firm Age 70.65 27.71 0.02 0.03 −0.05** 0.05** 1.00
6. Family Control 0.30 0.13 0.00 −0.00 −0.02 −0.03 −0.02 1.00
7. Family Experience 1.90 0.90 −0.01 0.01 −0.04* 0.05 0.70** 0.02 1.00
8. TFCI a 0.92 0.30 −0.03 −0.02 −0.02 0.02 0.06** −0.01 0.09** 1.00
9. Family Commitment 4.10 1.30 −0.01* −0.01** −0.04 0.01 0.10** −0.04 0.09** 0.42** 1.00
10. Prenuptial Agreements a
1.34 0.80 0.09* 0.02 0.02 0.10** 0.01 −0.00 0.02 0.03 0.02** 1.00
11. Education 3.64 0.95 0.03 0.10** 0.00 0.07** 0.13** 0.04* 0.24** −0.01 −0.06** 0.03* 1.00
12. Gender a 1.05 0.21 0.03 −0.01** 0.05* −0.03 −0.04* −0.04* −0.03 −0.00 0.01 0.05 −0.04* 1.00
13. Debt 2.22 1.30 0.04 0.03 −0.03 0.07** 0.01 0.06** 0.06** −0.03 −0.01 0.00 0.10** −0.04 1.00
14. Sales revenue 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.12** −0.00 0.42** 0.08** −0.06** 0.11** −0.00 0.02** 0.07** 0.10** −0.05** 0.15** 1.00

Notes: a signifies binary variables;

TFCI = Transgenerational Family Control Intentions
F-BIA = Family-to-business identity alignment.
*p < .05; **p < .01.

whereby the control variables, business-related stressors variables, and 7. Discussion

the squared terms of debt- and sales revenue were entered (curvilinear
effects in Table 3). When added the nonlinear addition of debt, the
standardized coefficient of the direct effects of debt-level was sig-
nificant (β = .104; p < .01), however, the squared term was non-sig-
nificant (β = −0.216, p > .1). These results suggest a positive linear
relationship between debt and divorce rate, which implies that high
levels of debt are positively and linearly associated with divorce.
Overall, we find no support for a curvilinear effect.
We also tested whether the added squared term of the sales revenue
variable is significant on the divorce rate. Although the results fail to
support a curvilinear relationship between sales revenue squared and
divorce (β = −0.028; p > .1), however, we find that testing the linear
effects of revenue-level on divorce rate led to a statistical significant
result (β = .097; p < .01). In addition, we were surprised to find that
F-BIA is negatively related to divorce (β = −0.077; p < .05) in this
regression. Overall, these results mean that non-linear terms have no
significant effect on the divorce of enterprising families.
6.2. Cross-Validation of the 2002 AFBS linear and curvilinear relationships
in the 1997 AFBS
Cross-validation is an important part of research (Edwards, 2003),
particularly for refining models in family business research (Litz,
Pearson, & Litchfield, 2012). Cross-validation concerns consistency of
findings across distinct but related samples (MacCallum, Roznowski,
Mar, & Reith, 1994). Following the statistical analyses used for the
2002 AFBS, we then modeled the 1997 AFBS data (N = 2495) in
hierarchical regression models as well. The dependent variable here is
similar as in the 2002 AFBS—i.e., divorce rate (i.e., divorced family
member employees/total family members employed, (Rutherford et al.,
2006)). For the predictors in our model, we used only debt and sales
revenue. The 1997 AFBS report no variables with respect to F-BIA.
We display descriptives and correlations in Table 4 and the results
of the hierarchical regressions in Table 5. The hierarchical regressions
on the 1997 AFBS demonstrated general support for the linear and
significant effects of debt and sales revenue on divorce (β = .032,
p < .1, and β = .074, p < .05) (Model 2 in Table 5). That is, family
businesses with high levels of debt and sales revenue influence posi-
tively and significantly the divorce rate of enterprising families. How-
ever, when we tested for curvilinear relationships, the squared term for
debt and the squared term for sales revenue did not reveal significant
effects (β = −0.004, and β = .004, both p > .1).
Results from a sample of 583 family businesses illustrated that fa-
mily business-related stressors (in the form of debt and sale revenue)
that positively influence divorce. Further, the results provide empirical
evidence that adaptive processes (in the form of F-BIA) compensate the
positive (but detrimental) effects of family business-related stressors on
divorce.
Specifically, the first set of findings, indicates that enterprising fa-
milies with increased debt- and sales revenue-levels experienced higher
rates of divorce. Further, in support of Hypotheses 1a and b, through
the use of a cross-validation (multi-method) analysis of two large data
sets—the 1997 AFBS and the 2002 AFBS—we validated our theorizing
and findings. In other words, family business-related stressors are par-
tially responsible for the failure of marital relationships in family
businesses. These findings are, therefore, more in line with contentions
made by Astrachan (2010) and Pieper et al. (2013) who suggest that the
business can have significant negative consequences on the family.
Accordingly, the second set of findings (Hypothesis 2), suggests that
adaptive processes compensate the positive (but detrimental) effects of
family business-related stressors, thus resulting in lower rates of divorce
for enterprising families. Our results showed that stronger F-BIA had a
negative and significant effect on divorce rate in family businesses. Our
results support prior research suggesting the potential benefits of
having strong F-BIA, such as strong family communication and ties, and
overall survival of both the family and the business over time (e.g.,
Anglin et al., 2017; Zellweger et al., 2010; Zellweger et al., 2013). This
is especially true if enterprising families leverage their F-BIA as an
adaptive process to manage family business-related stressors, such that
the rate of divorce is reduced in family businesses.
Our third set of results, the interaction terms between debt and F-
BIA and between sales revenue and F-BIA (Hypothesis 3a and
Hypothesis 3b), indicate that F-BIA moderates the relationship between
family business-related stressors and divorce. Specifically, the results
show that both interaction terms negatively and significantly impact
divorce rate. Based on our analysis, F-BIA is indeed one moderator
whereby enterprising families can translate into an adaptive process
when facing stressors. This relation suggests that studying the F-BIA
construct in more detail holds promise for future research.
Lastly, results from our supplemental analyses indicate that it is the
case, in these data, that family business-related stressors are linearly
and directly associated with divorce. Since these findings were incon-
sistent with past research (e.g., Glover & Reay, 2015), suggesting that
“[enterprising families] have the ability to stay together for some

175
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al. Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179

Table 5
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Influencing Divorce Rate in Family Businesses (1997 AFBS, N = 2495).
Predictor variables Regression Model 1 Regression Model 2 Curvilinear Effects

Controls Direct Effects

B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

Model 1:
Intercept −0.031 0.042 – −0.020 0.044 – −0.021 0.047 –
Industry .008 a 0.006 0.026 0.006 .006 a 0.021 .006 a 0.006 0.021
Legal form 0.006 0.006 0.021 0.007 0.006 0.023 0.007 0.006 0.021
Firm Size 0.000 0.002 0.003 −0.001 0.002 −0.006 −0.001 0.002 −0.006
Firm Age 0.001 0.000 .072** 0.001 0.000 .078** 0.001 0.000 .078**
Family Control −0.007 0.040 −0.003 −0.010 0.040 −0.005 −0.010 0.040 −0.005
Fam Experience −0.016 0.008 −0.056* −0.016 0.008 −0.059* −0.016 0.008 −0.059*
TFCI −0.003 a
0.020 −0.003 0.001 .020 a 0.002 .001 a 0.020 0.002
Commitment −0.003 0.005 −0.012 0.010 0.008 0.048 0.010 0.008 0.048
Prenuptial 0.024 0.006 .076*** 0.025 0.006 .079*** 0.025 0.006 .079***
Education 0.009 0.005 .037† 0.007 0.005 0.029 0.007 0.005 0.029
Gender .035 a 0.023 0.030 0.036 .023 a 0.031 .036 a 0.023 0.031

Model 2:
Debt 0.007 0.004 .034† 0.006 0.004 .032†
Sales Revenue 0.019 0.009 .076* 0.027 0.009 .074*
Curvilinear Effects:
Debt sq. 0.000 0.002 −0.004
Rev sq. 0.039 0.342 0.004
2
R 0.012 0.015 0.015
Adj. R2 0.008 0.010 0.009
ΔR2 0.012 0.003 –
F for ΔR2 2.846** 2.514† –
Max VIF 1.25 1.58 3.59
MCI 11.36 12.92 13.96

*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; † p < 0.10, two-tailed.
β signifies standardized slopes; a signifies slopes that are y-standardized for binary variables
Notes: In Regression Model 4, debt-level, revenue-level, and FB-Identity were centered at their means
Fam Experience = Family experience
TFCI = Transgenerational Family Control Intentions
Commitment = Family Commitment
Debt sq. = Debt squared
Rev sq. = Sales Revenue squared
VIF = Variance Inflation Factors
MCI = Maximum Condition Index

common purpose (for example, the family business)” (emphasis added,
Rothstein, 1992, p. 404), we confidently indicate that family businesses
affect positively and linearly family relationships. That is, at higher
levels of family business-related stressors, enterprising families are at
higher risk to experience failure in their martial unions, as compared to
low or moderated levels.
Taken together, our results indicate that family business-related
stressors positively influence divorce in family businesses, thus further
suggesting that enterprising families indeed perceive stress from the
business, in the sense described above. Apparently, the consequences of
pursuing debt maximization and higher sales revenue tend to put en-
terprising families at risk for divorce. That is, unless enterprising fa-
milies implement adaptive mechanisms and behaviors that help them
stay together over time.
8. Implications and directions for future research
We opened this research by observing that increased scholarly at-
tention has been devoted to understanding the impact of divorce on
family business outcomes (e.g., Galbraith, 2003; Rutherford et al.,
2006). But that research so far lacks cohesive theorizing and empirical
evidence to explain how family businesses might influence divorce in
enterprising families. We develop the theory by integrating insights
from the sister discipline of family science and theoretical perspectives
from the family business literature. Specifically, we argued that as a
result of family business-related stressors, enterprising families may
experience divorce. Moreover, we proposed that enterprising families
require strong identification alignment between the family and the
business to pursue stable marital relationships. Our empirical results
supported our theorizing.
Our study makes four contributions. First, we contribute to the
broad family business literature by promoting theoretical development
in outcome variables that deserve more attention (e.g., Yu et al., 2012).
We measured an important, less studied outcome variable related to the
family domain (i.e., divorce (Jaskiewicz, Lutz et al., 2016)), which is
relevant for both family business researchers and family practitioners
(Pieper et al., 2013). In doing so, we attempted to demonstrate the
uniqueness of the family business field and the heterogeneity of out-
comes enterprising families strive for and achieve. Future research
should test in more detail whether family businesses influence other
outcome variables that enterprising families attempt to achieve. For
example: family structures, family roles, family dynamics, family
functions, family interactions, and family events, among others.
Second, we contribute to the emerging enterprising family hetero-
geneity literature (e.g., Jaskiewicz & Dyer, 2017; Powell et al., 2017) by
introducing a family science framework that adds to the general un-
derstanding of the unique bidirectional interactions between the family
and the business (e.g., James, Jennings, & Breitkreuz, 2012; Pieper
et al., 2013); in particular, to understand family business-related factors
that impact the divorce of enterprising families. Given the recent
scholarly interest in the impact family business have on enterprising
families and because we confirmed our hypotheses related to divorce,

176
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al.
an important extension of our work would be to consider how other
family business-related factors (such as entrepreneurial orientation,
strategic planning, firm legacy orientation, growth orientation, and
intangible assets) and work life stressors (e.g., heavy workload, long
working hours) affect the divorce of enterprising families. Similarly,
another fertile area for future research is to investigate how individual
characteristics (such as bright and dark side personality, positive and
negative affectivity, among others) influence the divorce of enterprising
families. Further, because the focus of the current enterprising family
heterogeneity literature focuses on bidirectional effects, future research
could investigate how divorce in enterprising families affect family
business nonfinancial goals, behaviors, and outcomes.
Third, we contribute to the family-to-business fit identity literature
(Zellweger et al., 2010, 2013). We use the F-BIA construct to theorize
that enterprising families’ strong identification alignment with their
family businesses motivates them to lower family business-related
stressors because it contributes to the family’s shared values, beliefs,
and meanings. Moreover, we propose that the relevance of the F-BIA
construct is central to the VSA model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Fo-
cusing on a strong F-BIA might help family businesses prosper in the
long run because it can lead to greater support among enterprising
families. Another possibility, though, is that F-BIA may represent a
potential liability for the family system in contexts in which the busi-
ness fails. That is, the imbalance in one system (i.e., business) may spill
over into the other system (i.e., family). In that way, when the business
system fails, the family identity could be potentially damaged, creating
a familial structural void (Bowlby-West, 1983); thus, leading en-
terprising families to divorce. Building from this, future research could
investigate how other family business-related behaviors (such as SEW,
long-term orientation, familiness, social capital, family legacy) may
moderate the relationship between stressors and divorce, thus leading
to marital stability.
Lastly, we inform the family relations literature by complementing the
prevailing view on the potential risk factors for divorce (e.g., Amato, 2010;
Gottman, 2014). Our findings suggest that family business-related stressors
(in the form of debt- and sales revenue-) positively and significantly in-
fluence divorce. Thus, our study provides a number of risk factors that we
found to significantly influence divorce. This vast and rich literature has
largely overlooked specific and important potential risk factors for divorce
at the intersection of business and family (Amato, 2010; Frisco & Williams,
2003; Presser, 2000). Future research, however, is needed to discern the
mechanisms underlying specific stressors. For example, does elevated debt
level increase divorce rates for the same reason as elevated revenue?
Understanding these nuances could inform therapeutic and supplemental
counseling for enterprising families.
9. Limitations
Our study contains limitations, all of which represent important ave-
nues for future research. First, the data set of 2002 AFBS is relatively old.
Such data, however, inform us of whether the VSA model explains the
divorce of enterprising families. That is because divorce is thought to be a
stable phenomenon that changes little over time (Amato, 2010). It is
plausible that there could be important environmental changes, across
time, which may impact the relations among family business-related
stressors, F-BIA, and divorce. Future research could highlight important
theoretical and practical insights that the present research could not ex-
amine. Along these lines, we strongly encourage future research to collect
data on divorce in family businesses that can be empirically assessed (e.g.,
self-reports, interviews, and observations). Second, one limitation to all
cross-sectional, nonexperimental research is the failure to assess causality.
While the data gave us the attractive feature of statistical power, future
research could explore a sample of longitudinal data, following the same
enterprising families over time to draw causal inferences.
We did not measure underlying psychological constructs, most no-
tably, that motivate members of enterprising families to divorce (e.g.,
177
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179
Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Tolpin et al., 2006). We propose that future
research could investigate enterprising families’ individual characteristics
(e.g., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and Big Five) and its
association with divorce. This shift in personality may imply that en-
terprising families with high levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and
psychopathy will lead to higher divorce rates. We were not able to take
this shift into account specifically. Future research could investigate
“protective factors” and strategies to mitigate the impact of such in-
dividual characteristics on divorce in enterprising families (Amato, 2010).
For example, the existence of relationship boundaries that define the
structure and communication between the two overlapping system-
s—family and business (Minuchin, 1985)—including marital identity
(DeGarmo & Kitson, 1996), family charter or family mission statement
(Jaffe, 1990; Hoy & Verser, 1994), rules of conduct (Emery & Dillon,
1994), communication agreements (Emery, 1994) and communication
cues (i.e., messages, meanings, and behaviors (Manusov & Koenig, 2001)).
A final limitation is that our key argument about the influence of F-BIA
on the relationship between family business-related stressors and divorce
is inferential. We used the VSA model to identify relevant variables for F-
BIA based on values congruence between the family and the business, but
we did not test them on family members directly. That is because of the
nature and use of secondary data. We used the VSA framework to identify
the selected variables and to develop our hypotheses and, the fact that our
hypotheses were mostly supported, speaks in favor of our interpretation of
the theory and results. However, we cannot rule out that alternative causal
mechanisms and micro-processes are at play in the study of divorce in
family businesses. In addition, recent work has moved to operationalize F-
BIA as a multidimensional construct (Anglin et al., 2017) via content
analysis. While it is challenging to gather the necessary materials to per-
form content analysis on a sample of smaller, privately held family firms;
this is a possible fruitful way forward.
10. Conclusion
As this is one of the first studies to empirically explore the re-
lationships among family business-related stressors, F-BIA, and divorce,
we encourage family business researchers to continue to pursue this
line of inquiry. Overall, our findings indicate that family business-re-
lated stressors and F-BIA impact divorce and that the interactions be-
tween family business-related stressors and F-BIA reduce divorce rates.
These findings may inform researchers about the roles that family
business-related stressors and F-BIA can play in influencing the divorce
enterprising families. In addition, the moderation model relating family
business-related stressors, F-BIA, and divorce provides a model through
which future research can examine the relations among these con-
structs. We hope that the multiple lines of future research that these
findings outline will encourage additional efforts to explore these, and
other, theoretically and practically relevant questions regarding how
family business-related stressors, F-BIA, and divorce are related.
This study provides evidence to those working with enterprising
families and business families to intervene in ways that are beneficial to
the stability and continuity of the family and success of the business.
Today, family relations researchers, practitioners, and therapists still
lack a good understanding of the significant impact businesses have on
the families who own, control and manage them. This study addressed
fundamental contentions but much more research needs to be done.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, au-
thorship, and/or publication of this article.
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al.
References
Abdellatif, M., Amann, B., & Jaussaud, J. (2010). Family versus nonfamily business: A
comparison of international strategies. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(2), 108–116.
Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the
life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24(5), 602–626.
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666.
Anglin, A. H., Reid, S. W., Short, J. C., Zachary, M. A., & Rutherford, M. W. (2017). An
archival approach to measuring family influence: An organizational identity per-
spective. Family Business Review, 30(1), 19–36.
Astrachan, J. H., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2008). Emotional returns and emotional costs in pri-
vately held family businesses: Advancing traditional business valuation. Family
Business Review, 21(2), 139–149.
Astrachan, J. H., & Kolenko, T. A. (1994). A neglected factor explaining family business
success: Human resource practices. Family Business Review, 7(3), 251–262.
Astrachan, J. H. (2003). Commentary on the special issue: The emergence of a field.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 567–572.
Astrachan, J. H. (2010). Strategy in family business: Toward a multidimensional research
agenda. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 6–14.
Astrachan, J. H., Allen, I. E., & Spinelli, S. (2002). Mass mutual/Raymond Institute
American family business survey. Springfield, MA: Mass Mutual Financial Group.
Astrachan, J. H., Klein, S. B., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2002). The F-PEC scale of family in-
fluence: A proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Family Business
Review, 15(1), 45–58.
Barelds, D. P. (2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. European
Journal of Personality, 19(6), 501–518.
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Detecting and assessing collinearity.
Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity85–191.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional
wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms
pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113.
Bloom, B. L., Hodges, W. F., Caldwell, R. A., Systra, L., & Cedrone, A. R. (1977). Marital
separation: A community survey. Journal of Divorce, 1(1), 7–19.
Bowlby-West, L. (1983). The impact of death on the family system. Journal of Family
Therapy, 5(3), 279–294.
Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage
in the United States. Vital Health Statistics, 23(22), 1–32.
Cabrera-Suárez, K., De Saá-Pérez, P., & García-Almeida, D. (2001). The succession process
from a resource-and knowledge-based view of the family firm. Family Business Review,
14(1), 37–46.
Cardon, M. S., & Patel, P. C. (2015). Is stress worth it? Stress-related health and wealth
trade-offs for entrepreneurs. Applied Psychology, 64(2), 379–420.
Carr, J. C., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2015). Differences in the outcomes of work and family
conflict between family-and nonfamily businesses: An examination of business
founders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(6), 1413–1432.
Chatterjee, S., & Price, B. (1991). Regression diagnostics. New York: Wiley.
Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The origins of the ambivalent acceptance of divorce. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 71(2), 226–229.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., & Rau, S. B. (2012). Sources of heterogeneity in
family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6),
1103–1113.
Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Negative life events, marital interaction, and the
longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73(1), 114–128.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the be-
havioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cole, P. M., & Johnson, K. (2007). An exploration of successful copreneurial relationships
postdivorce. Family Business Review, 20(3), 185–198.
Colli, A. (2012). Contextualizing performances of family firms: The perspective of busi-
ness history. Family Business Review, 25(3), 243–257.
Combs, J. G., Jaskiewicz, P., Shanine, K. K., & Balkin, D. B. (2018). Making sense of HRM
in family firms: Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes. Human Resource
Management Review, 28(Mar. (1)), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.05.001.
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work-role
expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 252–260.
Danes, S. M., & Lee, Y. G. (2004). Tensions generated by business issues in farm business-
owning couples. Family Relations, 53(4), 357–366.
Danes, S. M., Zuiker, V., Kean, R., & Arbuthnot, J. (1999). Predictors of family business
tensions and goal achievement. Family Business Review, 12(3), 241–252.
Danes, S. M. (2006). Tensions within family business-owning couples over time. Stress,
Trauma, and Crisis, 9(3–4), 227–246.
Davila, J., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). Attachment insecurity and the distinction between
unhappy spouses who do and do not divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3),
371–393.
De Vries, M. F. K. (1993). The dynamics of family controlled firms: The good and the bad
news. Organizational Dynamics, 21(3), 59–71.
DeGarmo, D. S., & Kitson, G. C. (1996). Identity relevance and disruption as predictors of
psychological distress for widowed and divorced women. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 983–997.
Dobbs, M., & Hamilton, R. T. (2007). Small business growth: Recent evidence and new
directions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 13(5),
296–322.
Dunne, P., & Hughes, A. (1994). Age, size, growth and survival: UK companies in the
1980. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 115–140.
178
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179
Dyer, W. G., Nenque, E., & Hill, E. J. (2014). Toward a theory of family capital and
entrepreneurship: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Small Business Management,
52(2), 266–285.
Dyer, W. G. (2006). Examining the family effect on firm performance. Family Business
Review, 19(4), 253–273.
Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W., & Sarathy, R. (2008). Resource configuration in
family firms: Linking resources, strategic planning and technological opportunities to
performance. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 26–50.
Edwards, J. R. (2003). Construct validation in organizational behavior research. In J.
Greenberg (Ed.). Organizational behavior: The state of the science(2nd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Emery, R. E., & Dillon, P. (1994). Conceptualizing the divorce process: Renegotiating
boundaries of intimacy and power in the divorced family system. Family Relations,
374–379.
Emery, R. E. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody, and media-
tion. New York: Guilford.
Faust, K. A., & McKibben, J. N. (1999). Marital dissolution. Handbook of marriage and the
family. US: Springer475–499.
Fitzgerald, M. A., & Muske, G. (2002). Copreneurs: An exploration and comparison to
other family businesses. Family Business Review, 15(1), 1–16.
Fombrun, C. J., & Wally, S. (1989). Structuring small firms for rapid growth. Journal of
Business Venturing, 4(2), 107–122.
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and
conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(1), 57–80.
Fox, J. (1991). Regression diagnostics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and
divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24(1), 51–73.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., & Moyano-Fuentes,
J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms:
Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1),
106–137.
Galbraith, C. S. (2003). Divorce and the financial performance of small family businesses:
An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(3), 296–309.
Glover, J. L., & Reay, T. (2015). Sustaining the family business with minimal financial
rewards: How do family farms continue? Family Business Review, 28(2), 163–177.
Goel, S., Mazzola, P., Phan, P. H., Pieper, T. M., & Zachary, R. K. (2012). Strategy,
ownership, governance, and socio-psychological perspectives on family businesses
from around the world. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(2), 54–65.
Gottman, J. M. (2014). What predicts divorce?: The relationship between marital processes
and marital outcomes. Psychology Press.
Greenberg, E., & Parks, R. P. (1997). A predictive approach to model selection and
multicollinearity. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 67–75.
Hampson, R. B., Beavers, R. W., & Hulgus, Y. F. (1988). Commentary: Comparing the
Beavers and Circumplex models of family functioning. Family Process, 27(1), 85–92.
Hanzal, A. (2008). The role of enduring vulnerabilities and coping in adjusting to marital stress.
Doctoral dissertation. The University of Arizonahttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/195978.
Harvey, M., & Evans, R. E. (1994). Family business and multiple levels of conflict. Family
Business Review, 7(4), 331–348.
Heaton, T. B., & Albrecht, S. L. (1991). Stable unhappy marriages. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 747–758.
Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United
States. Journal of Family Issues, 23(3), 392–409.
Holt, D. T., Rutherford, M. W., & Kuratko, D. F. (2010). Advancing the field of family
business research: Further testing the measurement properties of the F-PEC. Family
Business Review, 23(1), 76–88.
Hoy, F., & Verser, T. G. (1994). Emerging business, emerging field: Entrepreneurship and
the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(1), 9–23.
Hoy, F., McDougall, P. P., & Dsouza, D. E. (1992). Strategies and environments of high
growth firms. The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship, 1, 341–357.
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The
connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and
divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 237–252.
Hutchinson, S. L., Afifi, T., & Krause, S. (2007). The family that plays together fares
better: Examining the contribution of shared family time to family resilience fol-
lowing divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 46(3–4), 21–48.
Jaffe, D. T. (1990). Working with the ones you love. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.
James, A. E., Jennings, J. E., & Breitkreuz, R. S. (2012). Worlds apart? Rebridging the
distance between family science and family business research. Family Business Review,
25(1), 87–108.
Jaskiewicz, P., & Dyer, W. G. (2017). Addressing the elephant in the room: Disentangling
family heterogeneity to advance family business research. Advance online publica-
tion. Family Business Review, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486517700469.
Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J., Shanine, K., & Kacmar, M.a. (2016). Introducing the family: A
review of family science with implications for management. Academy of Management
Annals. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0053.
Jaskiewicz, P., Lutz, E., & Godwin, M. (2016). b: For money or love? Financial and so-
cioemotional considerations in family firm succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 40(5), 1179–1190.
Jennings, J. E., & McDougald, M. S. (2007). Work-family interface experiences and coping
strategies: Implications for entrepreneurship research and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 32(3), 747–760.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and sta-
bility: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34.
Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. (2004). Feuding families: When conflict does a family
firm good. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(3), 209–228.
P. Sanchez-Ruiz et al.
Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2007). A family perspective on when conflict
benefits family firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1048–1057.
Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Barnett, T., & Pearson, A. (2008). An exploratory
study of family member characteristics and involvement: Effects on entrepreneurial
behavior in the family firm. Family Business Review, 21(1), 1–14.
Kelly, A. B., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2003). Communication skills in couples: A review
and discussion of emerging perspectives. Handbook of communication and social interac-
tion skills723–751.
Kennedy, P. (2003). A guide to econometrics (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kerckhoff, A. C. (1976). Patterns of marriage and family formation and dissolution.
Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 261–275.
Kitson, G. C., & Morgan, L. A. (1990). The multiple consequences of divorce: A decade
review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52(4), 913–924.
Klein, S. B., Astrachan, J. H., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2005). The F-PEC scale of family in-
fluence: Construction, validation, and further implication for theory. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 29(3), 321–339.
Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal
study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2),
221–242.
Lane, S., Astrachan, J., Keyt, A., & McMillan, K. (2006). Guidelines for family business
boards of directors. Family Business Review, 19(2), 147–167.
Langer, A., Lawrence, E., & Barry, R. A. (2008). Using a vulnerability-stress-adaptation
framework to predict physical aggression trajectories in newlywed marriage. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(5), 756–768.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the chal-
lenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent re-
lationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5),
764–775.
Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. B. (1982). Marital quality, marital stability, and social ex-
change. In F. L. Nye (Ed.). Family relationships, rewards, and costs (pp. 132–156).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Litz, R. A., Pearson, A. W., & Litchfield, S. (2012). Charting the future of family business
research: Perspectives from the field. Family Business Review, 25(1), 16–32.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., Mar, C. M., & Reith, J. V. (1994). Alternative strategies
for cross-validation of covariance structure models. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
29(1), 1–32.
Manusov, V., & Koenig, J. (2001). The content of attributions for nonverbal behaviors in
marital interaction. In V. Manusov, & J. H. Harvey (Eds.). Attribution, communication
behavior, and close relationships (pp. 134–152). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
American family business survey. Boston: George G. and Robin Raymond Family Business
Institute and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company.
McCrae, R. R. (1990). Controlling neuroticism in the measurement of stress. Stress and
Health, 6(3), 237–241.
McClendon, R., & Kadis, L. B. (1991). Family therapists and family business: A view of the
future. Contemporary Family Therapy, 13(6), 641–651.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family stress process: The double ABCX
model of adjustment and adaptation. Marriage & Family Review, 6(1–2), 7–37.
McKelvie, A., & Wiklund, J. (2010). Advancing firm growth research: A focus on growth
mode instead of growth rate. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(2), 261–288.
Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press.
Mishra, C. S., & McConaughy, D. L. (1999). Founding family control and capital structure:
The risk of loss of control and the aversion to debt. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 23(4), 53–64.
Mustakallio, M., Autio, E., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Relational and contractual governance in
family firms: Effects on strategic decision making. Family Business Review, 15(3), 205–222.
Nag, R., Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2007). The intersection of organizational identity,
knowledge, and practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 821–847.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship experiences:
How stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97(3), 435–450.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1985). Applied linear statistical models:
Regression, analysis of variance and experimental designs. Homewood, Illinois: Richard
D. Irwin.
Nicholson, N. (2008a). Evolutionary psychology, organizational culture, and the family
firm. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(2), 73–84.
Nicholson, N. (2008b). Evolutionary psychology and family business: A new synthesis for
theory, research, and practice. Family Business Review, 21(1), 103–118.
O'Boyle, E. H., Jr., Rutherford, M. W., & Pollack, J. M. (2010). Examining the relation
between ethical focus and financial performance in family firms: An exploratory
study. Family Business Review, 23(4), 310–326.
Olson, D., & Wilson, R. (1982). Family satisfaction scale. In D. H. Olson, H. I. McCubbin,
H. Barnes, A. Larsen, M. Muxen, & M. Wilson (Eds.). Family inventories (pp. 89–103).
Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
Olson, P. D., Zuiker, V. S., Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Heck, R. K., & Duncan, K. A. (2003).
The impact of the family and the business on family business sustainability. Journal of
Business Venturing, 18(5), 639–666.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd ed.). Ft. Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace.
Pieper, T. M., Astrachan, J. H., & Manners, G. E. (2013). Conflict in family business: Common
metaphors and suggestions for intervention. Family Relations, 62(3), 490–500.
179
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 167–179
Pieper, T. M., Astrachan, J. H., & Neglia, J. (2016). Work–family issues in family business:
Pertinent aspects and opportunities for future research. In T. D. Allen, & L. T. Eby
(Eds.). Oxford handbook of work and family (pp. 431–440). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Powell, G. N., Greenhaus, J. H., Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., Balkin, D. B., & Shanine, K.
K. (2017). Family science and the work-family interface: An interview with Gary
Powell and Jeffrey Greenhaus. Human Resource Management Review, 28(1), 98–102.
Presser, H. B. (2000). Nonstandard work schedules and marital instability. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 62(1), 93–110.
Randerson, K., Bettinelli, C., Fayolle, A., & Anderson, A. (2015). Family entrepreneurship
as a field of research: Exploring its contours and contents. Journal of Family Business
Strategy, 6(3), 143–154.
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring
the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433–458.
Rodrigues, A. E., Hall, J. H., & Finchman, F. D. (2005). What predicts divorce and re-
lationship dissolution. In M. A. Fine, & J. H. Harvey (Eds.). Handbook of divorce and
relationship dissolution (pp. 85–112). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Rodriguez, S. N., Hildreth, G. J., & Mancuso, J. (1999). The dynamics of families in
business: How therapists can help in ways consultants don't. Contemporary Family
Therapy, 21(4), 453–468.
Romano, C. A., Tanewski, G. A., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2001). Capital structure decision
making: A model for family business. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(3), 285–310.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655–684.
Rothstein, J. (1992). Don't judge a book by its cover: A reconsideration of eight as-
sumptions about Jewish family businesses. Family Business Review, 5(4), 397–411.
Rutherford, M. W., Buller, P. F., & McMullen, P. R. (2003). Human resource management
problems over the life cycle of small to medium-sized firms. Human Resource
Management, 42(4), 321–335.
Rutherford, M. W., Muse, L. A., & Oswald, S. L. (2006). A new perspective on the de-
velopmental model for family business. Family Business Review, 19(4), 317–333.
Rutherford, M. W., Kuratko, D. F., & Holt, D. T. (2008). Examining the link between
familiness and performance: Can the F-PEC untangle the family business theory
jungle? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 1089–1109.
Sayer, L. C., & Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Women’s economic independence and the prob-
ability of divorce: A review and reexamination. Journal of Family Issues, 21(7),
906–943.
Schulz, M. S., Cowan, P. A., Pape Cowan, C., & Brennan, R. T. (2004). Coming home
upset: Gender, marital satisfaction, and the daily spillover of workday experience into
couple interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 250–263.
Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2003). Exploring the agency consequences
of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(2), 179–194.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (1997). Strategic management of the family
business: Past research and future challenges. Family Business Review, 10(1), 1–35.
Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and
directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1–36.
Shepherd, D., & Haynie, J. M. (2009). Family business, identity conflict, and an expedited
entrepreneurial process: A process of resolving identity conflict. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 33(6), 1245–1264.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—part 4: Grounding hy-
potheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1098–1102.
Stafford, K., Duncan, K. A., Dane, S., & Winter, M. (1999). A research model of sustainable
family businesses. Family Business Review, 12(3), 197–208.
Sundaramurthy, C., & Kreiner, G. E. (2008). Governing by managing identity boundaries:
The case of family businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 415–436.
Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business
Review, 9(2), 199–208.
Tolpin, L. H., Cohen, L. H., Gunthert, K. C., & Farrehi, A. (2006). Unique effects of de-
pressive symptoms and relationship satisfaction on exposure and reactivity to daily
romantic relationship stress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(5), 565–583.
Ward, J. L. (1997). Growing the family business: Special challenges and best practices.
Family Business Review, 10(4), 323–337.
White, L. K. (1990). Determinants of divorce: A review of research in the eighties. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 904–912.
Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., & Delmar, F. (2003). What do they think and feel about
growth? An expectancy-value approach to small business managers’ attitudes toward
growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3), 247–270.
Yu, A., Lumpkin, G. T., Sorenson, R. L., & Brigham, K. H. (2012). The landscape of family
business outcomes: A summary and numerical taxonomy of dependent variables.
Family Business Review, 25(1), 33–57.
Zellweger, T. M., Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). Exploring the concept of
familiness: Introducing family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1),
54–63.
Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., Nordqvist, M., & Brush, C. G. (2013). Why do family firms
strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 37(2), 229–248.
Zellweger, T. (2007). Time horizon, costs of equity capital, and generic investment
strategies of firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 1–15.
Zubin, J., & Spring, B. (1977). Vulnerability: A new view of schizophrenia. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 86(2), 103–126.