Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 203–212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

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

Access to resources and entrepreneurial well-being: A self-efficacy approach T

a,⁎ a b c
David R. Marshall , William R. Meek , R. Gabrielle Swab , Erik Markin
a
Department of Management and Marketing, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469, United States
b
Department of Management, Towson University, 8000 York Rd, Towson, MD 21252, United States
c
Department of Management, Mississippi State University, 114 McCool Hall, MS, 39762, United States

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

Keywords: In this study, we examine an important predictor and outcome associated with well-being for entrepreneurs:
Entrepreneurship access to resources and persistence. Drawing on social-cognitive theory, we contend that access to resources
Self-efficacy helps people feel confidence in abilities to be successful entrepreneurs, resulting in greater well-being during
Well-being venture development. We push the model further by hypothesizing that well-being is positively related to
Entrepreneurial persistence
persistence in venture creation activities. Employing an experimental, vignette-based approach, we test the
model by asking 258 subjects to consider how prospective entrepreneurs respond to varying contexts of resource
accessibility (low vs. high) in terms of their self-efficacy, well-being, and persistence. Results of serial mediator
regression analysis support the hypothesized model such that greater access to resources is associated with
higher levels of multiple indicators of well-being such as happiness, life satisfaction, and psychological well-
being through a self-efficacy mechanism. We also find that entrepreneurial persistence increases through this
mechanism.

1. Introduction negative affect, and psychological functioning” for individuals under-

Scholars contend that when people are happy with their work they
are more productive, provide assistance to coworkers and others in
their communities, develop strong social relationships, and live longer
(Diener & Seligman, 2004). Hence, across various business disciplines
(e.g., finance – Brüggen, Hogreve, Holmlund, Kabadayi, & Löfgren,
2017; marketing – Lyngdoh, Liu, & Sridhar, 2018), research is in-
creasingly focused on understanding employee well-being and its ef-
fects on personal and family life, organizations, and society (Bakker &
Oerlemans, 2011; Machin, Adkins, Crosby, Farrell, & Mirabito, 2019;
McColl-Kennedy et al., 2017). Entrepreneurship provides a particularly
interesting context in which to study employee well-being not only
because of its global prevalence as a career, but its uniquely different
employment experience for career actors (Burton, Sørensen, & Dobrev,
2016). Individuals pursuing entrepreneurial careers face a distinct set of
job stressors and pressures such as greater risk taking and job un-
certainty while also enjoying benefits like greater decision autonomy
and talent actualization that impact psychological well-being (Hsu,
Shinnar, & Anderson, 2019; Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011; Uy, Foo, & Song,
2013).
Research regarding the well-being of entrepreneurs focuses on ex-
plaining “the experience of satisfaction, positive affect, infrequent
taking new venture creation (Wiklund, Nikolaev, Shir, Foo, & Bradley,
2019, p. 579). Recent research reviews (e.g., Stephan, 2018) reveal a
variety of factors affecting the experience of well-being for en-
trepreneurs such as various forms of venturing (e.g., Naudé, Amorós, &
Cristi, 2014), different characteristics of entrepreneurship (e.g., au-
tonomy - Shir, Nikolaev, & Wincent, 2019), personality traits (e.g.,
Przepiorka, 2017), and context such as the business climate (eg., Jiang,
Lu, & Lu, 2017). While it is apparent that many factors affect en-
trepreneurial well-being, perhaps the most stressful element of en-
trepreneurship is the very high potential for business failure (Headd,
2003). It is therefore, surprising that despite the increased number of
studies examining entrepreneurial well-being, little attention has been
paid to the relationship between one of the primary sources of business
failure: inaccessibility of critical resources.
Access to scarce resources is critical to entrepreneurial success
(Liao, Welsch, & Moutray, 2008). It follows then, that if startup foun-
ders are to avoid the negative feelings that likely accompany business
failure (Ucbasaran, Shepherd, Lockett, & Lyon, 2013), they must gain
access to critical resources. These resources often include human capital
in the form of related experience and education, social capital in the
form of useful social networks, and financial capital (Chandler & Hanks,
1994; 1998). As mentioned previously, research regarding access to

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dmarshall1@udayton.edu (D.R. Marshall), wmeek1@udayton.edu (W.R. Meek), rswab@towson.edu (R.G. Swab),
erik.markin@msstate.edu (E. Markin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.015
Received 9 January 2020; Received in revised form 3 August 2020; Accepted 8 August 2020
0148-2963/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
D.R. Marshall, et al.
resources and well-being for entrepreneurs is scant. However, some
evidence does suggest that entrepreneurs lacking social support from
friends and family experience loneliness (Fernet, Torrès, Austin, & St-
Pierre, 2016) though this work does not explore the value of social
networks in accumulating critical resources. Similarly, other studies
find that entrepreneurs wanting in entrepreneurial skills likely experi-
ence stress (Ahmad & Arabia, 2010) and recent research shows that
entrepreneurs may feel greater stress upon receipt of funding (Bhuiyan
& Ivlevs, 2019). However, these studies are concerned with stress
throughout the entrepreneurial process rather than overall en-
trepreneurial well-being and happiness, which may yield differing re-
sults. Furthermore, many of these studies lack theoretical explanation
underpinning relationships between resources and well-being. Given
these literary gaps, our objective in this study is to conceptually and
empirically link an entrepreneur’s access to critical resources to in-
dividual well-being.
We rely on tenets of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), par-
ticularly the role of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994), to explain the theo-
retical linking mechanism between resource accessibility and well-
being. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy refers to an individual’s beliefs in
their abilities to accomplish the important roles and tasks associated
with the entrepreneurship processes, such as identifying and commer-
cializing new products and/or services (McGee, Peterson, Mueller, &
Sequeira, 2009). It is our contention that access to resources will in-
crease an entrepreneur’s self-belief in their ability to carry out im-
portant entrepreneurial functions, thereby decreasing concerns of fu-
ture business failure and increasing well-being.
Largely missing from studies of entrepreneurial well-being are the-
oretical and empirical models explaining how well-being generates
entrepreneurial action (Wiklund et al., 2019). While many scholars
anecdotally suggest that well-being likely increases an entrepreneur’s
resolve to persist through future new venture challenges, few studies
have empirically linked both important predictors and mediating
variables in the relationship between well-being and entrepreneurial
persistence. We aim to address this relationship by theorizing that re-
sulting feelings of well-being for entrepreneurs with access to resources
and self-efficacy will lead to greater persistence with startup activities
(see Fig. 1 for theoretical model).
To test our hypotheses, we designed an experiment using vignettes,
which described prospective entrepreneurs at various levels of re-
sources (low and high). Our results support the proposed relationship
between resources and well-being through self-efficacy, and are robust
across different types of entrepreneurial business aspirations. We also
find evidence for the hypothesized serial mediation model in which
well-being is positively related to startup persistence because of access
to resources and self-efficacy.
These results hold important implications for research and practice
in the nascent area of entrepreneurial well-being. Our study builds on
previous empirical findings relating resources to an entrepreneur’s
emotions (Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011), stress (Ahmad & Arabia, 2010),
and happiness (Berge, Bjorvatn, & Tungodden, 2015) by providing a
theoretically grounded model in which access to resources positively
Fig. 1. Theoretical serial mediator model.
204
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 203–212
influences an entrepreneur’s well-being through entrepreneurial self-
efficacy. Our results demonstrate that resources are not just important
for business success (Wu, 2007) but are indeed crucial to the positive
functioning of individuals engaged in the startup process. We explicitly
show that both greater confidence and happiness are derived from si-
tuations of resource abundance rather than scarcity.
We also help to address an important weakness in current en-
trepreneurial well-being literature by advancing a model that highlights
well-being as more than an outcome variable of interest (Shepherd,
Wennberg, Suddaby, & Wiklund, 2019) but as an important mediating
variable in models of entrepreneurial activity. Indeed scholars lament
that “research investigating well-being as a resource or trigger of en-
trepreneurial action is still limited, and new studies are likely to con-
tribute to our understanding of well-being as an essential psychological
resource and mechanism in entrepreneurship,” (Wiklund et al., 2019, p.
584). We find that well-being is an important explanatory variable
between the previously established relationship between self-efficacy
and entrepreneurial persistence (Cardon & Kirk, 2015), thereby ad-
vancing the well-being-action body of research.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
Subjective well-being is a general term used across multiple re-
search disciplines and relies on both hedonic and eudaimonic per-
spectives in defining, describing, and explaining healthy psychological
functioning, experiences of life satisfaction, and happiness (Ryan &
Deci, 2001). In essence, subjective well-being explains “the degree to
which people are content with their lives and jobs,” (Deng, Liang, &
Fan, 2019, p. 195). Understanding drivers of well-being is important
across various fields of research because, as Aristotle purported, it may
be the essential goal of human existence. Though relatively new to the
study of entrepreneurship, well-being has garnered significant interest
by scholars and practitioners because of the effects of new venture
creation on individual and societal outcomes (Wiklund et al., 2019).
Research indicates a number of important predictors of well-being
for entrepreneurs such as work and family conditions (Parasuraman,
Purohit, Godshalk, & Beutell, 1996), psychological factors (Shir et al.,
2019; Uy et al., 2013), gender differences (Hmieleski & Sheppard,
2019), personality characteristics (Berglund, Johansson Sevä, &
Strandh, 2016), and geographic location (Abreu, Oner, Brouwer, & van
Leeuwen, 2019). Studies also point out interesting effects of well-being
on firm performance (Dijkhuizen, Gorgievski, van Veldhoven, & Schalk,
2018), new venture goals (Uy, Sun, & Foo, 2017), perceptions of success
(Sherman, Randall, & Kauanui, 2016), proactive venture behaviors
(Foo, Uy, & Baron, 2009; Hahn, Frese, Binnewies, & Schmitt, 2012), and
opportunity recognition (Gielnik, Zacher, & Frese, 2012). A select few
of these studies focus on the role of access to critical resources during
the new venture creation process in terms of influencing well-being.
Newman, Mole, Ucbasaran, Subramanian, and Lockett (2018) take a
resource approach and demonstrate that network reliance can result in
greater life satisfaction for entrepreneurs. Additionally, Bhuiyan and
Ivlevs (2019) find interesting stressful effects of micro-finance loans for
D.R. Marshall, et al.
entrepreneurs in rural Bangladesh. However, neither study explicitly
explains how individual perceptions of access to critical resources
during the planning and development stages of new venturing impact
well-being.
These recent research findings underscore a complex network of
personal, social, and cognitive elements explaining well-being for en-
trepreneurs. Hence, we take a social cognitive theoretical approach in
building our model of resources, self-efficacy, well-being, and persis-
tence for entrepreneurs. Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT) ex-
plains that behaviors, environments, and personal factors dynamically
interact (1994, 2001). Indeed, from an SCT perspective, well-being is a
function of one’s “commitment to a valued future and enablement to
take steps to realize it,” (Bandura, 2011, p.7). Consequently, in order to
understand entrepreneurial well-being, we must take into consideration
how individual entrepreneurs perceive the availability of elements
needed to be successful in entrepreneurship (access to critical re-
sources) and how these cognitive perceptions regarding the en-
trepreneurial environment affect individual beliefs about abilities to
execute important startup tasks and activities (entrepreneurial self-ef-
ficacy). Therefore, we rely on SCT, and in particular, the four processes
underlying the development of self-efficacy, to develop hypotheses
explaining why access to resources affects well-being through self-ef-
ficacy.
2.1. Access to resources, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and well-being
Though resources may be unique and/or specific to a new venture,
research suggests three primary types of capital that are generally re-
quired during venture startup: human, social, and financial. Human
capital refers to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of venture team
members which may be both general and/or specific to venture goals
(Coleman, 1988). The capacity to successfully execute the tasks related
to venture creation and management is directly tied to new venture
performance (Davidsson & Honig, 2003). Next, social capital focuses on
the central relationships among members of the venture team and im-
portant external stakeholders such as investors, mentors, suppliers, and
customers (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Burt, 1992). Important resources such
as information, financing, social support, and market access flow from
these relational networks and support venture growth and performance
(Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2002). Lastly, financial capital, whether
obtained externally through investors or internally by startup founders,
represents money available for accomplishing a range of startup func-
tions such as development, operations, selling, etc. (Klyver & Schenkel,
2013). Financing, especially during the nascent venture stage, is critical
to survivability and success (Cooper, Gimeno-Gascon, & Woo, 1994).
We contend that access to these critical resources during the de-
velopment and startup stages of new venture creation influence an
entrepreneurs’ confidence and assurance in their ability to perform the
important tasks and roles associated with entrepreneurship. In other
words, we predict that greater access to critical resources works to in-
crease entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) defines self-effi-
cacy as belief in the ability to control and positively affect important life
outcomes. Self-efficacy is primarily influenced by four distinct pro-
cesses: enactive mastery, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and
physiological arousal (Bandura, 1982). Furthermore, scholars agree
that it is through a set of attributions or cues that these four processes
influence a person’s efficacy beliefs (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Weiner,
1985). These cues may be external in the form of assessments made by
the individual of task difficulty and complexity and internal in the form
of the “adequacy of an individual’s ability (knowledge and skills)” and
skill variety (Gist & Mitchell, 1992, p. 195).
The information developed through the four experiential processes
are internally and externally cued and an assessment is made as to the
distance between task requirements and one’s own analysis of experi-
ences and resources (Newman, Obschonka, Schwarz, Cohen, & Nielsen,
2019). We contend that access to human, social, and financial resources
205
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 203–212
help narrow that distance so to speak, between potential entrepreneurs’
experiences and the perceived requirements for successfully launching
new ventures which increases entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Some potential entrepreneurs possess greater human capital than
others do through previous management experiences and potentially
relevant industry experiences in other jobs (Bates, 1990). These
learning experiences work toward the enactive mastery and vicarious
learning needed for higher levels of entrepreneurial efficacy. When
potential entrepreneurs can draw on the informational cues developed
from related experiences, they likely feel more confident in their abil-
ities to perform entrepreneurial tasks. Likewise, social capital em-
bedded in important social networks provide both vicarious learning
experiences and potentially the verbal persuasion necessary for cueing
information about knowledge and abilities related to new venture
creation. For example, potential entrepreneurs who have relationship
connections with former entrepreneurs and venture investors may re-
ceive insights and learning which are missed by those lacking these
personal connections. Additionally, these social networks might offer
successful role models to which an individual gains insight into how
their own skills might translate to entrepreneurship (Newman et al.,
2018).
The financial resources necessary to start a new business can vary
depending on the type of business (Evans & Jovanovic, 1989). For ex-
ample, an e-commerce business that sources inexpensive goods and
sells them at higher prices requires a fairly low startup budget (Daniel,
Domenico, & Sharma, 2015). However, development of new equip-
ment, machinery, or technology can be capital intensive which keeps
new entrants out of certain industries. Where startup costs are high, the
risk of entrepreneurial failure intensifies (Cooper et al., 1994; Liao
et al., 2008). These financial risks may cue potential entrepreneurs’
psychological arousal toward anxiety if adequate financial resources are
unavailable or inaccessible. Therefore, the greater the access to fi-
nancial resources the more likely a potential entrepreneur will feel
equipped to successfully launch a new venture.
H1: Access to resources is positively related to entrepreneurial self-
efficacy.
The feelings of competence and confidence in one’s abilities to
successfully accomplish important tasks in order to achieve a desired
outcome have significant impacts on a person’s positive and happy state
(Caprara, Steca, Gerbino, Paciello, & Vecchio, 2006). As confident
people move along in progression towards goal achievement, they will
feel a greater sense of well-being (Brunstein, 1993). Bandura (1982)
points out that individuals high in self-efficacy approach tasks differ-
ently than others, such that they are calmer in the face of challenging
situations and environments, along with being less afraid of setback or
failure. He goes further in stating that such positive situational outlooks
can yield “personal accomplishments, reduces stress and lowers vul-
nerability to depression” (Bandura, 1994, p. 71). However, the negative
emotions associated with a lack of confidence and efficacy towards
performing desired roles can potentially lead to “cognitive confusion”
and worsening emotional states of well-being (Luszczynska, Scholz, &
Schwarzer, 2005, p. 442).
A plethora of research studies support the link between self-efficacy
and well-being in various contexts. For example, Luszczynska et al.
(2005) found that self-efficacy effectively lowered depression levels.
Caprara and Steca (2005) found a positive relationship between self-
efficacy and prosocial behavior and life satisfaction. Other studies find
evidence of a self-efficacy to well-being link among college students
(DeWitz & Walsh, 2002; O’Sullivan, 2011), adolescence (Vecchio,
Gerbino, Del Bove, & Caprara, 2007), persons with physical health
challenges (Cicerone & Azulay, 2007; Robinson-Smith, Johnston, &
Allen, 2000), and employees (Siu, Lu, & Spector, 2007). In fact, among
self-employed individuals, those with higher levels of self-efficacy re-
port higher satisfaction with their work lives (Bradley & Roberts, 2004).
D.R. Marshall, et al.
Self-efficacy helps entrepreneurs feel more confident about their
future selves. That is to say, entrepreneurs with greater self-efficacy are
likely to develop strong entrepreneurial identities, which are critical to
successful new venturing (Brändle, Berger, Golla, & Kuckertz, 2018).
Related, greater self-efficacy helps entrepreneurs feel confident in their
plans for their new businesses and therefore leads increased abilities to
predict, forecast, and adapt startup plans (Stroe, Parida, & Wincent,
2018). Clearer goals and plans coupled with increased confidence to
successfully execute these plans will result in increased feelings of
happiness and satisfaction for entrepreneurs.
H2: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is positively related to well-being.
While a direct link between the accessibility of resources and a
potential entrepreneurs’ happiness may exist, it may be akin to the
adage that “money buys happiness.” However, scholars have repeatedly
debunked this idea in favor of intermediary explanatory mechanisms
(e.g., Johnson & Krueger, 2006). As such, we argue that through the
positive feelings associated with entrepreneurial self-efficacy, resources
exert an influence on well-being.
Self-efficacy is an important mediating construct in well-being re-
search. For example, several studies point out that the effects of lea-
dership behaviors on employee well-being are explained by self-efficacy
beliefs (Liu, Siu, & Shi, 2010; Nielsen & Munir, 2009; Nielsen, Yarker,
Randall, & Munir, 2009). Self-efficacy also proved useful in mediating
the effects of personality traits (Strobel, Tumasjan, & Spörrle, 2011) and
job-design (Peng & Mao, 2015) in determining well-being. From a
conservation of resources perspective, Newman et al. (2018) theorized
that generalized self-efficacy mediates a relationship between network
utilization and well-being for entrepreneurs by helping them cope with
difficult situations. Similarly, we contend that potential entrepreneurs
that perceive they have access to critical resources are likely to feel
more confident in their abilities to successfully navigate the difficulties
inherent in new venture creation and therefore experience higher levels
of well-being.
H3: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the relationship between
access to resources and well-being.
2.2. Well-being and entrepreneurial persistence
Entrepreneurial persistence refers to the repeated expenditure of
energy and effort of an entrepreneur to solve problems and challenges
associated with venture creation and the startup process (Wu,
Matthews, & Dagher, 2007). Continued persistence is a critical factor in
becoming a successful entrepreneur given the many challenges asso-
ciated with venture creation and the startup process (Holland &
Shepherd, 2013). Therefore, uncovering the drivers of this continued
entrepreneurial persistence is important to entrepreneurship research
and practice. We theorize that well-being, because of access to re-
sources and heightened self-efficacy, acts as an important mechanism in
explaining entrepreneurial persistence activities.
In alignment with an SCT perspective, prior research suggests that
individual social and cognitive factors are important to understanding
entrepreneurial persistence (Adomako, Danso, Uddin, & Damoah,
2016). In particular, studies point out that positive feelings such as
affect are important predictors of effort towards achieving one’s in-
tended goals (Custers & Aarts, 2005). In the entrepreneurial context,
these positive feelings can affect important aspects of the en-
trepreneurial process like creativity, opportunity recognition, and the
ability to respond to environmental changes (Baron, 2008). Positive
feelings send signals to an individual that their efforts are helping them
be successful which encourages continued proactivity (Foo et al.,
2009). Furthermore, good feelings throughout the entrepreneurial
process can elicit increased motivation, intensity, and efforts towards
startup activities through increased control over one’s emotions and
206
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 203–212
impulses (Jia & Zhang, 2018). We posit a similar effect of well-being
and startup persistence such that happiness and satisfaction produce
continued actions to support ongoing well-being. Related research ad-
vocates that other positive feelings like passion for ones work as an
entrepreneur has similar effects on persistence through identification
mechanisms such that good feelings tie an individual closer to their
work as entrepreneurs resulting in enhanced dedication (Cardon & Kirk,
2015).
H4: Well-being is positively related to startup persistence.
The link between self-efficacy and persistence is well established.
Bandura (1982); (1994;) explained that self-efficacy is a prime moti-
vator of continued effort toward role performance, especially where
tasks are particularly challenging and the risk of failure is high. His
theory states that individuals with low levels of effort tend to give up
easily and slow their efforts when faced with challenges because they
view failings as a result of personal inabilities. For entrepreneurs, self-
efficacy has been shown to predict startup persistence (Cardon & Kirk,
2015). It is our contention that this important link between self-efficacy
and persistence for entrepreneurs is, at least partially, explained by the
positive feelings of well-being and happiness. When potential en-
trepreneurs feel confident in their abilities to face the difficult tasks
ahead of them, their well-being increases and they are more likely to
expend greater efforts to be successful.
H5: Well-being mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial
self-efficacy (as a result of access to resources) and startup persis-
tence.
3. Methodology
3.1. Design
To test the hypothesized relationships among access to resources,
self-efficacy, well-being, and persistence, we employed an experimental
vignette methodology (EVM). An experimental approach using vign-
ettes presents “subjects with written descriptions of realistic situations
and then request responses on a number of rating scales that measure
the dependent variables of interest” (Trevino, 1992; p. 127–128). Re-
cently, multiple calls (Crook, Shook, Morris, & Madden, 2010; Kraus,
Meier, & Niemand, 2016; Williams, Wood, Mitchell, & Urbig, 2019)
have been made to the entrepreneurship scholarly community to rely
more heavily on experimental-based research designs because of the
inherently heterogeneous nature of entrepreneurial phenomena, which
often creates “more complexity than we can deal with” through other
observational and analytical techniques (Davidsson, 2016, p. 630).
Moreover, EVM-based research design was selected for empirically
testing our theoretical model for several reasons. First, our theory is a
“thinking-acting” model (e.g., asking respondents to think about access
to resources, how they feel about their abilities to accomplish en-
trepreneurial tasks, specify how this makes them feel, and then indicate
how they will act), which is difficult to assess via observational
methods (Williams et al., 2019, p. 215). Therefore, an EVM approach is
better suited to testing these proposed causal relationships than ob-
servational data collections and analysis of historical or secondary data
sources.
Second, EVM studies typically provide greater levels of internal
validity than other approaches, which is critically important in serial
mediator models such as the one presented in our study (Aguinis &
Bradley, 2014). When respondents read a scenario, they can imagine
themselves in the context of the scenario’s character. Doing so, the
researcher can establish a reliable and valid measure for behavioral
intention as it relates to the various factors found in the scenario
(Willison, Warkentin, & Johnston, 2018). When compared to item-
based statements, EVM provides a more realistic setting (Oll, Hahn,
D.R. Marshall, et al.
Reimsbach, & Kotzian, 2018) and helps to reduce social desirability in
responses (Weinberg, Freese, & McElthattan, 2014). Moreover, each
vignette version serves as a control for the other versions, allowing
researchers to assess differences in outcomes caused by facts that differ
across vignette versions (Hyman & Steiner, 1996).
Third, our use of an experimental approach reflects our desire to test
concepts during a specific stage of the entrepreneurial process: the
development stage. EVM has proven a useful approach to assessing
theoretical models within a specific contextual framework (e.g., Dickel
and Graeff (2018). During the development stage, individuals are only
thinking about entering entrepreneurship versus post-launch or the
startup stage. Hence, EVM is also useful in assessing entrepreneurial
thinking without introducing potential recall bias in responses from
experienced entrepreneurs (Shepherd et al., 2013).
In each vignette, we describe a common, yet distinctly unique (from
each other vignette condition), situation in which an individual is
thinking about entering entrepreneurship and has access to either high
or low levels of critical resources such as human, social, and financial
capital (more details offered in the section describing each measure).
However, we realize that not all individuals have the same en-
trepreneurial venture aspirations or growth intentions. Some ventures
require greater and more complex access to resources, which likely
affects the resources to well-being relationship. Therefore, to isolate the
effects of resources on the proposed outcomes, we varied high and low
levels of resources across three various forms of potential en-
trepreneurial venturing and the associated required level of resources to
successfully launch: lifestyle or hobby, salary-replacement, and high
growth (Morris, Neumeyer, Jang, & Kuratko, 2018). That is, each
vignette describes an individual pursuing a unique form of en-
trepreneurship, the resource requirement appropriate for the form of
entrepreneurship, and the varied high or low level of access to these
critical resources. For example, the vignette for “Person A” in our ex-
periment desires to start a small, home-based business which provides
income for a comfortable lifestyle but does not expect the business to
make them wealthy…the resources needed to successfully start this
business are fairly common and not very complex.
3.2. Sample
To ensure greater validity, we desired access to a diverse sample of
individuals that would not necessarily be thinking like entrepreneurs
already, but be able to put themselves in the shoes of the potential
entrepreneur described in the vignette, thereby reducing recall and
social desirability biases. The sample of subjects was acquired via
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk program. Data collection through
Mechanical Turk has proven useful in other entrepreneurship, experi-
mental research studies (e.g., Hsu et al., 2019).
We collected responses from 345 individuals with varying back-
grounds and used several of these demographic variables as controls in
the analysis. For example, subjects ranged in age from 19 to 70 and
from educational backgrounds ranging from high school graduate to
advanced degree holders. A range of occupations were represented
among respondents such as accountants, computer technicians, en-
gineers, sales professionals, educators, homemakers, retirees, and cus-
tomer service representatives. Responses also included an equal ratio of
men to women. After participants were screened for age (over 18 years
old) they were offered a small monetary incentive for completing the
survey. Participants were randomly assigned one of the six situational
vignettes, asked to read the situation, and as much as possible respond
to survey items as if they themselves were the person described in the
vignette. Some of the responses were started but not completed. For
example, many participants read the vignette but did not answer
measurement questions. A total of 258 respondents completed all the
questions used in the analysis. These responses were collected via a
Qualtrics survey.
207
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 203–212
3.3. Measures
Each vignette described a situation of either high or low levels of
access to resources relative to the type of new venture an individual
desired to start. We focused on the three main forms of resources de-
scribed previously (human, social, and financial). In terms of a potential
entrepreneur’s human capital, we explained the level of experience and
related skills needed to meet the requirement for venture success. For
example, Person F (high growth venture with high access to resources)
has industry related and management experience. Social capital is ex-
plained through the personal connections an individual has to various
resources. For example, Person C (traditional salary-replacement ven-
ture with low access to resources) has no personal connections to in-
vestors or other business development professionals. Financial capital is
captured by detailing the level of personal savings, borrowing ability,
and access to various investors. For example, Person F (high growth
venture with high access to resources) has a sizable amount of money in
the bank, good credit scores, and receives income from other invest-
ments. Additionally, some high net worth friends and family members
have already expressed interest in investing in the new venture.
We adapted five items from McGee et al. (2009) established scale to
assess entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Shortened scales such as ours have
proven useful in previous work where the focus is on individuals
thinking about entering entrepreneurship (Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005).
We asked respondents (on a 1 = no confidence to 7 = complete con-
fidence scale) to assess their confidence (as the individual in the vign-
ette) in their entrepreneurial abilities such as to create new products,
commercialize an idea or a new development, and perform other im-
portant roles and tasks in entrepreneurship.
Participants indicated the well-being of the individual in the vignette
by answering 12 items of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12,
Goldber, 1979). Each respondent assessed the extent to which (from
1 = not at all to 7 = a great deal) the person in the vignette “loses sleep
over worry… feels constantly under strain…is capable of making de-
cisions…is able to concentrate on what they are doing…” etc.
We assessed individual (in the vignette) startup persistence or like-
lihood of continued effort and commitment to starting a new venture
with an adapted (Baum & Locke, 2004; Cardon & Kirk, 2015) six item
scale (from 1 = not at all likely to 7 = extremely likely). Sample items
include the likelihood the individual would “persist with your startup
when others would quit…never give up on your startup no matter how
challenging it becomes…continue working hard on your startup even
when others oppose you…”
4. Analysis and results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables of
interest are presented in Table 1. Given the relatively high correlations
among well-being, self-efficacy, and persistence, we analyzed variance
inflation factors (VIF) for signs of multicollinearity. All VIF’s were lower
than 2.0 suggesting multicollinearity is likely not an issue confounding
our results.
To analyze the hypothesized multiple mediator model, we used
Hayes (2013) Process Macro in SPSS. The Process Macro is useful in
mediator models as it generates bias corrected confidence intervals
based on bootstrap sampling. The results of serial mediation testing are
found in Table 2; note that the results of hypothesized indirect effects
are found in the bottom half of the table. In Hypothesis 1 we predicted
that access to resources would be positively related to entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. After controlling for gender, age, and education of the
participants, we found support for the hypothesized positive relation-
ship (B = 0.42, p < .01); thus Hypothesis 1 is supported. In Hy-
pothesis 2 we predicated a positive relational path between self-efficacy
and well-being. Results suggest evidence of a significant positive effect
(B = 0.50, p < .01) in support of Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 predicts mediation of resource access to well-being
D.R. Marshall, et al. Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 203–212

Table 1
Descriptives and correlations.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Gender 1.51 0.50

2. Age 37.65 11.48 0.11
3. Education 2.57 0.99 −0.05 0.06
4. RES 0.48 0.50 −0.05 −0.03 0.05
5. ESE 5.36 1.20 0.17** 0.09 −0.05 0.17**
6. PWB 5.03 0.99 0.11 0.21** 0.01 0.20** 0.64**
7. EP 5.68 1.21 0.18** −0.04 −0.04 0.04 0.70** 0.55**

Note: N = 258; RES coded 0 = Low 1 = High; Gender coded 1 = Male 2 = Female; Education coded 1 = High School, 2 = Associate, 3 = Bachelor, 4 = Master,
5 = Doctoral; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; Variable Codes: RES = Access to Resources, ESE = Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, PWB = Psychological Well-Being,
EP = Entrepreneurial Persistence

Table 2 was a significant predictor of life satisfaction (B = 0.54, p < .01) and
Multiple mediator regression results. life satisfaction a significant predictor of persistence (B = 0.14,
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
p < .01), with self-efficacy mediating the relationship between re-
Entrepreneurial Psychological Entrepreneurial sources and life satisfaction (B = 0.23, LCL = 0.09 UCL = 0.40) and a
Self-Efficacy Well-Being Persistence significant serial mediation model between resources and persistence
with life satisfaction (B = 0.03, LCL = 0.02 UCL = 0.08). Likewise,
Gender 0.39 (0.15)** −0.01 (0.10) 0.13 (0.11)
self-efficacy predicted subjective happiness (B = 0.57, p < .01), which
Age 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.00)** 0.01 (0.00)
Education −0.05 (0.07) 0.02 (0.05) −0.01 (0.05) in turn predicted persistence (B = 0.22, p < .01), with self-efficacy as
a mediator (B = 0.24, LCL = 0.09 UCL = 0.42) and a significant serial
RES 0.42 (0.15)** 0.20 (0.10)* −0.20 (0.11)
mediator model with happiness (B = 0.05, LCL = 0.02 UCL = 0.13).
ESE 0.50 (0.04)** 0.58 (0.06)**

PWB 0.21 (0.07)**

R2 0.07** 0.44** 0.52** 5. Discussion

Summary of Indirect Effects

Relationship Effect Lower Limit CI Upper Limit CI
RES – ESE – 0.21 0.07 0.37
GWB
ESE – GWB – EP 0.10 0.03 0.18
RES – ESE – 0.04 0.01 0.10
GWB – EP
Note: N = 258; RES coded 0 = Low 1 = High; Gender coded 1 = Male
2 = Female; Table reports unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in
parentheses; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; Bias corrected 95% confidence intervals
based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples. Variable Codes: RES = Access to
Resources, ESE = Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, PWB = Psychological Well-
Being, EP = Entrepreneurial Persistence.
through a self-efficacy path. Based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples,
there is evidence of an indirect effect (B = 0.21, LCL = 0.07
UCL = 0.37); therefore Hypothesis 3 is also supported. In Hypothesis 4
we predicted that well-being would act as a driver or “trigger” for
persistence during the startup process. We find support for Hypothesis 4
(B = 0.21, p < .01). Finally, in Hypothesis 5 we posited that en-
trepreneurial self-efficacy and well-being act as mediators in the re-
lationship between access to resources and entrepreneurial persistence.
We found evidence of a full serial mediation model in support of
Hypothesis 5 (B = 0.04, LCL = 0.01 UCL = 0.10) suggesting that
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and well-being are also important ex-
planatory mechanisms between access to resources and entrepreneurial
persistence.
4.1. Post-hoc robustness tests
Given that well-being for entrepreneurs can take several different
forms (Wiklund et al., 2019), we tested our hypothesized relationships
using two additional indicators of well-being: life satisfactions (5-item
scale, Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) and subjective happi-
ness (4-item scale from Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). These additional
analyses indicate that our hypothesized results are robust to multiple
indicators of well-being for entrepreneurs. In particular self-efficacy
One often used definition of entrepreneurship is the process by which
individuals pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they cur-
rently control (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990, p. 23). Thus, there is an in-
herent belief that successful entrepreneurs need to be able to marshal
the resources needed to make their venture successful. However, what
is not accounted for in this definition is that each entrepreneur starts
their entrepreneurial journey from a context wherein they may have
heterogeneous access to human, social, and financial capital than other
entrepreneurs. Given this acknowledgment, the purpose of our study
was to examine how initial resource access affected the psychological
well-being, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial persis-
tence of nascent entrepreneurs. Though prior research has examined
how initial resource endowments impact decisions within en-
trepreneurial firms (Haynie, Shepherd, & McMullen, 2009), this re-
search looks at resources from a firm-level rather than an individual-
level perspective. To our knowledge, our study is among the first to
examine how initial levels of individual resources impact psychological
well-being, self-efficacy and persistence collectively during the devel-
opment stage of new venturing.
Relying on the tenets of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1994;
2001), we hypothesized that access to critical resources are an im-
portant predictor of happiness for entrepreneurs during the early stages
of the venturing life cycle. Specifically, we argued that access to re-
sources increased the good feelings surrounding new venture creation
because the increased resource accessibility helped potential en-
trepreneurs feel more confident in their abilities to successfully un-
dertake startup tasks (entrepreneurial self-efficacy). Furthermore, we
predicted that these increased happy feelings potentially acted as
“triggers” (Wiklund et al., 2019) for persisted efforts with startup ac-
tivities. Results of an experimental-vignette study support these hy-
potheses and provide empirical evidence that: (1) greater access to
resources is associated with higher levels of self-efficacy; (2) en-
trepreneurial self-efficacy leads to greater well-being; (3) en-
trepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the relationship between resource
accessibility and well-being for potential entrepreneurs; (4) well-being
increased startup persistence; (5) the link between resource accessi-
bility and startup persistence is serially mediated by self-efficacy and
well-being.

208
D.R. Marshall, et al.
This study makes an important contribution to research focused on
explaining and understanding the well-being of entrepreneurs. Many
people pursue entrepreneurship because of the benefits it provides in
terms of flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to pursue a particular
passion which can lead to happiness and work satisfaction (Hundley,
2001; Shir et al., 2019). Additionally, difference in personality may lead
to great fit (misfit) with entrepreneurial work conditions that affects
well-being of entrepreneurs (e.g., Berglund et al., 2016). However, one
might argue that no amount of schedule flexibility, passion for en-
trepreneurial work, or the right personality characteristics can ade-
quately compensate for the stress and potential failure arising from
resource inaccessibility (Williams, 2014). As such, our study unequi-
vocally demonstrates the importance of acquiring resources not only for
venture success but to be happy and satisfied with one’s entrepreneurial
experience.
We also contribute to entrepreneurial well-being and, more gen-
erally to the greater body of entrepreneurship research, by uncovering
an important relationship between entrepreneurial feeling (well-being)
and entrepreneurial action (persistence). Hence, we offer theoretical
and empirical evidence of well-being as an “essential psychological
resource and mechanism” in the entrepreneurial process (Wiklund
et al., 2019, p. 584). Though the link between entrepreneurial self-ef-
ficacy and entrepreneurial persistence has been established (Latham &
Locke, 2006; Wu, Matthews, & Dagher, 2007), this study contributes to
a nascent stream examining how other factors, such as entrepreneurial
passion (Cardon & Kirk, 2015), interact with the constructs of en-
trepreneurial self-efficacy and persistence.
In this study, we are among the first to examine how access to re-
sources acts as an antecedent to psychological well-being, and how
well-being in-turn affects entrepreneurial persistence. This is notable on
multiple levels, as well-being has been linked to an increasing number
of important entrepreneurial outcomes in recent studies. These include
topics such as well-being and entrepreneurial regret (Hsu et al., 2019)
and how social context and type of entrepreneurship impact well-being
(Deng et al., 2019).
Another contribution of this study concerns the expanded theore-
tical perspective that the results from our study may allow researchers
in this area to utilize in future research. That is to say, access to re-
sources leading to greater well-being and greater persistence means
that scholars might consider other theoretical perspective beyond SCT
to help explaining the link between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial
persistence. By bringing access to resources (or lack thereof) into the
conversation, we may now be able to draw from tenets of Conservation
of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), in explaining psy-
chological well-being and entrepreneurial persistence processes. COR
theory is a theory that was originally developed to explain psycholo-
gical stress, and the theory suggests that psychological stress may occur
in one of three situations: (1) the threat of losing resources, (2) actual
loss of resources or (3) no increase of resources after spending resources
in an attempt to gain more resources.
Given the costly and time-consuming process often needed to start
entrepreneurial ventures, the distinct possibility of any or all three of
these scenarios happening during the entrepreneurship process is likely
quite high. Further, COR theory suggests that individuals with higher
levels of initial resources will be better positioned for future gains,
while individuals with fewer resources will be more likely to experience
resource losses. This is in-line with our hypotheses and findings that
lower levels of access to resources in this study had lower levels of
psychological well-being and less entrepreneurial persistence, while
higher levels of resources led to a positive relationship with access to
resources.
These multiple predictors of well-being such as happiness and life
satisfaction used in this study have been shown to help combat the
effects of stress in other studies (e.g., Diener & Chan, 2011; Extremera,
Durán, & Rey, 2009). Thus, the existence (or perhaps even the illusion)
of access to resources among nascent entrepreneurs when they are
209
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 203–212
thinking about or attempting to start a new venture may cause less
psychological stress throughout the process. Conversely, higher levels
of resource access may provide better coping mechanisms to deal with
the stressors that are experienced as part of the entrepreneurial process.
This, in turn, is likely helpful in increasing psychological well-being and
entrepreneurial persistence.
5.1. Practical implications
From a practical perspective, it may be important for entrepreneurs
to feel that from the very beginning of their nascent entrepreneurial
efforts that they are endowed with enough human, social, and financial
resources to ensure that their psychological well-being remains at
healthy levels. This psychological well-being, coupled with sufficient
resources, then makes it more amenable for nascent entrepreneurs to
persist in their efforts to start a business. An initial set of resources
deemed to be “adequate” in the minds of nascent entrepreneurs may
lead them to a state of greater psychological well-being. This well-
being, in-turn, may be useful as the start-up process is often tumultuous
and filled with many different types of emotions (Foo, 2011). Thus,
psychological well-being that helps overcome a variety of emotions
may be especially valuable in the entrepreneurial process as much re-
search has documented how the nascent entrepreneurship period often
takes extended periods of time to progress from an idea into an actual
business emergence event (Lichtenstein, Dooley, & Lumpkin, 2006;
Meek & Williams, 2018).
The linkage between resources, well-being, and persistence found in
this study provides practical implications for policy makers and re-
gional entrepreneurship and economic development promoting agen-
cies to consider. Foremost is that instilling confidence in the level of
resources available to aspiring entrepreneurs is key because this in-
creases their psychological well-being and persistence. While no gov-
ernment agency or entrepreneurship support center can assure ade-
quate financial resources being available to aspiring entrepreneurs they
can provide a great deal of resources regarding human and social ca-
pital activities. Plugging new entrepreneurs into the entrepreneurial
ecosystem and support network in the area should further grow their
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and instill more motivation to persist in
their entrepreneurial activities.
5.2. Limitation and directions for future research
This study found empirical support for a mediating relationship of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the relationship between access to re-
sources and persistence, which suggests that the traditional self-efficacy
to persistence relationship may be more nuanced than originally envi-
sioned. While other research has made progress in this realm (i.e. –
entrepreneurial passion mediating the relationship between self-effi-
cacy and persistence, Cardon & Kirk, 2015), more research on other
potential antecedents to self-efficacy could be informative. While there
are many success stories of entrepreneurs bootstrapping their way to
success, much of the current research does not take into account the
size of the aspiring or nascent entrepreneur’s human, social, and fi-
nancial capital as they are undertaking the process. While we can
suggest that resources currently controlled do not matter (see Stevenson
& Jarillo, 1990 below), this does not take into account the personal
factors or even the entrepreneurial ecosystem in which an entrepreneur
is attempting to operate. Thus, studies of geographic agglomeration/
bundling of entrepreneurial firms in certain geographic contexts may be
able to provide some clues on how some entrepreneurs are able or not
able to overcome the lack of resources available in certain areas/re-
gions.
In a related vein, further discussion about how resources or the lack
of resources impacts psychological well-being and causes psychological
stress in regards to COR theory would be beneficial in future studies.
Research on educational outcomes suggests that adolescent students
D.R. Marshall, et al.
that attend school without adequate food, rest, or emotional support
have a more difficult time succeeding and meeting learning objectives
(Dent & Hatton, 1996). Similarly, research on entrepreneurial bricolage
(Baker & Nelson, 2005) suggests that sometimes in cases of severe re-
source constraints, entrepreneurs are forced to develop products or
services with whatever resources are available to them, which often
leads to lower quality entrepreneurial ideas, returns, and outcomes.
Yet, many well-resourced new ventures are not ultimately able to find
long-term success. This suggests that a more nuanced understanding of
the ventures resource access and progression towards entrepreneurial
milestones and emergence events over time is needed. Thus, long-
itudinal studies that more specifically identify the human, social, and
financial resources of nascent entrepreneurs over extended periods of
time is needed to understand more fully how access to resources im-
pacts well-being and persistence. Alternatively, utilizing the experience
sampling methodology (Uy, Foo, & Aguinis, 2010) that relies on real-
time questions and assessments of feelings, stress, and emotions would
be very promising in this context as well.
We tested our theory using an experimental-vignette methodology,
which as explained previously can be superior to other methodological
approaches given that our model explicates “thinking-action” re-
lationships among access to resource, self-efficacy, well-being, and
persistence (Williams et al., 2019). Additionally, EVM allowed us to
assess entrepreneurial thinking without introducing recall bias from
existing entrepreneurs (Shepherd et al., 2013) and to contextualize our
research questions to the development stage (Oll et al., 2018). In spite
of the benefits of experiments over other methodologies, there exist
several limitations to our EVM approach. The primary weakness of our
study regards the generalizability of our findings to people who actually
have entrepreneurial intentions or who have previously entered en-
trepreneurship. However, some scholars are less concerned with “the
ability to generalize a study's findings across each and every possible
kind of individuals and contexts” given that entrepreneurship research
is an applied field of study different than economics or psychology
(Grégoire, Binder, & Rauch, 2019, p. 288). Regardless, future research
could benefit from testing components of our model with responses
from actual entrepreneurs. Certainly, these observations (field studies,
interviews, and/or surveys) potentially offers greater insights to un-
derstanding how successful entrepreneurs would evaluate the implica-
tions of resource access in the different experimental conditions. Per-
haps pairing the vignettes with actual resource endowments of
entrepreneurs who became successful would provide a useful extension
of this methodology in the future.
6. Conclusion
Understanding how entrepreneurs experience well-being
throughout the entrepreneurial process is critical to both theory and
practice in entrepreneurship. Using an experimental vignette study, we
link access to resources, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and subjective
well-being for prospective entrepreneurs. We also find evidence of a
serial mediation model in which well-being is positively related to
startup persistence due to resources and self-efficacy. Our study shows
resources are not only important to business success, but also crucial to
the functioning of individuals during the start-up process, suggesting
that both greater confidence and happiness stems from resource
abundance rather than scarcity.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
210
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 203–212
References
Abreu, M., Oner, O., Brouwer, A., & van Leeuwen, E. (2019). Well-being effects of self-
employment: A spatial inquiry. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(4), 589–607.
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of
Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
Adomako, S., Danso, A., Uddin, M., & Damoah, J. O. (2016). Entrepreneurs’ optimism,
cognitive style and persistence. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and
Research, 22(1), 84–108.
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and
implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research
Methods, 17(4), 351–371.
Ahmad, S. Z., & Arabia, S. (2010). Stress and coping styles of entrepreneurs: A Malaysian
survey. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 14, 25–36.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construc-
tion through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3),
329–366.
Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. (2011). Subjective well-being in organizations. The Oxford
Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, 178–189.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37(2), 122.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Vol. Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behavior: Vol. 4, (pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.
Bandura, A. (2011). A social cognitive perspective on positive psychology. Revista de
Psicología Social, 26(1), 7–20.
Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of
Management Review, 33(2), 328–340.
Bates, T. (1990). Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity, Vol. 72(4),
551–559.
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and
motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4),
587–598.
Berge, L. I. O., Bjorvatn, K., & Tungodden, B. (2015). Human and financial capital for
microenterprise development: Evidence from a field and lab experiment. Management
Science, 61(4), 707–722.
Berglund, V., Johansson Sevä, I., & Strandh, M. (2016). Subjective well-being and job
satisfaction among self-employed and regular employees: Does personality matter
differently? Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 28(1), 55–73.
Bhuiyan, M. F., & Ivlevs, A. (2019). Micro-entrepreneurship and subjective well-being:
Evidence from rural Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(4), 625–645.
Bradley, D. E., & Roberts, J. A. (2004). Self-employment and job satisfaction:
Investigating the role of self-efficacy, depression, and seniority. Journal of Small
Business Management, 42(1), 37–58.
Brändle, L., Berger, E. S., Golla, S., & Kuckertz, A. (2018). I am what I am-How nascent
entrepreneurs’ social identity affects their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of
Business Venturing Insights, 9, 17–23.
Brüggen, E. C., Hogreve, J., Holmlund, M., Kabadayi, S., & Löfgren, M. (2017). Financial
well-being: A conceptualization and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 79,
228–237.
Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 1061–1070.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Burton, M. D., Sørensen, J. B., & Dobrev, S. D. (2016). A careers perspective on en-
trepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(2), 237–247.
Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Self–efficacy beliefs as determinants of prosocial be-
havior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 24(2), 191–217.
Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Gerbino, M., Paciello, M., & Vecchio, G. M. (2006). Looking for
adolescents' well-being: Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and
happiness. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 15(1), 30–43.
Cardon, M. S., & Kirk, C. P. (2015). Entrepreneurial passion as mediator of the self–-
efficacy to persistence relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5),
1027–1050.
Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1998). An examination of the substitutability of founders
human and financial capital in emerging business ventures. Journal of Business
Venturing, 13(5), 353–369.
Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1994). Market attractiveness, resource-based capabilities,
venture strategies, and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(4),
331–349.
Cicerone, K. D., & Azulay, J. (2007). Perceived self-efficacy and life satisfaction after
traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 22(5), 257–266.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial
capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5),
371–395.
Crook, T. R., Shook, C. L., Morris, M. L., & Madden, T. M. (2010). Are we there yet? An
assessment of research design and construct measurement practices in en-
trepreneurship research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 192.
Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2005). Positive affect as implicit motivator: On the nonconscious
D.R. Marshall, et al.
operation of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(2),
129–142.
Daniel, E. M., Domenico, M. D., & Sharma, S. (2015). Effectuation and home-based online
business entrepreneurs. International Small Business Journal, 33(8), 799–823.
Davidsson, P. (2016). A “business researcher” view on opportunities for psychology in
entrepreneurship research. Applied Psychology, 65(3), 628–636.
Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.
Deng, W., Liang, Q. Z., & Fan, P. H. (2019). Complements or substitutes? Configurational
effects of entrepreneurial activities and institutional frameworks on social well-being.
Journal of Business Research, 96, 194–205.
Dent, J. N., & Hatton, E. (1996). Education and poverty: An Australian primary school
case Study. Australian Journal of Education, 40(1), 46–64.
DeWitz, S. J., & Walsh, W. B. (2002). Self-efficacy and college student satisfaction. Journal
of Career Assessment, 10(3), 315–326.
Dickel, P., & Graeff, P. (2018). Entrepreneurs' propensity for corruption: A vignette-based
factorial survey. Journal of Business Research, 89, 77–86.
Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being con-
tributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1–43.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31.
Dijkhuizen, J., Gorgievski, M., van Veldhoven, M., & Schalk, R. (2018). Well-being,
personal success and business performance among entrepreneurs: A two-wave study.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(8), 2187–2204.
Evans, D. S., & Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under
liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 808–827.
Extremera, N., Durán, A., & Rey, L. (2009). The moderating effect of trait meta-mood and
perceived stress on life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(2),
116–121.
Fernet, C., Torrès, O., Austin, S., & St-Pierre, J. (2016). The psychological costs of owning
and managing an SME: Linking job stressors, occupational loneliness, entrepreneurial
orientation, and burnout. Burnout Research, 3(2), 45–53.
Foo, M. D. (2011). Emotions and entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 35(2), 375–393.
Foo, M. D., Uy, M. A., & Baron, R. A. (2009). How do feelings influence effort? An em-
pirical study of entrepreneurs’ affect and venture effort. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(4), 1086.
Gielnik, M. M., Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2012). Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the
relationship between business owners' age and venture growth. Journal of Business
Venturing, 27(1), 127–142.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determi-
nants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.
Goldber, D. (1979). Interview techniques for family doctors. Medical University of South
Carolina, Department of Family Doctors.
Grégoire, D. A., Binder, J. K., & Rauch, A. (2019). Navigating the validity tradeoffs of
entrepreneurship research experiments: A systematic review and best-practice sug-
gestions. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 284–310.
Hahn, V. C., Frese, M., Binnewies, C., & Schmitt, A. (2012). Happy and proactive? The
role of hedonic and eudaimonic well–being in business owners’ personal initiative.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 97–114.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., & McMullen, J. S. (2009). An opportunity for me? The role
of resources in opportunity evaluation decisions. Journal of Management Studies,
46(3), 337–361.
Headd, B. (2003). Redefining business success: Distinguishing between closure and
failure. Small Business Economics, 21(1), 51–61.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2002). Strategic entrepreneurship:
Integrating entrepreneurial and strategic management perspectives. In M. A. Hitt, R.
D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new
integrated mindset (pp. 1–16). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Sheppard, L. D. (2019). The Yin and Yang of entrepreneurship:
Gender differences in the importance of communal and agentic characteristics for
entrepreneurs subjective well-being and performance. Journal of Business Venturing,
34(4), 709–730.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the
stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3),
337–421.
Holland, D. V., & Shepherd, D. A. (2013). Deciding to persist: Adversity, values, and
entrepreneurs’ decision policies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2),
331–358.
Hsu, D. K., Burmeister-Lamp, K., Simmons, S. A., Foo, M. D., Hong, M. C., & Pipes, J. D.
(2019). “I know I can, but I don't fit”: Perceived fit, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial
intention. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 311–326.
Hsu, D. K., Shinnar, R. S., & Anderson, S. E. (2019). ‘I wish I had a regular job’: An
exploratory study of entrepreneurial regret. Journal of Business Research, 96,
217–227.
Hundley, G. (2001). Why and When Are the Self-Employed More Satisfied with Their
Work? Industrial Relations, 40(2), 293–316.
Hyman, M. R., & Steiner, S. D. (1996). The vignette method in business research: Current
uses, limitations and recommendations. In E. W. Stuart, D. J. Ortinau, & E. M. Moore
(Eds.). Marketing: Moving toward the 21st century (pp. 261–265). Rock Hill, SC:
211
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 203–212
Winthrop University School of Business.
Jia, F., & Zhang, Y. (2018). The impact of positive affect on entrepreneurial motivational
outcomes–a self-regulatory perspective. International Review Of Entrepreneurship,
16(4), 627–656.
Jiang, C., Lu, L., & Lu, J. J. (2017). Socioeconomic factors affecting the job satisfaction
levels of self-employed container truck drivers: A case study from Shanghai Port.
Maritime Policy and Management, 44(5), 641–656.
Johnson, W., & Krueger, R. F. (2006). How money buys happiness: Genetic and en-
vironmental processes linking finances and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90(4), 680–691.
Klyver, K., & Schenkel, M. T. (2013). From resource access to use: Exploring the impact of
resource combinations on nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business
Management, 51(4), 539–556.
Kraus, S., Meier, F., & Niemand, T. (2016). Experimental methods in entrepreneurship
research: The status quo. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and
Research, 22(6), 958–983.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls
of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), 332–340.
Liao, J. J., Welsch, H., & Moutray, C. (2008). Start-up resources and entrepreneurial
discontinuance: The case of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Strategy,
19(2), 1–16.
Lichtenstein, B. B., Dooley, K. J., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2006). Measuring emergence in the
dynamics of new venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 153–175.
Liu, J., Siu, O. L., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee well-being:
The mediating role of trust in the leader and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 59(3),
454–479.
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale:
Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 439–457.
Lyngdoh, T., Liu, A. H., & Sridhar, G. (2018). Applying positive psychology to selling
behaviors: A moderated–mediation analysis integrating subjective well-being, coping
and organizational identity. Journal of Business Research, 92, 142–153.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary
reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.
Machin, J. E., Adkins, N. R., Crosby, E., Farrell, J. R., & Mirabito, A. M. (2019). The
marketplace, mental well-being, and me: Exploring self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-
compassion in consumer coping. Journal of Business Research, 100, 410–420.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Danaher, T. S., Gallan, A. S., Orsingher, C., Lervik-Olsen, L., &
Verma, R. (2017). How do you feel today? Managing patient emotions during health
care experiences to enhance well-being. Journal of Business Research, 79, 247–259.
McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. L., & Sequeira, J. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-
efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 965–988.
Meek, W., & Williams, D. W. (2018). Venture creation persistence: Overcoming stage-gate
issues. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 24(5),
1016–1035.
Morris, M. H., Neumeyer, X., Jang, Y., & Kuratko, D. F. (2018). Distinguishing types of
entrepreneurial ventures: An identity-based perspective. Journal of Small Business
Management, 56(3), 453–474.
Naudé, W., Amorós, J. E., & Cristi, O. (2014). “Surfeiting, the appetite may sicken”:
Entrepreneurship and happiness. Small Business Economics, 42(3), 523–540.
Newman, A., Mole, K. F., Ucbasaran, D., Subramanian, N., & Lockett, A. (2018). Can your
network make you happy? Entrepreneurs’ business network utilization and subjective
well-being. British Journal of Management, 29(4), 613–633.
Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., & Nielsen, I. (2019).
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical
foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future
research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 403–419.
Nielsen, K., & Munir, F. (2009). How do transformational leaders influence followers'
affective well-being? Exploring the mediating role of self-efficacy. Work and Stress,
23(4), 313–329.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and
self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job sa-
tisfaction and psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional
questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(9), 1236–1244.
O’Sullivan, G. (2011). The relationship between hope, eustress, self-efficacy, and life
satisfaction among undergraduates. Social Indicators Research, 101(1), 155–172.
Oll, J., Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., & Kotzian, P. (2018). Tackling complexity in business
and society research: The methodological and thematic potential of factorial surveys.
Business and Society, 57(1), 26–59.
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family
variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well-being. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 48(3), 275–300.
Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Negative emotions of an entrepreneurial career:
Self-employment and regulatory coping behaviors. Journal of Business venturing,
26(2), 226–238.
Peng, Y., & Mao, C. (2015). The impact of person–job fit on job satisfaction: The mediator
role of Self efficacy. Social Indicators Research, 121(3), 805–813.
Przepiorka, A. M. (2017). Psychological determinants of entrepreneurial success and life-
satisfaction. Current Psychology, 36(2), 304–315.
Robinson-Smith, G., Johnston, M. V., & Allen, J. (2000). Self-care self-efficacy, quality of
life, and depression after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
81(4), 460–464.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of re-
search on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1),
141–166.
Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., ... Baron, R. A. (2013). “I care about nature, but…”:
Disengaging values in assessing opportunities that cause harm. Academy of
D.R. Marshall, et al.
Management Journal, 56(5), 1251–1273.
Shepherd, D. A., Wennberg, K., Suddaby, R., & Wiklund, J. (2019). What are we ex-
plaining? A review and agenda on initiating, engaging, performing, and con-
textualizing entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 45(1), 159–196.
Sherman, C. L., Randall, C., & Kauanui, S. K. (2016). Are you happy yet? Entrepreneurs’
subjective well-being. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 13(1), 7–23.
Shir, N., Nikolaev, B. N., & Wincent, J. (2019). Entrepreneurship and well-being: The role
of psychological autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Journal of Business
Venturing.
Siu, O. L., Lu, C. Q., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Employees’ well-being in Greater China: The
direct and moderating effects of general self-efficacy’. Applied Psychology, 56(2),
288–301.
Stephan, U. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ mental health and well-being: A review and research
agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(3), 290–322.
Stevenson, H., & Jarillo, C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review, 3, 45–57.
Strobel, M., Tumasjan, A., & Spörrle, M. (2011). Be yourself, believe in yourself, and be
happy: Self-efficacy as a mediator between personality factors and subjective well-
being. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(1), 43–48.
Stroe, S., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2018). Effectuation or causation: An fsQCA analysis of
entrepreneurial passion, risk perception, and self-efficacy. Journal of Business
Research, 89, 265–272.
Trevino, L. K. (1992). Experimental approaches to studying ethical-unethical behavior in
organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2), 121–136.
Ucbasaran, D., Shepherd, D. A., Lockett, A., & Lyon, S. J. (2013). Life after business
failure: The process and consequences of business failure for entrepreneurs. Journal of
Management, 39(1), 163–202.
Uy, M. A., Foo, M. D., & Aguinis, H. (2010). Using experience sampling methodology to
advance entrepreneurship theory and research. Organizational Research Methods,
13(1), 31–54.
Uy, M. A., Foo, M. D., & Song, Z. (2013). Joint effects of prior start-up experience and
coping strategies on entrepreneurs’ psychological well-being. Journal of Business
Venturing, 28(5), 583–597.
Uy, M. A., Sun, S., & Foo, M. D. (2017). Affect spin, entrepreneurs' well-being, and
venture goal progress: The moderating role of goal orientation. Journal of Business
Venturing, 32(4), 443–460.
Vecchio, G. M., Gerbino, M., Del Bove, G., & Caprara, G. V. (2007). Multi-faceted self-
efficacy beliefs as predictors of life satisfaction in late adolescence. Personality and
212
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 203–212
Individual Differences, 43(7), 1807–1818.
Weinberg, J. D., Freese, J., & McElthattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and
results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-
recruited sample. Sociology of the Sciences, 1, 292–310.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.
Wiklund, J., Nikolaev, B., Shir, N., Foo, M. D., & Bradley, S. (2019). Entrepreneurship and
well-being: Past, present, and future. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(4), 579–588.
Williams, D. A. (2014). Resources and failure of SMEs: Another look. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, 19(01), 1450007.
Williams, D. W., Wood, M. S., Mitchell, J. R., & Urbig, D. (2019). Applying experimental
methods to advance entrepreneurship research: On the need for and publication of
experiments. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 215–223.
Willison, R., Warkentin, M., & Johnston, A. C. (2018). Examining employee computer
abuse intentions: Insights from justice, deterrence and neutralization perspectives.
Information Systems Journal, 28(2), 266–293.
Wu, L. Y. (2007). Entrepreneurial resources, dynamic capabilities and start-up perfor-
mance of Taiwan's high-tech firms. Journal of Business research, 60(5), 549–555.
Wu, S., Matthews, & Dagher, G. K. (2007). Need for achievement, business goals, and
entrepreneurial persistence. Management Research News, 30(12), 928–941.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6),
1265–1272.
David R. Marshall is an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at the University of
Dayton. He studies and teaches about early stage business owners.
Bill Meek is an Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship at the University of Dayton. He
studies entrepreneurial education, gender in entrepreneurship, and new venture persis-
tence.
Gabby Swab is an Assistant Professor of Management at Towson University. Her research
focuses on innovation, competition, and entrepreneurial teams.
Erik Markin is an Assistant Professor of Management at Mississippi State University. He
researches franchising, entrepreneurship, and family business.