Research on family firm internationalization still remains sparse and theory offers mixed predictions (for recent reviews, see Fernández & Nieto, 2014; Sluhan, 2017). Studies have found both positive (e.g., Fang, Kotlar, Memili, Chrisman, & De Massis, 2018; Minetti, Murro, & Zhu, 2015; Zahra, 2003, 2005) and negative (e.g., Alessandri, Cerrato, & Eddleston 2018; Fernández & Nieto, 2005, 2006; Graves & Thomas, 2006; Ray, Mondal, & Ramachandran, 2018; Sanchez-Bueno & Usero, 2014) relationships between family ownership, a key defining characteristic of a family firm, and internationalization. Yet, others argue for a curvilinear relationship between the two variables (e.g., Liang, Wang, & Cui, 2014; Mitter, Duller, Feldbauer-Durstmüller, & Kraus, 2012; Sciascia, Mazzola, Astrachan, & Pieper, 2012). Even meta-analytic studies were not consistent (Arregle, Duran, Hitt, & Essen, 2017; Carney, Essen, Gedajlovic, & Heugens, 2015).

We suggest that the mixed results regarding internationalization in family firms, which are defined for the purpose of this study as businesses with 50% family ownership and at least two members serving on the top management team (TMT), are due to three theoretical gaps: (1) a lack of specific theoretical logic that captures how familial characteristics in family firms influence international business, (2) the omission of key family firm-specific contingency factors that capture family firm heterogeneity, and (3) a lack of differentiation between export intensity, defined as the ratio of export sales to total sales, and export propensity, which indicates whether the company is currently exporting (Ganotakis & Love, 2012). While this fine-grained distinction is widely acknowledged in the international business literature, particularly the Chinese context (e.g., Fung, Gao, Lu, & Maon, 2008; Zhao & Zou, 2002), it is not commonly found in family firm studies, which tend to focus on one dependent variable or the other (e.g., Gómez-Mejía, Makri, & Larraza-Kintana, 2010; Liang et al., 2014).

While numerous theories have been used to investigate internationalization decisions (e.g., Boellis, Mariotti, Minichilli, & Piscitello, 2016; Fernández & Nieto, 2005, 2006; Graves & Thomas, 2006; Liu, Lin, & Cheng, 2011; Mitter et al., 2012; Zahra, 2005), we take a socioemotional wealth perspective (SEW) (Berrone, Cruz, & Gómez-Mejía, 2012; Gómez-Mejía, Haynes, Núñez-Nickel, Jacobson, & Moyano-Fuentes, 2007) as it allows us to more fully capture family firm-specific heterogeneity. We explain the underlying mechanisms in our paper using SEW aspirations (see also Sciascia, Mazzola, & Kellermanns, 2014), defined as the desire to at least maintain SEW levels at historical levels (see also Chrisman & Patel, 2012; Patel & Chrisman, 2014). As prior research in this context has produced inconsistent results (e.g., Liang et al., 2014; Sanchez-Bueno & Usero, 2014), it is unclear how SEW aspirations drive strategic decisions in family firms. We focus on those aspects of SEW that are related to control (Berrone et al., 2012; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Zellweger, Kellermanns, Chrisman, & Chua, 2012) as well as the temporal aspects of SEW aspirations. Specifically, we examine family ownership, a necessary condition to establish SEW. We also focus on the presence of a founder CEO, which we suggest captures current SEW aspirations due to the fact that changes in SEW directly impact these individuals. Furthermore, founder CEOs have the ability to affect the immediate direction of the firm. Lastly, we investigate family succession intentions, which reflect future aspirations as long-term SEW-related goals are affected (see also Hoffmann, Jaskiewicz, Wulf, & Combs, forthcoming). We test our hypotheses using a sample of Chinese small and medium-sized family businesses. China provides an ideal context for our research, as family firms are prominent, and the desire to create and preserve SEW may be particularly pronounced there (Schulze & Kellermanns, 2015).

Our study contributes to the literature in several ways. We add to the growing SEW literature. The majority of research in this area focuses on general endowment levels. Yet, SEW changes due to variations in the strength of the flow of incoming SEW, defined as an adjustable investment or lack of investment of resources to accumulate SEW (e.g., donations for local charity, foregoing risky investment) (see also Dierickx & Cool, 1989), forming the overall stock (endowment) over time (for an exception and more detailed discussion, see Chua, Chrisman, & De Massis, 2015). We extend this literature by focusing on SEW aspirations, initially introduced by Sciascia et al. (2014) and defined as an explanatory mechanism that incorporates the notion of stocks and flows and affects family firm behavior related to SEW. By distinguishing between current and future SEW aspirations, we also introduce a temporal aspect of SEW (for a call for future research on this issue, see Chua et al., 2015). The omission of a time horizon in prior SEW research represents an important theoretical gap, as the SEW time horizon has the potential to affect family firm behavior. Furthermore, we contribute to the growing literature on internationalization in family firms (e.g., Fernández & Nieto, 2014; Sluhan, 2017). While the impact of the family on internationalization is still inconclusive, we focus on both export intensity and propensity and provide a more robust assessment of these relationships. By focusing on exporting (i.e., the first step in the internalization process), and using a sample that is uniquely suited for this research, we are able to isolate family firm-specific influences and identify unique family firm-specific moderators. Furthermore, we are able to show the nuanced impact of SEW; specifically, we suggest and find that the initial decision to internationalize entails a higher threat to SEW than just higher degrees of internationalization.