Are we overconfident in executive overconfidence research? An examination of the convergent and content validity of extant unobtrusive measures

Building understanding of overconfident executives is central to a growing literature that spans a number of disciplines. Much of this research has utilized unobtrusive, or indirect, measures to assess executive overconfidence from secondary data sources. We analyze the convergent and content validity of seven extant unobtrusive measures of executive overconfidence. The results of our analyses indicate that these measures do not exhibit adequate convergence, suggesting that existing measures are not measuring the same construct. Further, we administer a sort task to academic colleagues to assess whether scholars believe that the seven measures are adequately assessing the intended construct. The results of our sort task indicate that scholars did not categorize any of the seven measures as sufficient for measuring overconfidence. We conclude with suggestions for future research to address the inadequate convergent and content validity found in our assessment of extant measures of executive overconfidence.     

Commonality in Codes of Ethics

We create a database of company codes of ethics from firms listed on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and, separately, a sample of small firms. The SEC believes that “ethics codes do, and should, vary from company to company.” Using textual analysis techniques, we measure the extent of commonality across the documents. We find substantial levels of common sentences used by the firms, including a few cases where the codes of ethics are essentially identical. We consider these results in the context of legal statements versus value statements. While legal writing often mandates duplication, we argue that value-based statements should be held to a higher standard of originality. Our evidence is consistent with isomorphic pressures on smaller firms to conform.     

Gender and ethnic differences in factors that influence food intake

Abstract The objective of this research was to ascertain the gender-and ethnic-related factors that influence what one eats. This survey was conducted using a validated, pilot-tested questionnaire in 11 states and the District of Columbia, which were participating in the W-182 Western Regional Research project. The results indicated that the factors that influence what one eats differ by gender and ethnicity. Men were very much influenced by likes and dislikes, and by their spouse or significant other. Women were influenced by likes and dislikes, and health. Food likes/dislikes and concerns about health and weight were among the leading four factors for all ethnic groups. Food likes/dislikes were the top factor influencing what is eaten by 51% or more of Asians, Pacific Islanders, Caucasians and Hispanics. Concern about health was the top factor for 62% and 58%, respectively, of African Americans and Native Americans.     

Are two brands better than one? Investigating the effects of co-branding in advertising on audience memory

Co-branded advertising, where advertisements feature two partnered brands from different categories, should ideally benefit both brands. We test this assertion by studying the effect of featuring a second brand in advertisements on ad and brand name memorability, and the role of category context on which brand is recalled. Our test covers online display advertisements for consumer-packaged brands paired with charity and retailer brands in three markets (USA, UK, and Australia). Independent sample comparisons across 54 brand pairs show that advertising two brands has a neutral effect on ad memorability and negative effect on brand memorability. Furthermore, the advertisement’s category context determines which of the brands is recalled. Our findings support a competitive interference theory of dual-brand processing, whereby the two brands compete for attention resources. The results have implications for the return on investment from advertising expenditure, which will vary substantively depending on whether the costs of advertising are shared or borne by one brand in the pair.     

Supporters’ Perceptions of Benefits Delivered by Different Charity Activities

Donating time and money are traditional ways individuals support charities. Other support activities include buying charity products, attending events, or sponsoring others. The proliferation of activities means that charity marketers often face difficult decisions when designing a portfolio of support-generating activities. This research draws on the social exchange theory to examine 11 charity-support activities from the supporter’s perspective. Drawing on Australian data from a survey of 248 supporters of a wide range of charities, we use correspondence analysis to map each activity against four benefit dimensions (material, social, expressive, and personal commitment). We quantify overall supporter perceptions of benefits delivered by engaging in each activity and use multinomial logistic regression to identify how past experience can shape perceptions of activities. We discuss academic and managerial implications, including whether or not specific attributes are more useful to recruit or to retain supporters.     

Correction to: Are two brands better than one? Investigating the effects of co-branding in advertising on audience memory

Marketing Letters - The article Are two brands better than one? Investigating the effects of co-branding in advertising on audience memory, written by Cathy Nguyen, Jenni Romaniuk, Margaret...