The future of technology and marketing: a multidisciplinary perspective

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science -     

An integrated framework for the conceptualization of consumers’ perceived-risk processing

Research on risk is built on a complex array of diverse and sometimes inconsistent definitions, constructs, models, and outcomes. This study examines various literatures to formulate an integrated framework for the conceptualization of perceived-risk processing. The framework specifies three phases (framing, assessment, and evaluation) and their accompanying outcomes of risk attention, perceived risk, and risk-taking propensity. Explicit linkages are specified between situational and individual characteristics. Perceived-risk evaluation is identified as concepturally distinct from assessment of perceived risk, and the construct of risk-taking propensity is separated from those of risk affinity and perceived risk. The framework further presents points of intersection between the literatures on perceived risk and the literatures on consumer decision-making, information search, and satisfaction. Finally, it serves as an anchor for framing future research to promote conceptual and methodological consistency, and to guide progress in directions that are consistent with some leading edge paradigms outside of marketing. Margy P. Conchar (concharm@mail.ecu.edu; Ph.D., University of Georgia) is an assistant professor at East Carolina University. Her research focuses on consumer behavior and advertising. Her work in consumer behavior concentrates on risk, motives, and optimal consumption experience. Her research in advertising focuses on the interface between advertising and finance, accounting, or economics. She has previously published in the proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, the Association for Consumer Research, the American Marketing Association of Educators, and the Society for Marketing Advances. George M. Zinkhan (gzinkhan@terry.uga.edu; Ph.D., University of Michigan) is the Coca-Cola Company Chair of Marketing at the University of Georgia. His major research interests include advertising, promotion, e-commerce, and knowledge development. Two of his recent coauthored books includeConsumers (2004, McGraw-Hill) andElectronic Commerce: A Strategic Perspective (2000, Dryden). Cara Peters (petersc@winthrop.edu; Ph.D., University of Nebraska) is an assistant professor at Winthrop University. Her research lies in the general areas of consumer behavior and e-commerce. Primarily using mixed methods, she examines risky consumer behaviors as they relate to sociology and psychology. She has published in theJournal of Consumer Psychology andConsumption, Markets, and Culture, among other journals. Sergio Olavarrieta (solavar@negocios.uchile.cl; Ph.D., University of Georgia) is an assistant professor at Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. He is assistant dean of undergraduate programs at the School of Business and Economics at the University of Chile. His research focuses on branding and marketing strategy. He has previously published in theJournal of Strategic Marketing and theInternational Journal of Product Distribution and Logistics Management.     

Evaluating the efficiency of municipalities in the presence of unobserved heterogeneity

Journal of Productivity Analysis - The paper applies some of the latest advances of probabilistic approach to account directly for unobserved heterogeneity in the estimation of efficiency measures...     

REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR META-ANALYSIS IN ECONOMICS

Meta-analysis has become the conventional approach to synthesizing the results of empirical economics research. To further improve the transparency and replicability of the reported results and to raise the quality of meta-analyses, the Meta-Analysis of Economics Research Network has updated the reporting guidelines that were published by this Journal in 2013. Future meta-analyses in economics will be expected to follow these updated guidelines or give valid reasons why a meta-analysis should deviate from them.     

The Emergence of Proto-Institutions in the New Normal Business Landscape: Dialectic Institutional Work and the Dutch Drone Industry

In the current business landscape, in which technology-enabled entrepreneurship is part of the New Normal, regulatory institutional structures are in constant flux. Previous studies have framed the challenges facing entrepreneurs in mature organizational fields as avoiding the power of overbearing regulators long enough to establish the legitimacy of their ventures. In fields typified by New Normal conditions, however, regulatory frameworks for evaluating new technology-enabled ventures are often still lacking. Regulators may choose to actively reach out to entrepreneurs to arrive at a better understanding of the radical technological changes and high-frequency entrepreneurial behavioural adaptations that occur in these settings. To grasp how novel regulatory institutional structures come about in the New Normal business landscape, we conducted a processual study of the emergence of a new technology that is the Dutch remotely piloted aircraft systems (drone) industry between 2000 and 2018. Our findings show that regulatory proto-institutions result from dialectic institutional work in the form of structured interactions between entrepreneurs and regulators. Specifically, we present a process model that reveals how new regulatory structures evolve in contexts where high levels of technological and behavioural change induce systemic uncertainty, and enlarge the interdependence between entrepreneurs and regulators. We suggest that our process theory of proto-institutional emergence generalizes towards other organizational fields in which technology-enabled entrepreneurship has become the main driver of growth. Theoretically, our findings speak to the literatures on institutional work, proto-institutional emergence, and the New Normal business landscape.     

Innovation speed under uncertainty and competition

Innovation speed is widely considered to be a key factor for a firm's ability to maintain competitive advantage. Primarily, empirical evidence has found contradictory interdependencies regarding the role of innovation speed. The prevailing proposition of “the faster the better” has been challenged by results of empirical studies heavily depending on the methodological setup used. In contrast, we propose a model of the complete innovation process to study innovation speed under uncertainty and competition. We find that higher market uncertainty speeds up innovation and encourages firms to innovate incrementally. Strong competition tends to reduce innovation speed and encourages rather radical innovation.     

The Role of Dialectical Interrogation in Review Studies: Theorizing from What We See Rather Than What We Have Already Seen

Review-centric works receive increasing attention for generating insightful contributions to management and organization studies. Despite this, the literature on theory building has taken little note of their place in the theorizing process. This deserves attention, however, given the challenges reviews face in theorizing in the absence of new empirical observations. Accordingly, these works run the risk of merely summarizing ‘what we have already seen’, instead of ‘maximizing what we see’. Drawing on the strategies of theorizing from similarities and theorizing from anomalies, we propose dialectical interrogation as a critical step in theorizing through which review scholars imaginatively engage in a back and forth inquiry between the phenomenal world of a given field and existing theory. By analysing selected review studies from top management journals, we reveal that theorizing outcomes occur through two ways of dialectical interrogation (consolidative and disruptive). We contribute by demonstrating that review scholars can enter into powerful theorizing through the consolidative or disruptive interrogation of the review data with extant theory to detect emergence and novelty alongside puzzles, conflicts and paradoxes. Dialectical interrogation can address the shortcomings of current theorizing in review-centric works and bears potential for advancing theories of management and organization studies.     

A capital adequacy buffer model

We develop a new capital adequacy buffer model (CABM) that is sensitive to dynamic economic circumstances. The model, which measures additional bank capital required to compensate for fluctuating credit risk, is a novel combination of the Merton structural model, which measures distance to default and the timeless capital asset pricing model (CAPM), which measures additional returns to compensate for additional share price risk. We apply the model to a portfolio of mid-cap loan assets over a 10-year period that includes pre-GFC (global financial crisis), GFC and post-GFC. An analysis of actual defaults over this period shows the model to be far more accurate in determining the capital adequacy levels needed to counter credit risk than an unresponsive ratings model such as the Basel standardized approach.