Search results

This paper aims to draw on historical conceptions of true and false prudence within the broader context of virtue ethics ideas, to create a prudence framework for developing risk-and-ethics cultures in organisations.

The authors use a theoretical analytical approach as a means of examining plausible representations of risk as ethical practice.

While the ethical ideal of true prudence is explained primarily with reference to psychological theories of generativity, false prudence is explained as undesirable, primarily with reference to psychological problems of narcissism and the broader dark triad. True and false prudence are represented as centring upon very different motivations for foresight, each of which might set the cultural tone for organisational risk management.

This paper’s main contribution is therefore to call attention to the benefits for organisations of reflecting upon differences between true and false prudence when planning the risk management they want.

Social media rumor combating is a global concern in academia and industry. Existing studies lack a clear definition and overall conceptual framework of users' rumor-combating behaviors. Therefore, this study attempts to empirically derive a typology of rumor-combating behaviors of social media users.

A three-phase typology development approach is adopted, including content analysis, multidimensional scaling (MDS), interpreting and labeling. Qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods are employed.

The elicited 40 rumor-combating behaviors vary along two dimensions: high versus low difficulty of realization, and low versus high cognitive load. Based on the two dimensions, the 40 behaviors are further divided into four categories: rumor-questioning behavior, rumor-debunking behavior, proactive-appealing behavior, and literacy enhancement behavior.

This typology will serve as reference for social media platforms and governments to further explore the interventions to encourage social media users to counter rumor spreading based on various situations and different characteristics of rumor-combating behaviors.

This study provides a typology of rumor-combating behaviors from a novel perspective of user participation. The typology delves into the conceptual connotations and basic forms of rumor combating, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the complete spectrum of users' rumor-combating behaviors. Furthermore, the typology identifies the similarities and the differences between various rumor-combating behaviors, thus providing implications and directions for future research on rumor-combating behaviors.

All of us are born critical thinkers; some perfect this talent; others ignore it as useful in daily life. This chapter follows those who perfected this talent in order to learn from them the art and models of critical thinking in terms of its optimal inputs, processes, and outputs. According to great critical thinkers in business management, critical thinking questions – or should question – the obsessive generalizations, constraints, and “best” practices of the prevailing system of management, and try to replace them with more valid assumptions and more meaningful generalizations that uphold the dignity, uniqueness, and inalienable rights of the individual person and the community. After setting out some cases illustrating the lack of critical thinking, in Part I of this chapter, we introduce some representative management thinkers on critical thinking, and in Part II, we introduce eight models or practical approaches for critical thinking.

Disinformation, false information designed with the intention to mislead, can significantly damage organizational operation and reputation, interfering with communication and relationship management in a wide breadth of risk and crisis contexts. Modern digital platforms and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), introduce novel risks in crisis management (Guthrie and Rich, 2022). Disinformation literature in security and computer science has assessed how previously introduced technologies have affected disinformation, demanding a systematic and coordinated approach for sustainable counter-disinformation efforts. However, there is a lack of theory-driven, evidence-based research and practice in public relations that advises how organizations can effectively and proactively manage risks and crises driven by AI (Guthrie and Rich, 2022).

As a first step in closing this research-practice gap, the authors first synthesize theoretical and technical literature characterizing the effects of AI on disinformation. Upon this review, the authors propose a conceptual framework for disinformation response in the corporate sector that assesses (1) technologies affecting disinformation attacks and counterattacks and (2) how organizations can proactively prepare and equip communication teams to better protect businesses and stakeholders.

This research illustrates that future disinformation response efforts will not be able to rely solely on detection strategies, as AI-created content quality becomes more and more convincing (and ultimately, indistinguishable), and that future disinformation management efforts will need to rely on content influence rather than volume (due to emerging capabilities for automated production of disinformation). Built upon these fundamental, literature-driven characteristics, the framework provides organizations actor-level and content-level perspectives for influence and discusses their implications for disinformation management.

This research provides a theoretical basis and practitioner insights by anticipating how AI technologies will impact corporate disinformation attacks and outlining how companies can respond. The proposed framework provides a theory-driven, practical approach for effective, proactive disinformation management systems with the capacity and agility to detect risks and mitigate crises driven by evolving AI technologies. Together, this framework and the discussed strategies offer great value to forward-looking disinformation management efforts. Subsequent research can build upon this framework as AI technologies are deployed in disinformation campaigns, and practitioners can leverage this framework in the development of counter-disinformation efforts.

This article explicates the notion of using a “theoretical lens” to interpret research data, which has grown increasingly common in recent decades, often without a second thought about the implications of use of a mere metaphor in the pursuit of truth. Poets may not question that metaphors reveal truths, but should social scientists accept that?

It looks first at what theory means, then – and in greater detail – what the metaphor of a lens entails.

Drawing on the base analogy in optics, it identifies four mechanisms through which theory might act as a lens – adjustment, correction, distortion and augmentation-suppression, with examples based on theories of business strategy and organisation studies.

These four mechanisms involve two different ways of seeing – better and differently. With adjustment and correction see better what is, or perhaps what was. With distortion and especially augmentation-suppression, we see differently, which helps us imagine what might be, or what we might have overlooked. They help us escape narrow silos of thinking. Researchers and students alike need to be aware of all four lenses of theory and be ready to experiment.

It argues that if some theories try to help us see better, others push us to see differently, with implications for the practice and teaching of research methods.

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

All of us seek truth via objective inquiry into various human and nonhuman phenomena that nature presents to us on a daily basis. We are empirical (or nonempirical) decision makers who hold that uncertainty is our discipline, and that understanding how to act under conditions of incomplete information is the highest and most urgent human pursuit (Karl Popper, as cited in Taleb, 2010, p. 57). We verify (prove something as right) or falsify (prove something as wrong), and this asymmetry of knowledge enables us to distinguish between science and nonscience. According to Karl Popper (1971), we should be an “open society,” one that relies on skepticism as a modus operandi, refusing and resisting definitive (dogmatic) truths. An open society, maintained Popper, is one in which no permanent truth is held to exist; this would allow counter-ideas to emerge. Hence, any idea of Utopia is necessarily closed since it chokes its own refutations. A good model for society that cannot be left open for falsification is totalitarian and epistemologically arrogant. The difference between an open and a closed society is that between an open and a closed mind (Taleb, 2004, p. 129). Popper accused Plato of closing our minds. Popper's idea was that science has problems of fallibility or falsifiability. In this chapter, we deal with fallibility and falsifiability of human thinking, reasoning, and inferencing as argued by various scholars, as well as the falsifiability of our knowledge and cherished cultures and traditions. Critical thinking helps us cope with both vulnerabilities. In general, we argue for supporting the theory of “open mind and open society” in order to pursue objective truth.

This research aims to explores consumers' motives and attitudes toward misinformation (fake reviews), its characteristics and its impact on individuals, brands and firms.

A thematic analysis was undertaken to meet the research objectives by analyzing qualitative data from in-depth interviews with a diverse sample (N = 48).

The findings indicate that altruism, impression management, matching ideologies, message appeal and perceived source power are the critical motivations for individuals to share misinformation. Misinformation leads to conflicts and avoidance among individuals and harms brand's reputation.

This study utilizes thematic analysis to extend and contribute to the literature on misinformation. The current research provides an overarching framework to decode the misinformation phenomenon for researchers and practitioners.

This study offers valuable insights to marketers to develop strategies to tackle the menace of false information to safeguard brand reputation.

The debate about tackling online misinformation and disinformation is not unique to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the health crisis has elevated the danger of misleading information circulated on social media. Labelled as ‘infodemic’, the problem of COVID-19-related misinformation and disinformation prompted governments and social media platforms around the globe to impose various speech restrictions. The public and private policy frameworks aiming to curb the spread of the infodemic were adopted in a state of emergency and without proper scrutiny. Yet, they are shaping the future of content regulation, possibly affecting freedom of speech and other democratic values for years to come. This chapter looks at the key problematic aspects of actions taken by governments and social media platforms to address COVID-19-related misinformation and disinformation and discusses the possible long-term effects of these measures.