Search results

Engagement is a construct that varies according to the subject, object and context; this has been used to justify the coexistence of a variety of construct definitions and scales. Instead of proposing a new scale, this paper aims to create a procedure for comparing scales and to use it to evaluate brand engagement measures in social media.

This study first defines a procedure for the selection, standardization and comparison of scales; this procedure considers both the classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT). The authors apply the procedure in a survey of 233 respondents to compare three scales for measuring consumer engagement with brands in social media.

The establishment of a procedure for scale comparison is useful in assisting researchers to choose specific measures. Results showed that the three scales have similar characteristics, but Vivek et al.’s (2014) scale is recommended when better discrimination between construct dimensions is required, Hollebeek et al.’s (2014) scale could be used as a one-dimensional scale and Dessart et al.’s (2016) reduced scale has better ability to capture information for the affective and cognitive dimensions. None of the scales were very efficient in discriminating weakly and strongly engaged individuals.

This study makes a substantive contribution by proposing a procedure for scale comparison that considers CTT and IRT and shows the advantages, limitations and recommendations for using three different scales of consumer engagement.

This paper aims to conceptualize two dimensions of active innovation resistance (AIR): cognitive active resistance and emotional active resistance. A scale to measure this construct is proposed and tested.

Three studies were conducted, with sample sizes of 195, 190 and 186, to test the discriminant, convergent, nomological and criterion validity of the proposed AIRc+e scale and to analyze its explanatory and predictive power. Data were gathered using the online platform of a US-based research company.

The authors provide evidence that AIR is a two-dimension construct comprising a cognitive and an emotional dimension. AIR was modeled as a third-order construct, comprising two second-order constructs, cognitive active resistance and emotional active resistance. The impact of adding an emotion dimension to active resistance was therefore assessed, and the results indicated that the explanatory and predictive power of the AIR measure improved as expected.

Consumers are most likely to resist innovations launched onto the marketplace, either prior to or after evaluating them. A better understanding of the reasons behind their resistance to innovation, as well as of its mechanisms, is of great importance in decreasing an innovation’s chances of failure.

This study proposes that incorporating emotion into the assessment of AIR will result in a deeper understanding of adoption and rejection behavior, expanding the current knowledge of consumer behavior in innovation-related, new product adoption and decisions.

Doctoral programs are primarily intended to train new professors and researchers to take positions requiring research competency. This paper aims to observe the scientific production of 734 Brazilian new PhDs in management and the possible link between the scientific output of the graduates and doctoral program rank.

Methodologically, the authors built a database collecting the journal publications of the first six years after doctoral degree of all PhDs in management graduated by Brazilian doctoral programs during the period of 1998-2008. The authors use cluster and descriptive analysis to explore PhD publication.

Results show a great disparity of productivity, where 10 per cent of all new PhDs account for most of the Brazilian research productivity, while most of the PhDs have a very low performance – and that the CAPES (the Brazilian institutional system) qualification of doctoral programs is not a good predictor of the performance of the future graduates. Results are discussed to understand this productivity gap among researchers in a context of a developing country where support institutions are working to improve quantity and quality of publication.

The results are useful for recruiters that need to decide between hiring new PhDs with low productivity graduated from high-ranked programs or new PhDs with high productivity from programs with more modest ranking. At least in part, the authors’ results question the real impact that the doctoral program’s prestige has on the performance of its graduates.

There are implications for the future candidates to a management PhD program, for the Directors of these programs and for the institutional agencies that regulate and promote science and that establish the prevailing rules and norms that researchers and institutions follow.

The results are adamant in pointing out that there is a small group of highly productive new PhDs – that the authors called “stars”. Generally speaking, they may find these “star” new PhDs in several doctoral programs. They have also found that some of the new PhDs have a relatively higher level of international papers published, but not necessarily a larger volume of publications. Meanwhile, most PhDs present a very low level of performance. This has important contributions to the way they perceive the doctoral education in management, especially in Ibero-America, revealing insights about the quality of PhDs and PhD courses.