Search results

When the spread of online health rumors on social media causes public concerns, the public is calling for action. However, little study has investigated how Facebook reaction icons (expressing feelings function) affect online users' behavioral intentions (intention to trust and share) toward online health rumor posts. The current study addresses this gap by focusing on the effect of Facebook reaction icons in two conditions: Facebook reaction icons' presence (versus absence), and Facebook reaction icons' emotional valence (positive versus negative versus neutral). Moreover, the authors also investigated the interaction between Facebook reaction icons' emotional valence and online health rumor posts' framing headlines (gain versus loss).

The authors used a 7 (Facebook reaction icons: Love, Like, Haha, Wow, Sad, Angry and no icon) × 2 (Facebook framing headlines: gain and loss) between-subjects design, analyzing 507 samples from online users with one-way ANOVA and MANOVA.

Results show that online health rumor posts without Facebook reaction icons are more likely to negatively change online users' behavioral intentions than the posts with Facebook reaction icons; negative reaction icons (Sad and Angry) lower online users' behavioral intentions than positive reaction icons (Love and Like). Further, the incongruency effect of interaction (i.e. positive reaction icons with a negative message) would have more negative effects on online users' behavioral intentions than the congruency effect (i.e. positive reaction icons with a positive message).

This study has rich contributions to theoretical and practical implications for the Facebook platform and Facebook users to apply Facebook reaction icons against online health rumor posts.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the type of explanation (excuses, justifications, apologies and denials) provided for downsizing and the source of the announcement (CEO vs other organizational members) influences shareholders’ market reactions to downsizing announcements.

In total, 388 media-based downsizing announcements from 2006–2015 were coded for explanation type and source of message. Cumulative average return was used to assess the impact of downsizing on market reactions the day after the announcement.

As predicted, and consistent with predictions drawn from fairness theory, excuses triggered positive market reactions, whereas justifications, apologies and denials triggered negative reactions. Additionally, shareholders reacted more negatively to excuses and apologies when the announcement came from CEOs vs other organizational members.

The current research bridges the literature on market reactions to downsizing with the organizational psychology literature to advance a novel theoretical framework for predicting shareholders’ reactions to downsizing announcements. In doing so, the authors provide a more refined understanding of why different types of explanations may differentially influence shareholders’ reactions. The current research also sheds light on when the presence of the CEO in downsizing announcements may have potentially negative consequences for organizations.

The findings contribute to the sparse literature examining variations in the content of downsizing announcements on shareholders’ reactions. The present research is also the first to examine whether shareholders would react less negatively if downsizing explanations came from top organizational leaders (e.g. CEOs).

The use of social networking websites by companies to disclose corporate news and by investors to collect information for investment purposes is increasing rapidly. However, the role of investors’ affective reactions to corporate disclosures on social networking websites is under-researched. This paper aims to examine how the disclosure platform (disclosing news on a company’s Facebook Web page or the corporate investor relations Web page) and news valence (positive or negative) jointly influence investors’ affective reactions to corporate news and stock price change judgments.

The authors conduct an experimental study using 364 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk website as a proxy for reasonably informed investors.

Results show that the disclosure platform influences investors’ affective reactions and stock price change judgments when the corporate news is negative, but not when the corporate news is positive. In addition, investors’ affective reactions mediate the influence of the disclosure platform on investors’ stock price change judgments when the corporate news is negative rather than positive.

This paper extends the theory on affective reactions to a social networking context by showing that differences in disclosure platforms and news valence influence investors’ affective reactions to corporate news. In addition, the study’s theory and findings have significant implications for researchers, company managers and public relations specialists, capital market participants, regulators and investor education organizations and users of social networking websites.

Purpose – This study examines both the short- and long-term share price reaction to announcements of financial restatements cited in the U.S. General Accounting Office (2006) database.

Methodology – It uses the augmented four-factor Fama-French model for assessing share price reaction.

Findings – The study finds that the average cumulative abnormal return (CAR) for a sample of 553 restatements (by 437 companies) is significantly negative (−1.58) for the three-day window surrounding the day of announcement. The average CAR for the one-year period prior to the announcement (−9.6%) and for each of the four years after the announcement is negative as well, with the average CAR for the four years adding up to −22%. The study also documents differences in CARs based on the entity prompting the restatement (company, auditor, and Securities and Exchange Commission), the reason behind the restatement (revenue, cost, reclassification of item, etc.), and for one-time versus repeat offenders.

Social implications – Taken together, the findings indicate that financial restatements impose significant short-term as well as long-term costs on shareholders.

Originality/Value – The evidence about long-term share price reaction to financial restatements is missing in prior research. The relationship between long-term and short-term share price reaction to financial restatements fails to suggest systematic over/underreaction by the market.

This paper aims to use the Covid-19 pandemic situation to conduct an experiment-like study that focuses on industry reactions under stress. Particularly, this study analyzes stock response to eight pandemic related news in 2020 across different industries. This study also investigates the role that the market risk, beta, plays in such stock reactions.

This study computes the cumulative abnormal returns (CAR) around COVID-19 events using adjusted daily stock returns of all stocks in the S&P 500 index between January 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020. This study also sorts all stocks by beta into quintiles and measures the CAR [0, +3] for each quintile around each event date.

This study finds that low beta portfolios exhibit greater abnormal returns (in absolute value) than high beta portfolios during down markets while high beta portfolios exhibit greater abnormal returns (in absolute values) when the market starts to recover. However, this study finds that beta does not seem to explain the abnormal returns reported in various industries during times of negative sentiment. During times of positive sentiment, both the beta effect and industry effect are present.

Extant literature almost unanimously concurs that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about negative stock reactions to financial markets across the globe. Nevertheless, three interrelated issues have not been explored: market reactions during the subsequent recovery, industry heterogeneity and individual stocks’ risk profile. The study addresses these matters.

This paper investigates the market response to the poor quality of reporting on the first mandated set of conflict minerals disclosures in the US setting. The authors examine the reaction for both filing firms at their filing date and non-filing companies at the filing deadline.

The authors use standard market model methods to capture investor response and test for differences across reactions using comparisons of means and regression models. The authors also code reports for a sub-sample of firms and test for the relation between disclosure and market reactions.

The authors document a significant negative reaction for both filing and non-filing firms, with the latter group suffering a more negative reaction than the filers. The authors also find more extensive disclosure is associated with less negative market reactions. Finally, the authors provide evidence supporting the argument that the more pronounced reaction for the non-filers is due to concerns with incremental implementation costs for these firms.

The results extend prior research into investor perceptions of exposures to social and political costs. The findings suggest that investors view both poor quality disclosure and lack of response to mandated requirements as increasing such exposures.

The negative market response could be expected to exert additional pressures on companies to better assess and report on conflict mineral exposures in their supply chains.

The findings suggest investors pay attention to the corporate response to mandated social disclosure requirements, an important finding as mandates for similar types of disclosure appear to be in the offing.

This study is the first to extend the social and political cost exposure literature to analysis of mandated social disclosures.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how consumers respond to price changes by analyzing online product reviews (OPRs) posted on a product (Amazon’s Kindle 2), and to suggest several future research topics on online consumers’ reactions embedded in OPRs.

An exploratory case study is conducted using OPRs added to the Kindle 2. By analyzing 6,714 OPRs, the authors examine how online consumers respond to two continual price decreases embedded in the observable (star rating and review depth) and implicit (positive and negative emotions) features of OPRs as well as how the number of OPRs per day has changed after two price drops.

The authors found that all four features of OPRs (star rating, review depth, positive emotion, and negative emotion) and the number of OPRs per day had significantly changed after two price decreases for both long-term and short-term periods. In addition, online consumers’ reactions to price decreases in terms of these four features and the change in the number of OPRs per day were different between the first and the second price drops.

This study investigates online consumers’ reactions to price decreases only. Future research should investigate other cases where price changes under the dynamic pricing strategy in order to find the relationship between price increases/decreases and consumers’ reactions.

This study implies that online merchants should consider consumer groups’ innovation adoption stages and make strategic decisions for price decreases to improve the sales of their products.

While prior research involving the effects of price changes on consumers’ reactions has focussed on offline consumers, this is among the first attempts to address the long- and short-term reactions to price changes in terms of both the observable and implicit features of OPRs, and suggests that consumers’ reactions to price changes in OPRs are more complex.

Previous research on brand crisis has introduced the difference between a values-related crisis and a performance-related crisis. However, little remains known regarding consumers’ varying negative responses towards these two different types of brand misconduct. This paper aims to investigate and compare consumers’ affective and behavioural negative reactions (i.e. negative word of mouth and purchase intention) towards a faulty brand during a values-related crisis and a performance-related crisis by testing the mediation of negative emotions and introducing the moderating role of cultural belongingness (collectivistic vs individualistic).

The authors tested a model of moderated mediation in a cross-cultural investigation on a sample of 229 Italian and Asian consumers. The study is a 2 (cultures: collectivistic vs individualistic) × 2 (crisis: performance-related vs values-related) between-subjects experimental design. The moderated mediation model shows that consumers’ negative reactions (negative word of mouth and negative purchase intention) towards a faulty brand involved in different crisis typologies is explained by the mediating role of negative emotions, and that this mediation depends on a consumer’s cultural belongingness.

The results suggest that consumers belonging to a collectivistic culture (e.g. Asian culture) tend to react in a more severe and strict manner when faced with a values-related brand crisis event then when faced with a performance-related crisis. The arousal of negative emotion towards a brand represents the mediating variable in behavioural responses (i.e. negative word of mouth and purchase intention).

The present study extends current knowledge in the field of consumers’ negative response to brand irresponsibility behaviours while introducing the role of crisis typology and cultural belongingness. In particular, individualistic people are more sensitive to a values-related crisis in comparison with a performance-related one. The findings of this study have strong managerial implications for defining effective response strategies to negative events involving brands in different markets.

This paper aims to demonstrate that online complainants’ reactions to a company’s service recovery attempts (webcare) can significantly vary across two different types of dissatisfied customers (“vindictives” vs “constructives”), who have dramatically diverging complaint goal orientations.

Online multi-country survey among 812 adult consumers who recently had a dissatisfying brand experience and turned to a marketer-generated social media site to voice an online complaint for achieving their ultimate complaining goals. Scenario-based online experiment for cross-validating the survey findings.

Results suggest that “vindictive complainants” – driven dominantly by brand-adverse motives – are immune to any form of webcare, while “constructive complainants” – interested in restoring the customer-brand relationship – react more sensitively. For the latter, “no-responses” often trigger detrimental brand-related reactions (e.g. unfavorable brand image), whereas “defensive responses” are likely to stimulate post-webcare negative word-of-mouth.

This research identifies the gains and harms of (un-)desired webcare. By doing so, it not only sheds light on the circumstances when marketers have to fear negative effects (e.g. negative word-of-mouth) but also provides insights into the conditions when such effects are unlikely. While the findings of the cross-sectional survey are validated with an online experiment, findings should be interpreted with care as other complaining contexts should be further investigated.

Marketers have to expect a serious “backfiring effect” from an unexpected source, namely, consumers who were initially benevolent toward the involved brand but who received an inappropriate response.

This research is one of the first research studies that enables marketers to identify situations when webcare is likely to backfire on the brand after a service failure.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the market reaction to layoff announcements of union and nonunion employees.

Event study methodology was utilized to assess the effects of layoff announcements of union versus nonunion employees. The union status of the laid‐off employees was determined for 135 layoff announcements reported in the Wall Street Journal in 1993 and 1994 and shareholder returns between the two groups was compared.

Over each event period tested, the market reaction was more negative when nonunion employees were downsized than when the announcement concerned unionized employees. Over the two days surrounding the announcement, the market reaction to the layoff announcement of unionized employees was actually positive, while the reaction was negative when nonunion employees were the subject of the announcement.

The sample included layoff announcements from 1993 and 1994 only. The market reaction to announcements in different years might be different.

While many papers have examined the market reaction to layoff announcements, this is the first paper that compares the reaction to union versus nonunion employees.