Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze to what extent and in what ways signaling theory has been explored within the field of international marketing. This paper systematically reviews the use of signaling theory in the field of international marketing. Communication is a core aspect of the international marketing process. Research in this field has explored effective and unique ways of improving the communication flow to reduce the asymmetry of information between international consumers and the firm. This notion is adopted, enhanced and strengthened by signaling theory. Signaling theory has recently received the attention of international marketing scholars.

The systematic review methodology was applied for the purpose of identifying the relevant studies. We extracted academic articles over the last 23 years from the domain of international marketing that directly contribute to signaling theory based on 57 journal articles extracted through the systematic review process.

Based on systematic research the results reveal that the topic has grown and continues to expand within the broader international marketing field. We offer a theoretical conceptual framework to better understand signaling theory in the context of international marketing.

The authors map and critically evaluate the use of signaling theory in international marketing. Relevance of signaling theory in international marketing is growing and authors present an integrative framework that organizes the existing literature, and provides scholars to further expand on emerging themes of the domain. The paper offers some useful future research directions.

This paper examines the use of signaling theory in the M&A context. We review some of the most important developments in applications and extensions of this theory to the realm of M&A, indicating how this theory has been used to explain many M&A decisions and outcomes and has offered fresh perspectives in the mature literature on acquisitions. For example, we show how signaling theory provides a new view of the determinants of acquisition premiums, and it can contribute to an improved understanding of firms’ search for acquisition opportunities as well as target selection. We also provide a critique of existing research to identify gaps in understanding on the roles played by signals. For instance, we discuss how signals can create contracting problems during M&A negotiations, how the value of signals might vary across deals, and how bidder heterogeneity and bidders’ own signals matter for certain transactions. Finally, in addition to taking stock of this stream of research, we identify some of the most important areas that deserve research attention. Signaling theory can contribute to an improved understanding of acquisition performance outcomes, and signals need to be investigated along with other solutions to enhance M&A deal making and execution. We identify new research methods that would help to advance signaling theory in the acquisitions literature.

Shane and Venkataraman (2000) suggest “the field [of entrepreneurship] involves the study of sources of opportunities; the processes of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities; and the set of individuals who discover, evaluate, and exploit them” (p. 218). However, the study of the judgment required for opportunity evaluation has been greatly overshadowed by interest in opportunity recognition and to a lesser extent opportunity exploitation. This is surprising considering the number of economic theories of the entrepreneur that recognize sound judgment as a principal quality of entrepreneurship (Cantillon, 1755; Kirzner, 1973; Knight, 1921; Mises, 1949; Say, 1840; Schumpeter, 1934; Shackle, 1955). In fact, the first recognized theory of the entrepreneur defined the entrepreneur as someone who exercises business judgment in the face of uncertainty (Cantillon, 1755/1931, pp. 47–49). Similarly, Knight (1921, p. 271) suggests that the essence of entrepreneurship is judgment, born of uncertainty, and argues that it is this judgment that delineates the function of entrepreneur from that of manager. He goes on to point out that the function of manager does not in itself imply entrepreneurship but that a manager becomes an entrepreneur when he exercises judgment involving liability to error (Knight, 1921, p. 97). However, the judgment referred to by these theorists is not just any form of judgment, it is judgment exercised in the decision of whether to take action.

Drawing on signaling theory, the purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of the strength and framing of firm signals sent to repair relationships following relationship violations.

Three 2 × 2 scenario-based experiments (total n = 527) manipulate signal strength × violation type (Study 1); signal frame × violation type (Study 2); and signal strength × brand familiarity (Study 3) to examine their dynamic impacts on relationship recovery efforts.

Stronger signals are more effective at relationship repair and are especially important following integrity (vs competence) violations. Signals framed as customer gains (vs firm costs) lead to more favorable relationship outcomes. Finally, brands that are less (vs more) familiar see greater benefits from strong signals.

The three experiments were scenario-based, which may not replicate real-life behavior or capture participants’ actual emotions following a violation, thus future research should extend into real-world recovery efforts.

Managers should send strong signals (communicating the level of resources invested in the recovery efforts) framed as benefits to the customer, rather than costs to the firm. Strong signals are especially important when brand familiarity is low or an integrity violation has occurred.

This is the first research to directly apply signaling theory to the relationship recovery process and contributes to theory by examining the role of signal strength; framing of the signal as a customer gain vs firm cost; and the interplay of signal strength and brand familiarity on the relationship recovery effort.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, to discuss the application of a multi‐level perspective to signaling theory in a recruitment context. Then to discuss how the integration of signaling theory and the social identity approach may provide an improved understanding of the associations between an organization's recruitment activities and applicant attraction outcomes. The paper, first, summarizes the existing research and theoretical developments pertaining to signaling theory, multi‐level theory, and the social identity approach. From this literature a theoretical model from which research propositions are developed is suggested.

This is a literature review, within recruitment contexts, on signaling theory, the association between market signals and applicant attraction outcomes, and the integration of signaling, social identity, and self‐categorization theories as a theoretical foundation for research propositions.

Despite widespread acceptance of signaling theory in recruitment research, surprisingly little is known about the boundary conditions in the association between an organization's recruitment activities and applicant attraction outcomes.

A greater understanding of the application of signaling theory will enable managers to design and administer recruitment activities and processes in order to improve applicant attraction to recruiting organizations.

This paper fills a void in the recruitment literature by integrating signaling theory, social identity theory, and self‐categorization theory and providing avenues for future work.

This paper aims to investigate how supply chain risks can be identified in both collaborative and adversarial buyer–supplier relationships (BSRs).

This research includes a multiple-case study involving ten Chinese manufacturers with two informants per organisation. Data have been interpreted from a multi-level social capital perspective (i.e. from both an individual and organisational level), supplemented by signalling theory.

Buyers use different risk identification strategies or apply the same strategy in different ways according to the BSR type. The impact of organisational social capital on risk identification is contingent upon the degree to which individual social capital is deployed in a way that benefits an individual’s own agenda versus that of the organisation. Signalling theory generally complements social capital theory and helps further understand how buyers can identify risks, especially in adversarial BSRs, e.g. by using indirect signals from suppliers or other supply chain actors to “read between the lines” and anticipate risks.

Data collection is focussed on China and is from the buyer side only. Future research could explore other contexts and include the supplier perspective.

The types of relationships that are developed by buyers with their supply chain partners at an organisational and an individual level have implications for risk exposure and how risks can be identified. The multi-level analysis highlights how strategies such as employee rotation and retention can be deployed to support risk identification.

Much of the extant literature on supply chain risk management is focussed on risk mitigation, whereas risk identification is under-represented. A unique case-based insight is provided into risk identification in different types of BSRs by using a multi-level social capital approach complemented by signalling theory.

The purpose of this paper is to extend the applicability of stakeholder, legitimacy and signaling theories by examining to what extent proactive corporate social responsibility disclosures are interrelated to attempt to gain and maintain legitimacy, to gain support of the stakeholders and to reduce information asymmetry.

To test the theoretical arguments, a longitudinal approach over a five-year period of 145 companies’ sustainability reports and statistical analysis was applied to investigate the evolution of their quality.

The results show a significant increase in the quality of sustainability reporting, and the experience gained while writing these reports can contribute to this. Based on signaling and legitimacy theories, this paper suggests that improvement in sustainability reporting quality acts as an important signal to gain legitimacy in case of information asymmetry during the legitimacy process. Th disclosure for economic and social dimensions is better than that of the environmental dimension, and the improvement in quality over time is the because of synergies and interlinkages more between these two dimensions of sustainability, and to a lesser extent because of the environmental dimension.

Firms should view investing in sustainability reporting disclosure as a strategy for obtaining business legitimacy.

The results of this paper are of interest for several reasons: extend and broaden the use of signaling in studying its use on sustainability reporting; the use of three theories is an appropriate framework for empirical analysis of sustainability reporting disclosure quality in Brazil; and add to the scarce evidence of sustainability reporting in Brazil.

When a firm implements certain HR practices, different employees attribute different motives and intentions to the firm with regard to those HR practices. Research on HR attributions has made progress toward understanding the relationship between HR practices and employee outcomes from a process perspective. However, this research is still fragmented and lacks a systematic typology of the different types of HR attributions and a compelling organizing research framework. Furthermore, a number of research gaps and opportunities have emerged regarding the nomological net of employee HR attributions. To address the gaps and capitalize on the opportunities, the authors propose an overarching theory-driven multi-level framework that guides the choice of the antecedents and outcomes of employee HR attributions and explains their relationships along with both mediating and moderating mechanisms. Drawing on signaling theory embedded in the proposed framework, the authors identify and categorize various antecedents of employee HR attributions to explain their relationships. The authors also use several additional theories such as social exchange and the job demands–resources model included in their review to identify and categorize various outcomes of employee HR attributions across levels of analysis (i.e., individual, collective [team/group/unit], organization) and explain their relationships. In addition, the proposed framework explains how individual-level employee HR attributions emerge at the collective level and influence collective processes and outcomes. The authors end their review by pinpointing future research needs and discussing related future research directions.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the dividend payout behavior of Indian firms and test whether the three prominent dividend policy theories (signaling, life-cycle and catering) explain the dividend policy of Indian firms.

The authors test the three theories using the methodology based on the studies of Nissim and Ziv (2001), DeAngelo et al. (2006) and Baker and Wurgler (2004). For testing the signaling theory, the authors regress the change in earnings on the rate of change in dividends using the pooled and Fama–Macbeth regressions. The life cycle theory is tested by running a logistic regression of the dividend payment decision on two proxies of life-cycle measured by the ratio of earned to total equity. Finally, the catering theory tests the relationship between the decision to pay a dividend and the dividend premium.

The results based on a sample of Indian firms from 1992 to 2017 show that the dividend policy of Indian firms can be explained using the life-cycle theory. However, there is no evidence in support of the signaling and catering theories.

It provides insights into the dividend policy of Indian firms. Though there have been a few studies examining the dividend payout in India, none of the existing studies tests these theories of dividend payout. The existing research using the Indian data provides indirect evidence about the life-cycle theory. This study is the first one to test the application of these theories for Indian firms.

–The purpose of this paper is to revisit the debate on the contribution of higher education (HE) to the economy which has been dominated by human capital theory and signalling theory. Human capital theory contends that HE contributes by adding to the potential productivity of graduate employees. Signalling theory, asserts that HE contributes by enabling employers to differentiate potentially productive graduate employees.

The paper uses recent advances in our understanding of the graduate employability to reassess the two theories. Most graduate job vacancies are open to graduates of any subject and the key to employment in such jobs appears to be the graduate propensity to learn in employment.

HE both increases students’ propensity to learn in employment and signals to employers that graduates are people with a high propensity to learn in employment.

The conclusion is that for the four key stakeholder groups, the economic value of a university education can best be explained with the concept of “graduate propensity to learn”.

Employers, government, existing students and potential students and universities benefit from the propensity to learn, which is the most important economic outcome of a university education.

The paper resolves the choice between human capital and signalling theories as a false dichotomy as HE both develops students’ powers.