Search results

Given the rapid growth in efforts on misinformation correction, the study aims to test how evidence type and veracity interact with news agreement on the effectiveness of fact-checking on how well a corrective message discount a false news information.

Experimental participants (N = 511) in Hong Kong were exposed to the same news article and then to a piece of corrective information debunking the news article with variation in the types of evidence (numerical vs narrative) and veracity (no verdict vs half false vs entirely false) in 2019.

Among the participants who disagreed with the news article, numerical fact-checking was more effective than narrative fact-checking in discounting the news article. Some evidence of the backfire effect was found among participants for whom the article was attitude incongruent.

When debunking false information with people exposed to attitude-incongruent news, a milder verdict presented in the form of a half-false scale can prompt a more positive perception of the issue at stake than an entirely false scale, implying that a less certain verdict can help in mitigating the backfire effect compared to a certain verdict.

The brand identity–image gap is a well-known marketing field. However, very little academic work has been done within the wine industry regarding collective brands. With the aim of filling this gap, this paper analyzes and describes the relationship between identity and the image of Bordeaux wines. It is intended as a collective wine brand.

From a positivist–functionalist perspective, a 45-question survey has been administered online to N = 53 internal brand operators (winery owners or managers) and to N = 655 external consumers (mainly focusing on 18–25 year-old segment). Nonprobabilistic sampling techniques have been used. Questions were structured within a semantic opposition.

Data analysis has shown that the nine-dimension model (physical, personality, culture, self-image, reflection, relationship, positioning, vision and heritage) is capable of collecting a richer and more pertinent set of information concerning the brand identity; statistically significant gaps have been found in 25 out of 45 items; counterintuitively, the consumers have a very different opinion about the brand compared with existing ideas. Direct implications are that internal brand operators may suffer from imposter syndrome; information asymmetry may play a central role in brand perception; and the brand lacks symbolic and inspirational functions.

Providing an original model to analyze and evaluate the brand identity–image gap, specifically adapted for collective wine brands, this work contributes to the literature by increasing the knowledge about brand identity issues.

Current publication practices in the scholarly (International) Business and Management community are overwhelmingly anti-Popperian, which fundamentally frustrates the production of scientific progress. This is the result of at least five related biases: the verification, novelty, normal science, evidence, and market biases. As a result, no one is really interested in replicating anything. In this essay, the author extensively argues what he believes is wrong, why that is so, and what we might do about this. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This is an essay, combining a literature review with polemic argumentation.

Only a tiny fraction of published studies involve a replication effort. Moreover, journal authors, editors, reviewers and readers are not interested in seeing nulls and negatives in print. This replication crisis implies that Popper’s critical falsification principle is actually thrown into the scientific community’s dustbin. Behind the façade of all these so-called new discoveries, false positives abound, as do questionable research practices meant to produce all this allegedly cutting-edge and groundbreaking significant findings. If this dismal state of affairs does not change for the good, (International) Business and Management research is ending up in a deadlock.

A radical cultural change in the scientific community, including (International) Business and Management, is badly needed. It should be in the community’s DNA to engage in the quest for the “truth” – nothing more, nothing less. Such a change must involve all stakeholders: scholars, editors, reviewers, and students, but also funding agencies, research institutes, university presidents, faculty deans, department chairs, journalists, policymakers, and publishers. In the words of Ioannidis (2012, p. 647): “Safeguarding scientific principles is not something to be done once and for all. It is a challenge that needs to be met successfully on a daily basis both by single scientists and the whole scientific establishment.”

Publication practices have to change radically. For instance, editorial policies should dispose of their current overly dominant pro-novelty and pro-positives biases, and explicitly encourage the publication of replication studies, including failed and unsuccessful ones that report null and negative findings.

This is an explicit plea to change the way the scientific research community operates, offering a series of concrete recommendations what to do before it is too late.