IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v28y2000i5p485-499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of rhetorical strategies on innovation decisions: an experimental study

Author

Listed:
  • King, William R.
  • Kugler, Jose L.

Abstract

This study addresses a potentially significant deficiency of the extant innovation adoption paradigm: its inability to account for rhetorical actions as a component of the innovation decision process. A multi-stage empirical methodology was created and used to investigate how decisionmakers might be affected by arguments supporting an innovation, and how different arguments might influence the adoption process. Unlike most prior research, the arguments were generated systematically and the experimental treatments were developed based on empirical evidence. The results indicate that rhetorical action did influence the choices made by potential adopters. This research thereby suggests new elements and methods that may be used to better study and understand the innovation adoption decision.

Suggested Citation

  • King, William R. & Kugler, Jose L., 2000. "The impact of rhetorical strategies on innovation decisions: an experimental study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 485-499, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:28:y:2000:i:5:p:485-499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(99)00076-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul C. Nutt, 1998. "Framing Strategic Decisions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 195-216, April.
    2. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    3. Taurence M. Heilprin & R. F. Schmidt & Eugene Miller & William Hammond & Stafan Rosenborg & Johnie Sullivan & John O'Connor & Simon M. Newman & H. B. Thompson, 1968. "Letters to the editor," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 415-417, October.
    4. Mittal, Vikas & Ross, William T., 1998. "The Impact of Positive and Negative Affect and Issue Framing on Issue Interpretation and Risk Taking," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 298-324, December.
    5. Roszkowski, Michael J. & Snelbecker, Glenn E., 1990. "Effects of "Framing" on measures of risk tolerance: Financial planners are not immune," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 237-246.
    6. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jing Li & Jun Xia & Zhouyu Lin, 2017. "Cross-border acquisitions by state-owned firms: How do legitimacy concerns affect the completion and duration of their acquisitions?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(9), pages 1915-1934, September.
    2. Chang Liu & Shouming Chen & Qiuyue Shao, 2019. "Do CEO Rhetorical Strategies Affect Corporate Social Performance? Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Tian, Xiaocong, 2022. "The art of rhetoric: Host country political hostility and the rhetorical strategies of foreign subsidiaries in developing economies," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(5).
    4. Beynon, Malcolm J & Jones, Paul & Pickernell, David & Packham, Gary, 2016. "A NCaRBS analysis of SME intended innovation: Learning about the Don’t Knows," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PA), pages 97-112.
    5. Seung‐Kyu Rhee & Su‐Yol Lee, 2003. "Dynamic change of corporate environmental strategy: rhetoric and reality," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 175-190, May.
    6. Joseph O'Mahoney, 2007. "The Diffusion of Management Innovations: The Possibilities and Limitations of Memetics," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1324-1348, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jain, Gaurav & Gaeth, Gary J. & Nayakankuppam, Dhananjay & Levin, Irwin P., 2020. "Revisiting attribute framing: The impact of number roundedness on framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 109-119.
    2. Austin, Chelsea Rae & Bobek, Donna D. & Jackson, Scott, 2021. "Does prospect theory explain ethical decision making? Evidence from tax compliance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Diacon, Stephen & Hasseldine, John, 2007. "Framing effects and risk perception: The effect of prior performance presentation format on investment fund choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 31-52, January.
    4. Dubard Barbosa, Saulo & Fayolle, Alain & Smith, Brett R., 2019. "Biased and overconfident, unbiased but going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 528-557.
    5. Kuvaas, Bard & Selart, Marcus, 2004. "Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 198-207, November.
    6. van Buiten, Marc & Keren, Gideon, 2009. "Speaker-listener incompatibility: Joint and separate processing in risky choice framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 106-115, January.
    7. K. Hilken & K.J.M. De Jaegher & M. Jegers, 2013. "Strategic Framing in Contracts," Working Papers 13-04, Utrecht School of Economics.
    8. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & Raphaël Giraud, 2009. "Framing effects as violations of extensionality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 385-404, October.
    9. Kim, Jungkeun & Kim, Jae-Eun & Marshall, Roger, 2014. "Search for the underlying mechanism of framing effects in multi-alternative and multi-attribute decision situations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 378-385.
    10. Enrique Fatas & Tibor Neugebauer & Pilar Tamborero, 2007. "How Politicians Make Decisions: A Political Choice Experiment," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 167-196, October.
    11. Ellen Peters & Irwin P. Levin, 2008. "Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(6), pages 435-448, August.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:6:p:435-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Saulo Dubard Barbosa & Alain Fayolle & Brett Smith, 2019. "Biased and overconfident, unbiased but going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture," Post-Print hal-01988083, HAL.
    14. Hasseldine, John & Hite, Peggy A., 2003. "Framing, gender and tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 517-533, August.
    15. Andrew W. Lo & Dmitry V. Repin & Brett N. Steenbarger, 2005. "Fear and Greed in Financial Markets: A Clinical Study of Day-Traders," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 352-359, May.
    16. Maw–Der Foo & Marilyn A. Uy & Charles Murnieks, 2015. "Beyond Affective Valence: Untangling Valence and Activation Influences on Opportunity Identification," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(2), pages 407-431, March.
    17. Petru Lucian Curşeu & Sandra Schruijer, 2008. "The Effects of Framing on Inter-group Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 347-362, July.
    18. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    19. Ryan Mullins & Raj Agnihotri, 2022. "Digital selling: organizational and managerial influences for frontline readiness and effectiveness," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 800-821, July.
    20. Yannick Vandenplas & Steven Simoens & Florian Turk & Arnold G. Vulto & Isabelle Huys, 2022. "Applications of Behavioral Economics to Pharmaceutical Policymaking: A Scoping Review with Implications for Best-Value Biological Medicines," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 803-817, November.
    21. Jascha-Alexander Koch & Michael Siering, 2019. "The recipe of successful crowdfunding campaigns," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 661-679, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:28:y:2000:i:5:p:485-499. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.