IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v15y2006i3p467-496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluative schemas and the attention of critics in the US film industry

Author

Listed:
  • Greta Hsu

Abstract

This article explores the constraints evaluative schemas place on critics' allocation of attention. Prior research suggests that a critic's ability to establish himself as an expert of the market is based on the appeal to a rationalized and defensible system of standards for evaluating products. In this article, I argue that this creates a fundamental bias in the allocation of critical attention such that critics will demonstrate a tendency to favor arenas in which they have developed clear and structured schemas for evaluation. As a result, producers within such categories will receive disproportionately greater critical attention. I test and find support for this hypothesis within the context of the US feature film industry. The implications of this bias in terms of producer legitimacy are discussed. Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Greta Hsu, 2006. "Evaluative schemas and the attention of critics in the US film industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(3), pages 467-496, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:15:y:2006:i:3:p:467-496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nina Granqvist & Tiina Ritvala, 2016. "Beyond Prototypes: Drivers of Market Categorization in Functional Foods and Nanotechnology," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 210-237, March.
    2. Candace Jones & Massimo Maoret & Felipe G. Massa & Silviya Svejenova, 2012. "Rebels with a Cause: Formation, Contestation, and Expansion of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture,” 1870–1975," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1523-1545, December.
    3. Wijnberg, Nachoem M., 2011. "Classification systems and selection systems: The risks of radical innovation and category spanning," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 297-306, September.
    4. Mary J. Benner & Ram Ranganathan, 2017. "Measuring Up? Persistence and Change in Analysts’ Evaluative Schemas Following Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 760-780, August.
    5. Jun Pang & Angela Xia Liu & Peter N. Golder, 2022. "Critics’ conformity to consumers in movie evaluation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 864-887, July.
    6. Jürgen Lerner & Alessandro Lomi, 2018. "Knowledge categorization affects popularity and quality of Wikipedia articles," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, January.
    7. Joris Knoben & Leon A. G. Oerlemans & Annefleur R. Krijkamp & Keith G. Provan, 2018. "What Do They Know? The Antecedents of Information Accuracy Differentials in Interorganizational Networks," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 471-488, June.
    8. Daniel M. Olson & David M. Waguespack, 2020. "Strategic behavior by market intermediaries," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(13), pages 2474-2492, December.
    9. Balázs Kovács & Gianluca Carnabuci & Filippo Carlo Wezel, 2021. "Categories, attention, and the impact of inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(5), pages 992-1023, May.
    10. J.-P. Vergne & Tyler Wry, 2014. "Categorizing Categorization Research: Review, Integration, and Future Directions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 56-94, January.
    11. Hadida, Allègre L. & Paris, Thomas, 2014. "Managerial cognition and the value chain in the digital music industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 84-97.
    12. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Susan V. Scott, 2014. "What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 868-891, June.
    13. William Ocasio, 2011. "Attention to Attention," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1286-1296, October.
    14. Aaron K. Chatterji & Jiao Luo & Robert C. Seamans, 2021. "Categorical Competition in the Wake of Crisis: Banks vs. Credit Unions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 568-586, May.
    15. Sun Hyun Park & Kelly Patterson, 2021. "Being Counted and Remaining Accountable: Maintenance of Quarterly Earnings Guidance by U.S. Public Companies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 544-567, May.
    16. Wei Zhao & Xueguang Zhou, 2011. "Status Inconsistency and Product Valuation in the California Wine Market," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1435-1448, December.
    17. Marin, Alejandra & Dass, Mayukh & Boal, Kimberly, 2019. "Critic-buyer effects on valuation of ambiguously appraised products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 45-55.
    18. Nina Granqvist & Stine Grodal & Jennifer L. Woolley, 2013. "Hedging Your Bets: Explaining Executives' Market Labeling Strategies in Nanotechnology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 395-413, April.
    19. Situmeang, Frederik B.I. & Leenders, Mark A.A.M. & Wijnberg, Nachoem M., 2014. "History matters: The impact of reviews and sales of earlier versions of a product on consumer and expert reviews of new editions," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 73-83.
    20. Greta Hsu & Peter W. Roberts & Anand Swaminathan, 2012. "Evaluative Schemas and the Mediating Role of Critics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 83-97, February.
    21. C. Marlene Fiol & Elaine Romanelli, 2012. "Before Identity: The Emergence of New Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 597-611, June.
    22. Callen Anthony & Andrew J. Nelson & Mary Tripsas, 2016. "“Who Are You?…I Really Wanna Know”: Product Meaning and Competitive Positioning in the Nascent Synthesizer Industry," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 163-183, September.
    23. David M. Waguespack & Olav Sorenson, 2011. "The Ratings Game: Asymmetry in Classification," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 541-553, June.
    24. Brayden G King & Elisabeth S. Clemens & Melissa Fry, 2011. "Identity Realization and Organizational Forms: Differentiation and Consolidation of Identities Among Arizona's Charter Schools," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 554-572, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:indcch:v:15:y:2006:i:3:p:467-496. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.