Competition and Constituents’ Polarization Online

IF 9.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Anastasiya Zavyalova, Conor Callahan, Timothy D. Hubbard, J. Daniel Zyung
{"title":"Competition and Constituents’ Polarization Online","authors":"Anastasiya Zavyalova, Conor Callahan, Timothy D. Hubbard, J. Daniel Zyung","doi":"10.1177/01492063231204867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Society is becoming increasingly polarized. This affects how constituents with conflicting identities engage with organizations online. A strong catalyst of polarization is events that affirm or threaten constituents’ identities and exacerbate in-group versus out-group distinctions. Using a mixed method approach, we theorize that competitive contests between organizations are identity-relevant events that affect online engagement by identifying and disidentifying constituents in different ways. Specifically, we hypothesize that identity-affirming contest outcomes lead to a higher likelihood of online engagement than identity-threatening ones. Therefore, identifying constituents are more likely to engage online after their organization's competitive victories, whereas disidentifying constituents do so after losses. We further hypothesize that close calls or unexpected outcomes amplify these effects. In the context of online engagement by college football followers, we find that victories lead to higher online engagement than losses by team fans but lower engagement by team opponents. We also find that whereas fans are more likely to engage online after unexpected contest outcomes and, in some robustness tests, marginally after close calls, opponents are not affected by either outcome characteristic. To explore how competition and (dis)identification affect the emotional content of online comments, we supplement these findings with content analysis of online posts and a physiological laboratory experiment. Our study demonstrates that polarized constituents react to organizational events through identity-based mechanisms rather than objective evaluations of performance signals. Failure to account for the polarization of constituents therefore conceals important differences in how they engage with organizations online.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231204867","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Society is becoming increasingly polarized. This affects how constituents with conflicting identities engage with organizations online. A strong catalyst of polarization is events that affirm or threaten constituents’ identities and exacerbate in-group versus out-group distinctions. Using a mixed method approach, we theorize that competitive contests between organizations are identity-relevant events that affect online engagement by identifying and disidentifying constituents in different ways. Specifically, we hypothesize that identity-affirming contest outcomes lead to a higher likelihood of online engagement than identity-threatening ones. Therefore, identifying constituents are more likely to engage online after their organization's competitive victories, whereas disidentifying constituents do so after losses. We further hypothesize that close calls or unexpected outcomes amplify these effects. In the context of online engagement by college football followers, we find that victories lead to higher online engagement than losses by team fans but lower engagement by team opponents. We also find that whereas fans are more likely to engage online after unexpected contest outcomes and, in some robustness tests, marginally after close calls, opponents are not affected by either outcome characteristic. To explore how competition and (dis)identification affect the emotional content of online comments, we supplement these findings with content analysis of online posts and a physiological laboratory experiment. Our study demonstrates that polarized constituents react to organizational events through identity-based mechanisms rather than objective evaluations of performance signals. Failure to account for the polarization of constituents therefore conceals important differences in how they engage with organizations online.
竞争和选民两极分化在线
社会正变得越来越两极化。这影响了身份冲突的成员如何在网上与组织互动。两极分化的强烈催化剂是那些肯定或威胁选民身份并加剧群体内与群体外差异的事件。使用混合方法,我们推测组织之间的竞争是与身份相关的事件,通过以不同的方式识别和不识别组成部分来影响在线参与。具体来说,我们假设肯定身份的比赛结果比威胁身份的比赛结果更有可能导致在线参与。因此,认同的选民更有可能在他们的组织取得竞争胜利后参与在线活动,而不认同的选民则在失败后这样做。我们进一步假设,死里逃生或意外结果放大了这些影响。在大学橄榄球粉丝在线参与的背景下,我们发现胜利导致的在线参与高于球队球迷的失败,而球队对手的参与度较低。我们还发现,尽管球迷更有可能在意外的比赛结果之后在线参与,并且在一些稳健性测试中,在接近的电话之后,对手不受任何结果特征的影响。为了探索竞争和(不)认同如何影响网络评论的情感内容,我们通过对网络帖子的内容分析和生理实验室实验来补充这些发现。我们的研究表明,极化成分对组织事件的反应是通过基于身份的机制,而不是通过对绩效信号的客观评估。因此,如果不能解释选民的两极分化,就会掩盖他们与组织在线互动方式的重要差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
22.40
自引率
5.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management (JOM) aims to publish rigorous empirical and theoretical research articles that significantly contribute to the field of management. It is particularly interested in papers that have a strong impact on the overall management discipline. JOM also encourages the submission of novel ideas and fresh perspectives on existing research. The journal covers a wide range of areas, including business strategy and policy, organizational behavior, human resource management, organizational theory, entrepreneurship, and research methods. It provides a platform for scholars to present their work on these topics and fosters intellectual discussion and exchange in these areas.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信