November 2 - Daniel Martinez of the Department of Marketing

Title: Should Celebrities Take Sides? How Sociopolitical Hashtag Activism on Twitter Impacts Consumer Responses on Social Media and Spotify Music Streaming
Presenter: Daniel Martinez
When: Wednesday, November 2, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: CoB 609

Abstract:This paper has gone through significant empirical strategies to identify our effects. Reviewer feedback and a recent publication in Marketing Science (August 2022) have helped us move to the current specifications (hopefully one that is more amicable to reviewers). That being said, the current version of the study still needs significant work. It is my hope to expand some of the data to include social media posts on Instagram to supplement the IV and provide results across social media platforms. Finally, theory in sociopolitical activism is still developing, so most of our theoretical framework and explanations are open to suggestions and any guidance you may provide. I believe the data is really “cool” (artist-day level social media and streaming platform data), and I would appreciate any insights on how to move the project forward.

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": This paper has gone through significant empirical strategies to identify our effects. Reviewer feedback and a recent publication in Marketing Science (August 2022) have helped us move to the current specifications (hopefully one that is more amicable to reviewers). That being said, the current version of the study still needs significant work. It is my hope to expand some of the data to include social media posts on Instagram to supplement the IV and provide results across social media platforms. Finally, theory in sociopolitical activism is still developing, so most of our theoretical framework and explanations are open to suggestions and any guidance you may provide. I believe the data is really “cool” (artist-day level social media and streaming platform data), and I would appreciate any insights on how to move the project forward.

October 12 - Courtney Hart of the Department of Management

Title: Mitigating Backlash Effects: A Social Network Approach Towards Addressing Lack of Sponsorship Opportunities for Under-Represented Minorities
Presenter: Courtney Hart
When: Wednesday, October 12, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: CoB 609

Abstract: Sponsorship is an effective tool for advancing under-represented minorities (URM) careers. However, the presence of cross-race, sponsor-protege relationships are rare. Most sponsorship studies have focused on the dyadic relationship between sponsor and protege, but the success of the sponsorship is dependent on how others perceive the relationship, its value, and its threats to the current social structure. This conceptual article seeks to illustrate third party consequences of engaging in cross-race sponsor and protege relationships through social network analysis. This paper integrates foundational social network research with sponsorship research to understand the consequences of a sponsor's role as a broker, status among cliques, and the opportunities/threats for boundary spanning relationships - all of which are determinants to successful sponsor-protege relationships. In conclusion, a research agenda is proposed.

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": My hope is this paper has as many practical implications as it does research implications. To do so, this paper seeks to merge two research streams, social network analysis and sponsorship literatures, into one article. Moreover, it seeks to explain implications of relationships on the individual, social, and structural levels. So, I am integrating across different research domains and relationship levels. Key terms such as clique, status, and hierarchy have also been defined in different ways by the research streams. I need assistance in merging the two and coming from a perspective that has both research and practical implications, without being confusing.

September 14 - Jivas Chakravarthy of the Department of Accounting

Title: The Sinister Attribution Bias and Asymmetric Preferences Over Reporting Errors
Presenter: Jivas Chakravarthy
When:Wednesday, September 14, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: CoB 609

Abstract: Recent experimental research has documented that, in a cheap-talk game under misaligned incentives (where the sender is motivated to bias their report) and ambiguity (where the receiver can never be certain whether the report is biased), receivers disprefer senders producing reporting errors in the direction of the sender’s incentive bias (“opportunistic errors”) relative to senders producing errors in the opposite direction (“non-opportunistic errors”). We draw from the social psychological literature to explore the psychological underpinnings of this finding. We posit that misaligned incentives create ex ante suspicion among receivers about senders’ motives. We then posit that this suspicion creates a vigilant mode of information processing in which receivers anticipate evidence of senders’ lack of trustworthiness, such that receivers’ ex post experience with opportunistic errors generates an over-attribution of distrust given the objective circumstances. We first find that receivers’ experience with opportunistic errors significantly decreases their trust in senders. Next, we find that experiencing an above-average frequency of opportunistic errors drives a probability belief bias in which receivers over-attribute opportunistically biased reporting to senders, consistent with the “sinister attribution bias.” Our results highlight the key role of suspicion in driving receivers’ asymmetric preferences over reporting errors and has implications for the many business and economic settings in which an agent is vulnerable to exploitation via biased reporting.

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": This is a very early-stage paper; as of now, the data is “offline” (it will not be included in the write-up we distribute, but I’ll present what we have during the workshop), and we are still in the process of running experiments to collect data for our control treatment (which will be described in the write-up even though we currently lack data). So, there are still many issues to be solved. First, are our predictions on sound theoretical foundations – do they make sense on an a priori basis? Second, what type of data do we need – e.g., what potential additional experimental manipulations might we need – to best validate our predictive framework? Lastly, it is not completely clear how to interpret the receiver attributions that we have measured, particularly with respect to receivers’ experience with opportunistic and non-opportunistic errors; is there a single “all-in-one” metric from our data to provide evidence of the sinister attribution bias? If not, how can we best utilize our data to test our predictions?

August 10 - Sriram Villupuram of the Department of Finance and Real Estate

Title: Effect of Taxes and Incentives on Commercial Real Estate
Presenter: Sriram Villupuram
When: Wednesday, August 10, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: via Microsoft Teams

Abstract: Commercial Real Estate has been facing disruptive challenges since the arrival of e-commerce and technological innovations such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams, among others. The recent episode of COIVD 19 has steeped the trajectory of challenges for commercial real estate. Commercial real estate has an asymmetric supply elasticity with respect to demand. When demand increases, supply increases but fails to decrease with falling demand. As a result, city governments across the country try to use tools such as incentives and taxes to maintain or increase economic activity. We model the search behavior of a landlord looking to negotiate with a tenant to sign a lease contract. We then analyze the effect of city government actions such as incentives or taxes on economic activity. We find that incentives could decrease economic activity, and taxes can increase it under certain conditions. We also identify that the bargaining effect, in addition to the search effect, plays an important role in determining the effectiveness of taxes or incentives.

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": This paper is at the intersection of supply chain management, operations management, and Real Estate Economics. We are trying to narrow it down to appeal to a journal in the supply chain or operations area. We are studying the landlord-tenant interaction with exogenous actions from the city through taxes and incentives. We do not consider the city’s optimal taxation problem. How do we ensure that the reader stays focused on the landlord-tenant interaction and does not delve into the city’s optimal taxation problem?

April 20 - Zhuojun Gu of the Department of Information Systems & Operations Management

Title:Covid-19 and Consumer Channel Preferences: Evidence from an Omni-channel Retailing Company
Presenter: Zhuojun Gu
When:Wednesday, April 20, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: CoB 609

Abstract: In an omni-channel retailing environment, consumers can choose to purchase through an online website, a mobile app, or a physical POS (point of sales). They can also choose to fulfil the order through delivery or in-store pickup. Such order placement and fulfilment choice patterns reflect consumers’ channel preferences. While most of the consumers are confined to only one channel, others may alternate among different channels. It is imperative for the retailers to understand consumers’ channel preferences to leverage on cross-channel integration. In this paper, we investigate how consumers’ channel preferences may be affected under the external shock of Covid-19 and how sticky the change is. Using a highly granular transaction dataset provided by a leading HK retailing company, we are able to examine how consumers’ channel preference migrate both on an aggregate level and on individual basis.

March 23 - Yiyi Li of the Department of Marketing

Title:Effects of Mobile In-App Advertising in A Multi-Channel Environment
Presenter: Yiyi Li
When:Wednesday, March 23, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: CoB 609

Abstract: As in-app advertising becomes an increasingly popular advertising tool for advertisers to reach mobile users, this paper proposes an integrated model of the contemporaneous, carryover, and spillover effects to measure the incremental contributions of multiple in-app advertising channels: banner, newsfeed, social and video. We empirically examine the three types of effects in four mobile in-app advertising channels using data from a new ad campaign for a mobile video game. The dataset contains 19,720,5222 impressions, 506,387 clicks, and 20,533 conversions. Three main findings emerge. First, social ads have the strongest contemporaneous effects on both ad clicks and conversions; exposure to the ad in a social app, relative to exposure in a newsfeed app (the baseline condition), is 81% more likely to achieve a click and 103% more likely to achieve a conversion. Video ads are the second-most effective (clicks: +66%; conversions: +83% compared to newsfeed). Second, the carryover effect is strongest in the video channel, followed by banner channel and social channel. Finally, the spillover effect is the strongest in the newsfeed channel; prior ad exposures in newsfeed apps are more effective than prior ad exposures in video, social, or banner apps at promoting clicks and conversions upon subsequent exposure in other channels. The paper concludes with theoretical and managerial implications.

Author’s note about the paper’s “warts”: As in-app advertising becomes an increasingly popular tool for advertisers to reach mobile users, existing knowledge about how different types of app channels interplay in driving consumer decisions jointly is very limited. This paper proposes an integrated model of the contemporaneous, carryover, and spillover effect to measure the incremental contributions of multiple in-app advertising channels: banner, newsfeed, social and video. We empirically examine the three types of effects in four mobile in-app advertising channels using a large dataset from a large-scale ad campaign for a new mobile video game and yield some interesting findings regarding the differentiating effects of channels. We just finished the manuscript and are about to submit the paper for review. Any suggestions or comments regarding how we can strengthen our managerial contributions would be greatly appreciated.

February 23 - Dave Arena of the Department of Management

Title: Mixed Signals: A Time Lagged Study of the Identity Management Process for LGB Employees
Presenter: Dave Arena
When:Wednesday, February 23, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams

AbstractResearch on the workplace experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) employees has been on the rise steadily in management outlets. One area that has received particular attention is scholarship aiming to understand how LGB employees manage their sexual orientation identities while at work. We contribute to foundational work in this space by providing insight into the relationship between signaling one’s sexual orientation and taking steps to conceal that identity, and how this identity management process might be moderated by perceived mistreatment. Our study of 339 LGB identifying employees found support for our hypothesizing such that when perceived mistreatment was low, signaling efforts led to fewer attempts to conceal an LGB identity. As mistreatment increased, however, the relationship between signaling and concealing became more positive. This suggests that studying the relationship between identity management strategies in isolation of mistreatment might not be enough to understand the true underlying mechanisms behind identity management decisions. Supplemental analyses dive deeper into the potential role of different forms of mistreatment, and the extent to which our results are generalizable to different subpopulations nested within the LGB community. Taken together, our study suggests that the identity management process for LGB employees might be more nuanced than has been assumed by past research.

Author’s note about the paper’s “warts”:This paper was granted a revision last month, and my coauthors and I have an initial plan moving forward. The major concerns of the review team were in the measures that we used for the identity management items and they had suggestions for how to extend our model with additional data. We are in the process of a small validation study ahead of the larger Study 3, and I could use the most insight on strengthening the story leading up to Study 1 and expanding our model for Study 3. I will present some suggestions from the review team toward the end of my talk for expanding the model but am certainly open to other suggestions.

January 26 - Hila Fogel-Yaari of the Department of Accounting

Title: Office glamour work vs office housework: Gender differences in participation in and subjective evaluation of non-core job responsibilities
Presenter: Hila Fogel-Yaari
When: Wednesday, January 26, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams

Author’s note about the paper’s “warts”:This is a gender issues paper, and I think a broad range of researchers at the COB will find it interesting. There is extensive literature on the topic. More than anything else, I would love to strengthen the hypothesis development and hear from the audience what theory we should be relying on and whether there are additional papers we should be citing.

November 17 - Chaitanya Sambhara of the Department of Information Systems & Operations Management

Title: Why Increased Use of IT and Improvements in Managerial Ability can be Beneficial or Damaging? Insights from the Puzzle of IT Use and Managerial Expertise for Internal Controls
Presenter: Chaitanya Sambhara
When: Wednesday, November 17, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams

Author’s note about the paper’s “warts”:Among the many possible issues that this study has, three stand out in my opinion. First is the limitation of data where only those firms that have had material weaknesses in their internal controls are/can be examined. The second possible issue is that role of technology is just one among the three aspects being studied, which could raise concerns when this work is submitted to an IS journal. Third, we examine three two-way interactions but not a three-way interaction. We tested the three-way interaction, but it was not significant.

November 3 - Grace Hao of the Department of Finance

Abstract: We find that a firm’s innovation is positively influenced by its industry peers’ innovation. We measure innovation inputs by R&D expenditures and innovation outputs by patent-based metrics. To address the endogeneity problems in peer effects, we use two approaches to identify exogenous shocks in peer firms’ innovation: idiosyncratic equity returns and staggered changes in state-level corporate tax rates. The results based on both approaches confirm that the positive peer effect is causal. The peer effect is stronger among firms facing more uncertainty and industry competition. Higher institutional ownership facilitates the positive peer effect, possibly through cross-ownership of industry peers.

Author’s note about the paper’s “warts”:We have just written up the paper, and it is not a polished version yet. This is the first time we are presenting the work. We look forward to your feedback. To name a couple of issues that we wish to address. (1) To address the endogeneity problems in peer effects, we take two different approaches to identify exogenous variation in peer firms’ innovation. One of the identification strategies relies on staggered changes in state-level corporate tax rates. Because the regressions test peer effects indirectly, we conduct several falsification tests using other state law enactments that are not relevant to firm innovation. They are the Uniform Determination of Death Act, the Uniform Durable Power of Attorney Act, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act. However, the nature of the data is not entirely comparable to state corporate tax changes. Are there other staggered changes in state-level variables that fit the falsification tests better? If so, where to get the data?

Wednesday, October 6 - Owen Parker of the Department of Management

Title: Burden of Beauty? How a woman’s appearance influences perceptions of her competence, and prospects for bias mitigation
Presenter: Owen Parker
When: Wednesday, October 6, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams

Abstract: Despite recent strides toward gender equality in business contexts, women often face an uphill battle and may be judged based on their appearance rather than their capabilities. Some research suggests that attractiveness and ornamentation offer an advantage in terms of a woman’s perceived competence. Yet research on role congruity theory suggests that these same factors might exacerbate implicit biases about gender-type “fit” for certain roles, which can influence competency perceptions. What are the implications of attractiveness and ornamentation for perceptions of competence, and can any liabilities be mitigated? Drawing on research on “debiasing,” we examine whether conveying “surprising details” about a woman’s background mitigates appearance-based biases about her perceived competence in a particular job role.

Author’s note about the paper’s “warts”:Our first two studies (since April 2021) helped establish manipulations of “attractiveness” and “cosmetic ornamentation” and provided some evidence for construct-validated scales of “perceived attractiveness” and “perceived vanity”. We also gleaned some tentative results demonstrating a contingent liability of attractiveness on perceived competence, but only for certain job roles. We intend to more carefully manipulate cosmetic ornamentation for Study 3, measure how respondents perceive this manipulation, measure the “vanity” they perceive in the target as a function of both attractiveness and the presence of debiasing details, and determine how this influences competence perceptions.

Author’s note about the desired feedback:: In addition to general feedback and thoughts going forward, we are seeking feedback on:

1. …the manipulation of the “surprising detail” (debiasing mechanism) we have chosen for the Study 3. The general idea is that we will present some respondents with a control condition and others with a certain detail that challenges their likely perceptions of the woman: “She enjoys lifting weights, and last year, she won a silver medal in powerlifting for her weight class”. Our aim is to test whether this surprising detail attenuates the liability of attractiveness / cosmetic ornamentation vis-a-vis how people evaluate her competence.
2. …the competence-related items we might use for study 3, as these may be context specific.
3. …relatedly, whether a certain job context is ideal to test these effects. Our first study examined perceptions of job fit in a range of roles, while study 2 evaluated perceived competence as an “orthopedic surgeon”.

Wednesday, September 8 - Ariane Froidevaux of the Department of Management.

Title: Changes in Perceived Age Discrimination over Time: Patterns, Covariates, and Consequences
Presenter: Ariane Froidevaux
When: Wednesday, September 8, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams

Abstract: Age discrimination is one of the most prevalent types of discrimination in the workplace and as such represents a major challenge for many workers. Although prior work suggests that perceived age discrimination is a dynamic process leading to detrimental effects on job- and health-related outcomes, little is known about how it changes over time. Drawing on the psychological stressor-strain framework, the current study examines different patterns of changes in perceived age discrimination, their relationships with age, gender, and organizational justice, and effect on job satisfaction, work strain, and perceived employability. Using longitudinal data from 1,100 workers aged 27-57 in a prospective design over six years, we find three patterns characterized by stable low, increasing, and decreasing levels of perceived age discrimination change at work over time. We further observe that older employees and women (but not older women), as well as employees reporting lower levels of organizational justice, are more likely to belong to the increasing age discrimination change pattern. Finally, we demonstrate that workers belonging to the stable low age discrimination pattern are more likely to benefit from higher job satisfaction, perceived employability, and lower work strain. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Author’s note about the paper’s “warts”: This paper is currently under 1st revise and resubmit status. The version I will present is the original submission, as my co-authors and I are currently running additional analyses to address the editorial team’s main request of replicating our growth profiles by randomly splitting our sample in two halves. As we are also working on how to best address editorial team’s key theoretical comments, I am interested in receiving feedback and suggestions about (1) the specific challenge of writing a manuscript based on growth mixture modeling (GMM) given its explorative nature; and (2) how to improve our main theoretical framework and empirical model fit. First, the editorial team would like us to better align the hypotheses (mostly focusing on the increasing pattern) with our results (e.g., focusing on the decreasing profile), and improve our first hypothesis on general profile solutions by making it more specific. Second, while we rely on the Psychological Stressor-Strain Framework to justify the choice of our antecedent and outcome variables, the editorial team struggles to see how the organizational justice antecedent fits in, and why we chose our three outcomes of job satisfaction, work strain, and perceived employability. They also suggest we emphasize the integration of the stressor strain framework with work on intersectionality, and include additional antecedents (e.g., job content, resources such as self-efficacy or beliefs in a just world). Looking forward to benefitting from other researchers’ perspective on this paper and to a fruitful discussion!

June 16th: - John Adams of the Department of Finance & Real Estate

Title: Persistent Discrimination
Presenter: John Adams
When: Wednesday, June 16, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams

Abstract: We study racial discrimination in the market for delegated portfolios. Using manually collected photographs from LinkedIn profiles and sponsor webpages to classify manager race, we find that Blacks and non-White Hispanics face significant barriers to entering the labor market. The probability of non-White manager placements increases with investment experience, Ivy League education, and when fund and hiring managers have shared social networks. Further analysis shows that performance, and not race, drives fund flows, evidence consistent with the view that mutual fund investors allocate capital efficiently across financial assets. Barriers to entry arising from sponsor-level taste-based discrimination appear to be a cause of Black and non-White Hispanic under-representation.

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": The paper has one big wart – maybe two. We are not sure we are classifying fund manager race correctly. We use a machine algorithm and manual assessments of manager photos to assign each manager to a race bucket. We explicitly do not use manager names to help assess race. Our initial reasoning is that we didn’t want biased estimates (ours) of race. Now we are not sure. Another wart is that our placement analysis suffers from the usual incomplete information problem in that we only observe who is hired. We interpret the placement results as consistent with taste-based discrimination – are we missing something? Another wart(s)? We are newbies in this area. We don’t know what we don’t know and this paper has not been previously shared.

April 28th: - Yuan Ji of the Department of Accounting

Sanjiv and I are pleased to announce that the next presentation of the Research Incubator Seminar Series is scheduled for Wednesday, April 28 from 2:00-3:30 p.m. via Microsoft Teams. Our presenter is Yuan Ji of the Department of Accounting. The paper that she will present is titled “Higher Pay, Less Corruption Scandals? Evidence from City Manager Compensation in California.” The paper is attached.

Title: Higher Pay, Less Corruption Scandals? Evidence from City Manager Compensation in California
Presenter: Yuan Ji
When: Wednesday, April 28, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams

Abstract: I study determinants and implications of city managers' annual salary in the state of California from 2011 to 2016. Using a large and recent dataset, I find that excess city manager annual salary is associated with a lower likelihood of having corruption-related scandals and future questioned costs. In additional analyses, I examine the impact of the city council on the relation between excess annual salary and corruption and document that a larger council constrains the potential unethical behaviors of city managers and serves as more effective monitors. Finally, I document that excess annual salary is associated with more efficient daily operations; city managers with a high annual salary also have a lower likelihood of being involuntarily terminated by the city council and have open-ended and salary reduction contractual terms in compensation agreements.

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": This is a fun project I have been working on and off for the past several months. Now I have difficulty expanding the analysis and make it a more compelling piece. The challenge is exacerbated by the difficulty in finding the available data source in the governmental sector. In addition, it is not an accounting paper per se, so I would appreciate other researchers' prospective on this paper. It is clearly incomplete and rough, any comments are welcome.

March 31st: - Alison Hall Birch of the Department of Management

Sanjiv and I are pleased to announce that the next presentation of the Research Incubator Seminar Series is scheduled for Wednesday, March 31 from 2:00–3:30 p.m. via Microsoft Teams. Our presenter is Alison Hall Birch of the Department of Management. The paper that she will present is titled “Putting Climate into Context: How State-Level Culture and Composition Shape the Effects of Diversity Climate on Performance.”

Title: Putting Climate into Context: How State-Level Culture and Composition Shape the Effects of Diversity Climate on Performance
Presenters: Alison Hall Birch
When: Wednesday, March 31, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams

Abstract: Existing evidence demonstrates that an organization’s diversity climate can enhance its bottom line. Though some scholars have theorized potential mediators to explain these effects, two recent literature reviews and a meta-analysis concluded that much remains unknown regarding both why and how diversity climate influences outcomes. We propose that commitment inequality, or the degree of within-unit disparity in affective organizational commitment among unit members, acts as a mediator of the diversity climate-productivity relationship. We argue that unit-level diversity climate fosters more uniformly high affective commitment levels among unit members (i.e., less commitment inequality), thereby optimizing the returns on its human capital investments in the form of greater unit productivity. Data from 738 stores in 48 American states indicate a significant indirect effect of store diversity climate on productivity through commitment inequality. Moreover, we extend theory on the impact of contextual variation to determine how the external environment's culture (tightness-looseness) and composition (racioethnic variety) interactively influence this process. Our results demonstrate collective moderation by state-level context. Climates supporting diversity coincide with reduced commitment inequality, thereby prompting higher productivity when organizational practices that promote a positive diversity climate align with states’ cultures and compositions (loose/diverse or tight/homogenous). No such significant indirect effect is observed in units operating in states where pro-diversity efforts are misaligned with the external environment (loose/homogenous or tight/diverse).

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": In conceptualizing this 3-way interaction, we let the conditions where climate, composition, and culture "aligned" drive our expectations. Upon analyzing the data, that worked out for us! However, in writing the paper, it became clear that our story for one of the misaligned conditions (specifically the effects of a hospitable diversity climate in a racioethnically homogenous-loose state) is something we had glossed over. It doesn't neatly align with what we currently argue are the driving mechanisms for what's happening in the other three cells (hospitable diversity climate: tight-homogenous, loose-diverse, tight-diverse). Now we are in search of a theoretical explanation as to what's happening there. We've got a few ideas that I will be sharing during the presentation. Additionally, we are still sorting through the nomenclature of our mediator. We've semi-settled on "Commitment inequality" but it was formerly "commitment disparity" and we've also considered a few other names, so if you have thoughts there, I'm open!

February 24th: - Mahyar Vaghefi of the Department of Information Systems & Operations Management

The next presentation of the Research Incubator Seminar Series is scheduled for Wednesday, February 24th from 2:00-3:30 p.m. Via Microsoft Teams. Our presenter is Mahyar Sharif Vaghefi of the Department of the Information Systems and Operations Management. The paper that he will present is titled “Diffusion of Health Messages in Online Social Networks: A Study of Healthcare Professionals Content Generation on Twitter.”

Title: Diffusion of Health Messages in Online Social Networks: A Study of Healthcare Professionals Content Generation on Twitter
Presenters: Mahyar Sharif Vaghefi
When: Wednesday, February 24, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams

Abstract: Online social networks have become an important venue for the search and sharing of health-related information. This has become more evident during the coronavirus outbreak. Thus, the contribution of health professionals to such platforms can reduce the spread of misleading information and add to the trustworthiness of information made available to the public. The contribution of health professionals can be made both by generating content and by facilitating the dissemination of content. In this study, we focus on the Twitter platform and study the factors that can contribute to the dissemination of information on the health professional social network. In our work, we emphasize the structure of the social network and the characteristics of health messages. We argue that the structure of the social network paves the way for the dissemination of information and that the content attributes provide fuel for it to flow through the networks and reach a wider audience. The theoretical basis of our work is the model of intellectual epidemics and the likelihood model of persuasion. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our work.

Author’s note about the paper's "warts":Our paper aims to provide a conceptual model for diffusion of health messages in online social networks. We have conceptualized our theoretical model using the intellectual epidemic model and information processing models. We used Twitter observational data to empirically test our proposed model. While the preliminary results of our study are promising, there are certainly some limitations in the paper that need to be identified and addressed prior to the submission of the paper. Our main concerns are: Is there any other theoretical model that fits into our theoretical framework that allows us to better justify our hypotheses? How well our measurements can be capturing the main variables of interest in our work? Whether the observational data collected is appropriate for testing our conceptualized model? Are there any possible sources of bias in the data that we should test for? Is there any better approach to analyze our data? Do we need to apply any specific type of robustness method to our work?

January 20th: Dhruba Banjade and David Diltz of the Finance Department

The January 20th presentation of the Research Incubator Seminar Series was scheduled for Wednesday, January 20 from 2:00-3:30 p.m. via Microsoft Teams. Our presenters are Dhruba Banjade and David Diltz of the Department of Finance. The paper that they will present is titled “Environmental, Social, and Governance Scores and Firm Value.”.

Title: Environmental, Social, and Governance Scores and Firm Value
Presenters: Dhruba Banjade and David Diltz
When: Wednesday, January 20, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams

Abstract: Corporate social responsibility is vital to the interests of the modern corporation as investors, creditors, customers, government, and environmental agencies have placed greater emphasis on environmental protection, workplace safety, and effective governance. The ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scores have been developed by the United Nations to address these issues. This paper examines the impact of ESG scores on firm value as indicated by Tobin's Q. We find that performance improves for those firms whose ESG scores exceed 50%, while ESG controversy scores negatively impact firm value. Moreover, we find that these relationships hold, even during the financial crisis (2007-2009) period.

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": Theoretically, many researchers claim that improvement in ESG scores improves firm performance. However, many research findings do not support this claim. Most of the research article find a negative association between ESG score and firm performance. We check the relationship between ESG score and firm performance at a different level of ESG scores. We find that firms should maintain an ESG score of more than 50% to reflect their ESG related activities into better firm performance. In most of the cases, we also find a negative association between ESG score and firm performance. We investigate the role of ESG scores in different periods. ESG controversy harm firm value.

December 2nd: Wayne Crawford of the Department of Management

Title: The Longitudinal Effects of Network-Member Excision on Layoff Survivors’ Social Network Resource-Acquisition Strategies and Performance
Presenter: Wayne S. Crawford
When: Wednesday, December 2, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: via Microsoft Teams

Abstract: This study examines network change following a disruptive event in an American hotel firm—downsizing—whereby many employees are simultaneously eliminated from a network. Applying a resource- and network-evolution approach to longitudinal communication-network and employee-performance data, we examine how survivors develop revised resource-acquisition strategies while repositioning themselves after a disruptive event. Specifically, we find that disruption initiates a transitional period in which new tie-making logics, including seeking out ties with long-tenured employees and employees outside of one’s department, are utilized. This facilitates substantial gains in betweenness centrality for some survivors, and these gains are positively associated with long-term employee performance. We observed post-disruption network stabilization, where logics used for tie-making in the disruption period were abandoned, pre-disruption logics were resumed, and betweenness centrality remained relatively constant. We use exponential random graph models to show how the network changed and latent change score modeling to examine whether changes in betweenness centrality predict performance. Our results demonstrate that two temporary logics of tie-formation—a suspension of within-unit homophily and a preference for seeking ties with long-tenured employees—help employees acquire betweenness centrality during the disruption period. We discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of these results and suggest future research directions.

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": In this manuscript we use a combination of SEM and network analysis to assess how survivors of a downsizing reorganize their social networks. We originally switched back and forth between using Conservation of Resources theory and network evolution theory to support our arguments, and ultimately developed our own logical arguments partially based on both for some hypotheses, but for other hypotheses we actually go against what these theories suggest (particularly in hypothesis 1b). One of our main struggles was that we assessed the interaction among employees at three different time periods (we measured betweenness centrality) but we were unable to directly speak to the exact motivation behind why people changed their interaction patterns post-downsizing. As an author team, we consistently argued about our ability to speak to this since we didn’t directly ask people about if they consciously changed their interaction patterns, and further, what would have motivated such change (this issue is primarily relevant for hypotheses 2a-c). This paper is currently under review, but we would welcome feedback on this aspect, as we are certain reviewers will bring it up. Any help that we might be afforded regarding thinking about the relevant theoretical mechanisms that would explain such interaction change would be greatly appreciated.

November 18th: Hila Fogel-Yaari of the Department of Accounting

Title: Financial Disclosure Quality’s Role in Fostering Trust: Evidence from the Relation between Disclosure Quality and Innovation
Presenter: Hila Fogel-Yaari
When: Wednesday, November 18, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Microsoft Teams

Abstract: In principle, innovation and financial disclosure have little in common. Yet, previous studies have documented a positive association between financial disclosure quality and innovation. I shed light on this puzzle, by pointing to the fact that high quality disclosure fosters investors’ trust, and this trust provides firms the autonomy necessary for innovation. Trust is investors’ willingness to be vulnerable to the risk that the firm will fail their expectations in the short-run, i.e., trust is the tolerance for a firm’s short-term failure. I too document a positive association between disclosure quality and innovation and demonstrate that it is stronger when disclosure plays a more important role in fostering investor trust, including following events that erode trust and when “generalized trust” is high. Further, a path analysis delineates the impact of disclosure on access to financing, and provides further evidence on the importance of disclosure quality for fostering trust. This study contributes to the literature on the economic role of financial disclosure by highlighting that financial disclosure quality proffers a benefit beyond the standard moral hazard and adverse selection roles.

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": My biggest struggle with the paper is finding the right audience for it. It has been rejected from the top accounting journals, who do not acknowledge the importance of trust for the business world. The challenge is exacerbated by the difficulty in measuring trust empirically. In addition, the paper deals with innovation, where the literature is very broad and encompasses a few disciplines, so I would appreciate other researchers' prospective on this paper, and it would also be great to hear ideas that would strengthen the hypothesis development and research design.

Wednesday, October 21 from 2:00-3:30 p.m. via Microsoft Teams.

Our presenter is Narayanan Janakiraman of the Department of Marketing. The paper that he will present is titled “Not All Discounts Are Created Equal: Power Distance Belief and Locus-of-Discount in A Bundle.”.

Title: Not All Discounts Are Created Equal: Power Distance Belief and Locus-of-Discount in A Bundle
Presenter: Narayanan Janakiraman
When: Wednesday, October 21, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where:Via Microsoft Teams

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": One of the big issues has been the theory that drives the effect. In essence what we show is that when bundles of products are sold [say a shampoo and a conditioner] should the discount be offered on the main product [e.g. shampoo] or the tie-in product [e.g. conditioner] and would it be affected by a key cultural construct [namely, power distance belief]. When we started the project the consistent finding was that in high power distance countries [e.g., India] discounts on the tie-in product were ignored while in low power distance countries [such as the US] discounts on either the main product or the tie-in product resulted in similar effect. What was indeed puzzling is that a discount on a tie-in product resulted in lower purchase intent belying common intuition that in countries such as India where discretionary income is lower any discount must make the product more attractive. A second issue apart from this suppressed purchase intent, was what is the theory that leads to this. We pursued various paths, and this month we finished an eye tracking study and a field study with actual consumers in the bookstore [which I have not included in the abstract but will in the presentation] makes us convinced on one account that leads to this effect which is the lack of attentional resources devoted to the tie in product by high power distance folks due to a tendency to discriminate. We will present this and see if we can refine our theory and the set of studies before we submit to the journal. As a final input what we would love the group to help us with is the substantive contribution part of our research. We provide as a part of Study 4 and other studies that brand names might play a role etc, but thinking through how a firm might be able to take advantage of our findings is still something we are struggling with.

Abstract: Four studies examine the relation between power distance belief – the tendency to accept and endorse inequalities – and preference for a discount on the focal (vs. tie-in) product in a bundle, the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions. Our results have important implications for marketing theory and practice.

Wednesday, September 9 from 2:00-3:30 p.m via Microsoft Teams. Our presenter is Kay-Yut Chen of the Department of Information Systems & Operations Management. The paper that he will present is titled “Coping with Digital Extortion: An Experimental Study on Normative Appeals.”

Title: Coping with Digital Extortion: An Experimental Study on Normative Appeals
Presenter: Kay-Yut Chen
When: Wednesday, September 9, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Where: Via Microsoft Teams

Abstract: Digital extortion emerges a significant threat to organizations that rely on information technologies for their business and operations. We study, with human-subject experimentation, how normative appeals may influence defenders’ engagement of investing in security and refusal to pay ransoms as mitigating strategies to this digital extortion threat. We explore the effects of four types of normative appeals: injunctive norms and descriptive norms promoting investing or not-paying ransoms. We find that the defenders’ decisions deviate from the predictions of game theory. However, given the strategic interactions between the defenders and the attacker as well as noisy decision-making behaviors, it is challenging to untangle the influence of the treatment interventions on the defenders. We develop a structural model using the quantal response equilibrium framework to determine how normative appeals change the defenders’ utilities of investing and not-paying. While interventions may be successful in increasing the utilities of investing and/or not-paying, their impacts are mitigated by the attacker reducing ransoms. Thus, it is challenging for an intervention to significantly boost a community’s investment rate or to suppress ransom payment rate. Based on the model, we characterize how security outcomes of a community (including expected ransoms, attack rate, investment rate, payment rate) change with the defenders’ utilities of investing and not-paying. The results to two new interventions, a penalty for paying ransoms and the ability for defenders to communicate via text chat, further validate the modeling results.

Author’s note about the paper's "warts": We would appreciate comments and suggestions on any aspects of the paper. We look forward to an enlivening discussion.

• February 5th: Jivas Chakravarthy - Department of Accounting
• March 18th: Mahyar Vaghefi - Department of Information Systems & Operations Management
• April 15th: Narayanan Janakiraman - Department of Marketing

• September 4th: John Adams - Department of Finance and Real Estate
• October 2nd: David Rosser - Department of Accounting
• November 13th: Jay Samuel - Department of Information Systems and Operations Management

• January 30th: Ann McFadyen - Department of Management
• February 20th: Yun Fan - Department of Accounting
• March 20th: Adwait Khare - Department of Marketing
• April 24th: Sridhar Nerur - Department of Information Systems and Operations Management

• September 12th: Alper Nakkas - Department of Information Systems and Operations Management
• October 17th: Sriram Villupuram - Department of Finance and Real Estate
• November 14th: CY Choi - Department of Economics

• January 24th: Wendy Casper - Department of Management
• February 21st: Jennifer Zhang - Department of Information Systems and Operations Management
• March 21st: Emmanuel Morales-Camargo - Department of Finance and Real Estate
• April 18th: Wayne S. Crawford - Department of Management

• September 6th: Bin Srinidhi - Department of Accounting
• October 4th: David Rakowski - Department of Finance and Real Estate
• November 1st: Ritesh Saini - Department of Marketing
• November 29th: Jingguo Wang - Department of Information Systems and Operations Management

• July 19th: Ann McFadyen - Department of Management

• February 8th: David Rakowski - Department of Finance and Real Estate
• March 8th: James Campbell Quick - Goolsby
• April 5th: Alan R. Cannon - Department of Information Systems and Operations Management
• May 3rd: Nandu J. Nagarajan - Department of Accounting
• May 10th: Michael R. Ward - Department of Economics