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

Omega

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 485-499

  King, William R ^a   Kugler, Jose L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b CPM Sistemos Ltda   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Adoption of innovation; Experiment; Innovation; Rhetoric

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION DECISION; ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS; ADOPTION PROCESS; DECISION MAKERS; INNOVATION; INNOVATION ADOPTION; INNOVATION-DECISION PROCESS; MULTI-STAGES; RHETORIC; RHETORICAL STRATEGIES;

EID: 0034288894     PISSN: 03050483     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0305-0483(99)00076-6     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. [1] Zbaracki MJ. The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science Quarterly 1998;43:602-36.
2. [2] Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1983.
3. [3] Kimberly JR, Evanisko MJ. Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organization, contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal 1981;24(4):689-13.
4. [4] King N, Anderson N. Innovation and change in organizations. London: Routledge, 1995.
5. [5] Kuhberger A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis organizational behavior and human decision processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1998;75(1):23-55.
6. [6] Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth GJ. Not all frames are created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1998;76(2):149-88.
7. [7] Mittal V, Ross Jr WT. The impact of positive and negative affect and issue framing on issue interpretation and risk taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1998;76(3):298-324.
8. [8] King WR, Kugler J. The influence of rhetorical schemes on innovation decisions. Journal of Information Systems 1993;3:255-70.
9. [9] O'Neill J. Rhetoric, science, and philosophy. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1998;28(2):205-25.
10. [10] Roszkowski MJ, Snelbecker GE. Effects of 'framing' on measures of risk tolerance: financial planners are not immune. Journal of Behavioral Economics 1990;19(30):237-46.
11. [11] Kahneman D, Tversky A. On the study of statistical intuitions. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, editors. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p. 493-508.
12. [12] Holak SL. Determinants of innovative durables adoption: an empirical study with implications for early product screening. Journal of Product Innovation Management 1988;5:50-69.
13. [13] Benbasat I, Dexter AS. An investigation on the effectiveness of color and graphical information presentation under varying time constraints. MIS Quarterly 1986;10(1):59-83.
14. [14] Diamond L, Lerch FJ. Fading frames: data presentation and framing effects. Decision Sciences 1992;23(5):1050-71.
15. [15] Jarvenpaa SL, Dickson GW. Graphics and managerial decision making: research-based guidelines. Communications of the ACM 1988;31(6):764-74.
16. [16] Hendrickson JJ. Performance, preference, and visual scan patterns on a menu-based system: implications for interface design. In: Proceedings of CHI'89 Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, 1989. p. 217-22.
17. [17] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist 1984;39:341-50.
18. [18] Laughlin PR, Earley PC. Social combination models, persuasive arguments theory social comparison theory, and the choice shifts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982;42:273-80.
19. [19] Nisbett RE, Borgida E, Crandall R, Read H. Popular induction: information is not necessarily informative. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, editors. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p. 101-16.
20. [20] Schwenk CR. Information, cognitive biases, and commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review 1986;11:298-310.
21. [21] Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Acceptance, yielding and impact: cognitive processes in persuasion. In: Petty RE, editor. Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publ, 1981.
22. [22] Main D, Lambert JC. Improving your decision making. Business and Economic Review 1998;44(3):9-12.
23. [23] Smith RG. The message measurement inventory: a profile for communication analysis. Bloomington, IN: University Press, 1978.
24. [24] McGary RK. A rhetorical analysis of advertising appeals for personal computers 1977-1983. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University, 1985.
25. [25] French JRP, Raven B. The bases of social power. In: Cartwright D, editor. Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1959.
26. [26] Kaplan MF. The influencing process in group decision making. In: Handrick C, editor. Group processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987.
27. [27] Newman RP, Newman DR. Evidence. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1968.
28. [28] Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannembaum PH. The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1957.
29. [29] Anderson NH. Likableness ratings of 555 personality-traits words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1968;9:272-9.
30. [30] Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 2nd ed. HarperCollins Publishers, 1989.
31. [31] Haberman S. Analysis of qualitative data. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
32. [32] Nutt PC. Framing strategic decisions. Organization Science 1998;9(2):195-216.
33. [33] Mitroff II, Barabba VP, Kilmann RH. The application of behavioral and philosophical technologies to strategic planning: a case study of a large federal agency. Management Science 1977;24:44-58.