Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,417

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Thinking about U : Theorizing and testing U ‐ and inverted U ‐shaped relationships in strategy research

Haans, Richard F. J., Pieters, Constant, He, Zi‐Lin·2016·Strategic Management Journal

Abstract

Research summary : U ‐ and inverted U ‐shaped relationships are increasingly explored in strategy research, with 11 percent of all articles published in S trategic M anagement J ournal ( SMJ ) in 2008–2012 investigating such quadratic relationships. Moreover, a movement towards introducing moderation to quadratic relationships has emerged. By reviewing 110 articles published in SMJ from 1980 to 2012, we identify several critical issues in theorizing and testing of these relationships for which current practice falls short. These include insufficient causal argumentation, incorrect testing, mixing up two different types of moderation, and not realizing that the curve can flip completely. For these and other issues, a guideline is provided which, when followed, may bring clarity to theoretical motivation and rigor to empirical testing . Managerial summary : Too much can be as bad as too little. Many relationships in strategic management follow an inverted U ‐shaped pattern, where moderate levels of a strategy lead to optimal performance. To gain deeper insights into the conventional wisdom that too much of a good thing can be harmful to performance, we discuss how such relationships can be better theorized and tested based on a review of articles exploring U ‐shaped relationships in S trategic M anagement J ournal during 1980–2012. We identify several critical issues that require close attention and provide a guideline to further develop and validate this important managerial intuition . Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/smj.2399

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 2,417

Metadata

Authors
Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z.
Venue
Strategic Management Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06-28
Volume
37
Issue
7
Pages
1177-1195
ISSN
  • 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0266
OpenAlex
W1799410249
Cited by
2,417
References
4
FWCI
158.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Thinking about U : Theorizing and testing U ‐ and inverted U ‐shaped relationships in strategy research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smj.2399
The paper
Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z. (2016). Thinking about U : Theorizing and testing U ‐ and inverted U ‐shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2399

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.