The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why Stakeholders Ignore Firm Misconduct: A Cognitive View
Abstract
This article explains inconsistency in stakeholder punishment for firm misconduct. It does so by developing a cognitive view of the process by which stakeholders allocate their limited attention. This cognitive view outlines individual and situational factors that produce variation in a stakeholder’s likelihood of noticing that an act of misconduct has occurred, in how the stakeholder will assess misconduct if he or she does notice it, and in the stakeholder’s decision to punish a firm if he or she judges it to have engaged in misconduct. In sum, this process suggests that as stakeholder attention varies across each step of this process, misconduct often will not result in punishment. This suggests limits on the ability to deter firm misconduct through social control.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Rotter, J. B. (1966) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0092976 · Cited by 21,937
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance
Carroll, A. B. (1979) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257850 · Cited by 10,480
Organizing and the process of sensemaking
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 · Cited by 6,943
The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258887 · Cited by 5,846
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 · Cited by 5,359
The self-importance of moral identity
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423 · Cited by 3,522
CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRACTIVENESS TO PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES.
TURBAN, D. B., & GREENING, D. W. (1997) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/257057 · Cited by 3,149
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 · Cited by 2,517
Cited by
How Media Coverage of Corporate Social Irresponsibility Increases Financial Risk
Kölbel, J. F., Busch, T., & Jancso, L. M. (2017) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2647 · Cited by 682
Gualandris, J., Klassen, R. D., Vachon, S., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2015) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2015.06.002 · Cited by 365
Extending Signaling Theory to Rhetorical Signals: Evidence from Crowdfunding
Steigenberger, N., & Wilhelm, H. (2018) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1195 · Cited by 326
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Current Concepts, Research, and Issues
Carroll, A. B., & Brown, J. A. (2018) · Corporate Social Responsibility · doi:10.1108/s2514-175920180000002002 · Cited by 224
On the forgetting of corporate irresponsibility
Mena, S., Rintamäki, J., Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2016) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0208 · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Barnett, M. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-02-03
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 676-702
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2171256283
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 18.18
- 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: Why Stakeholders Ignore Firm Misconduct: A Cognitive View. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0149206311433854
- The paper
- Barnett, M. L. (2014). Why Stakeholders Ignore Firm Misconduct: A Cognitive View. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311433854
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.
