The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A General Theory of Organizational Stigma
Abstract
In recent years, the term stigma has been widely applied to organizations. However, scholars have yet to advance a theoretically consistent definition or comprehensive theory of organizational stigma. The purpose of this paper is to define the construct of organizational stigma and provide a general theory that explains the conditions under which organizational stigmas are likely to arise, how this process unfolds, and the initial effects stigmas inflict on organizations. In doing so, we distinguish organizational stigma from both individual-level stigma and the organizational-level constructs of reputation, status, celebrity, and legitimacy. We then build upon multiple streams of research to develop a richer theoretical explanation of the roles social context, social processes, and social actors play in the origination and effects of an organizational stigma.
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
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720 · cited 3×
“Status confers numerous benefits to a social actor, including greater attention and visibility (Merton 1968) and increased resources and connections (Brass 1995; Pfeffer & Salncik 1978).”
Merton, R. K. (2017) · Gangs · doi:10.4324/9781351157803-1 · Cited by 3,694
The Social Psychology of Stigma
Major, B., & O'Brien, L. T. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137 · Cited by 3,114
Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic ‘Remedies’ for Trust/Distrust
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.4.3.367 · Cited by 1,545
Macrocultures: Determinants and Consequences
Abrahamson, E., & Fombrun, C. J. (1994) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1994.9412190217 · Cited by 444
ORGANIZATIONAL PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT
Elsbach, K. D. (2003) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25007-3 · Cited by 277
Cited by
Organizational Reputation: A Review
Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310390963 · Cited by 960
Social media and the formation of organizational reputation
Etter, M., Ravasi, D., & Colleoni, E. (2019) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0280 · Cited by 428
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting and Organizational Stigma: The Case of “Sin” Industries
Grougiou, V., Dedoulis, E., & Leventis, S. (2016) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.041 · Cited by 275
Coombs, W. T., & Tachkova, E. R. (2023) · Management Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/08933189221151177 · Cited by 102
Metadata
- Authors
- Devers, C. E., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. A.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 154-171
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2110519250
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 5.86
- 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
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.
