Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 682

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Political Mediation Model of Corporate Response to Social Movement Activism

King, Brayden G·2008·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.2189/asqu.53.3.395
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper uses a theory of social movement outcomes, the political mediation model, to explain why certain corporations targeted by boycotts are more likely to concede to boycotters' demands. Hypotheses developed from this model predict that boycotts threaten tangible and intangible resources held by corporate targets, that these threats are transmitted indirectly through media coverage of the boycotts, that past declines in sales or reputation create opportunities for a movement to have influence, and that the level of threat posed by a boycott generates more influence when targeted against corporations that recently experienced declines in sales or reputation. Results from analyses of a sample of corporate boycotts reported in major national newspapers in the U.S. between 1990 and 2005 provide support for the political mediation model. Corporate targets of boycotts were more likely to concede when the boycott received a great deal of media attention. The effect of media attention was amplified when the corporate target previously experienced a decline in its reputation.

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 · 10.2189/asqu.53.3.395

Cites

9 of 9 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

Cited by

See all 682

Metadata

Authors
King, B. G.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2008-09
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
395-421
ISSN
  • 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3815
DOI
10.2189/asqu.53.3.395
OpenAlex
W2059701194
Cited by
682
References
9
FWCI
33.60
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.