Fuzzy Logic and the Market: A Configurational Approach to Investor Perceptions of Acquisition Announcements
Abstract
Prior research on mergers and acquisitions (M&As) has substantially advanced our understanding of how isolated acquirer- and deal-specific factors affect abnormal stock returns. However, investors are likely to perceive and evaluate M&As holistically—that is, as complex configurations (i.e., gestalts) of characteristics, rather than as a list of independent factors. And, yet, extant M&A literature has not addressed why and how configurations of factors elicit positive or negative reactions. Overlooking the interdependent nature of factors known to influence acquisition success has limited our understanding of both M&As and investor judgment. Taking an inductive approach to addressing this important issue, the present study relies on fuzzy set methodology. Our results provide compelling evidence that investor perceptions of M&A announcements are not only configurational in nature but also characterized by equifinality (or the presence of multiple paths to success) and asymmetric causality (i.e., configurations that represent bad deals are not simply a mirror image of good deals, but differ fundamentally). By constructing a typology of “good” and “bad” deals as perceived by market participants, we develop a mid-range theory of M&A stock market performance. As such, this study offers novel theoretical and empirical insights to scholars as well as implications for practitioners.
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
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.
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524 · see citing works
Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have
Myers, S. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-405x(84)90023-0 · Cited by 18,957 · see citing works
Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work
Fama, E. F. (1970) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.2307/2325486 · Cited by 13,635 · see citing works
Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310388419 · Cited by 6,735 · see citing works
A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 · Cited by 5,540 · see citing works
Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques
Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. (2009) · SAGE Publications · doi:10.4135/9781452226569 · Cited by 3,089 · see citing works
A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations
Fiss, P. C. (2007) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586092 · Cited by 2,225 · see citing works
Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage
Ragin, C. C. (2006) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpj019 · Cited by 1,784 · see citing works
Cress, D. M., & Snow, D. A. (2000) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/210399 · Cited by 722 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective
Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316679252 · Cited by 1,099 · see citing works
Park, Y., Fiss, P. C., & El Sawy, O. A. (2020) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2020/13879 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
Reputation and Status: Expanding the Role of Social Evaluations in Management Research
George, G., Dahlander, L., Graffin, S. D., & Sim, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.4001 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
- Authors
- Campbell, J. T., Sirmon, D. G., & Schijven, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Cincinnati (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 163-187
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2187557820
- Cited by
- 325
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 51.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Corporate Finance and Governance
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Markets and Investment Strategies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Private Equity and Venture Capital
- Keywords
- mergers and acquisitions, acquisition announcements, investor perception, abnormal returns, configurational analysis, equifinality, asymmetric causality, investor judgment
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