Cited by 325Corporate Finance and GovernanceFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesPrivate Equity and Venture Capital

Fuzzy Logic and the Market: A Configurational Approach to Investor Perceptions of Acquisition Announcements

Campbell, Joanna Tochman, Sirmon, David G., Schijven, Mario·2016·Academy of Management Journal

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amj.2013.0663

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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