The DOI matches its Crossref record; 149 of the 149 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Affect-Based Model of Recipients’ Responses to Organizational Change Events
Abstract
Following a long period during which scholarly attention was paid predominantly to the role of change agents in organizational change, change recipients and their experiences have finally begun to take center stage. Yet the typical view of recipients has been as passive reactors to change. In this article we take steps toward highlighting the central, active roles change recipients play in organizational change events. We discuss and distinguish between dimensions of valence and activation and introduce a circumplex of recipients’ affective and behavioral responses to change events. We describe the primary and secondary appraisal processes through which each response type emerges and discuss outcomes of each response type. We use our model to explain how change context and process variables affect recipients’ responses to change. Finally, we discuss implications of our model for theory, research, and practice.
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
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599
Eysenck, H. J. (1985) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(85)90087-7 · Cited by 31,975
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Russell, J. A. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0077714 · Cited by 16,334
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267 · Cited by 11,507
Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States.
Tullock, G., & Hirschman, A. O. (1970) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.2307/2325604 · Cited by 10,904
Academy of Management Executive
(2010) · The Academy of Management executive/Academy of Management executive · doi:10.5465/ame · Cited by 8,844
Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0018963 · Cited by 6,618
Cited by
Change management interventions: Taking stock and moving forward
Hagl, C., Kanitz, R., Gonzalez, K., & Hoegl, M. (2024) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.101000 · Cited by 47
Memory-based change management: Using the past to guide the future
Do, B., & Lyle, M. C. B. (2022) · Organizational Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/20413866221093512 · Cited by 7
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Oreg, S., Bartunek, J. M., Lee, G., & Do, B.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 65-86
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3807
- OpenAlex
- W2471604960
- Cited by
- 357
- References
- 149
- FWCI
- 25.04
- 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: An Affect-Based Model of Recipients’ Responses to Organizational Change Events. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/amr.2014.0335
- The paper
- Oreg, S., Bartunek, J. M., Lee, G., & Do, B. (2018). An Affect-Based Model of Recipients’ Responses to Organizational Change Events. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0335
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.
