Call for Papers

The field of social evaluations, pertaining to socially formed and socially held judgments about individuals and entities, often seems to gravitate toward two poles – good or bad. In terms of antecedents or effects, or in terms of the very nature of social evaluations as they exist in the real world, it is often useful to distinguish a good reputation from a bad one, legitimacy from illegitimacy, perceptions of responsibility from those of irresponsibility, trustworthiness from unreliability, approval from disapproval, celebrity from infamy, authenticity from inauthenticity, and so on.
 
There are at least a couple of exceptions to that bipolarization tendency, including research on the concept of status, which has explored the effects of middle-status apart from those of high and low status, and stigma, the intense negative nature of which seems to have no easily identifiable positive counterpart. (Or perhaps stigma is the extreme negative counterpart of all the other positive social evaluations.) But in general, the observation seems to hold that an interesting aspect of social evaluations is how often they dichotomize into good or bad categories.
 
In this sub-theme, we seek to bring together research exploring, extending, bridging, or challenging that dichotomization. Examples of the kind of studies that helped inspire this subtheme include work by Devers et al. (2009) and Zavyalova et al. (2017), attempting to bridge the gap between positive and negative evaluations, looking at what they have in common, how they differ, and how they relate to each other. A recent review of research by Pollock and colleagues (2019) directly links positive and negative evaluations and looks at their common emotional antecedents. While Hampel & Tracey (2019) see positive and negative evaluations as two sides of the same coin, Hudson (2008) argues that social actors can be both positively and negatively evaluated at the same time.
 
In this sense, the role of multiple audiences is crucial to gain a better understanding of how evaluations are diffused and how mediating actors play a role (Zavyalova et al., 2012). Other research has explored how the perceptions of negative and positive signals are in the eye of the beholder. For example, the media can sometimes produce negative evaluations of actors that will be interpreted as positive signals by other key evaluators (Roulet, 2019). This point is especially salient given the increasing polarization in societies around the world (Somer & McCoy, 2019).
 
We invite scholars to submit their empirical and theoretical work that further investigates these kinds of nuances and complexities. A number of theoretical perspectives could help inform these investigations, including stakeholder theory, to differentiate audiences (Shymko & Roulet, 2017), categorization (Vergne, 2012), social identity theory (Tracey & Phillips, 2016), cognitive dissonance, social construction, attribution theory, critical theory, systems theory, and behavioral economics.
 
Submissions that explore, extend, or challenge the dichotomization tendency in social evaluations might include research that examines the gray areas between traditionally binary categories (Siraz et al., 2023), investigates factors that may lead to more nuanced or spectrum-based evaluations, or explores the consequences of oversimplified social judgments. We are especially interested in contributions that question the validity of the binary framework in understanding social perceptions, propose alternative models, or demonstrate the impact of such a binary view on individual and societal outcomes. We highly encourage papers that employ innovative methodologies or interdisciplinary approaches to challenge the dichotomization in social evaluations. This sub-theme aims to foster a deeper understanding of the complexities and subtleties inherent in social evaluations and to contribute to the development of more sophisticated theoretical frameworks in this area.
 
We invite scholars to address social evaluations from diverse theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches and we welcome contributions from diverse disciplines, such as management, organization science, psychology, sociology, and economics. We are interested in, but not at all limited to, questions such as the following:

• How do contextual factors (e.g., cultural, societal, or organizational) influence the tendency to dichotomize social evaluations?

• Do negative and positive social evaluations lie on the same continua? In which context, under which conditions, and for which sorts of evaluations?

• Can simultaneous positive and negative evaluations coexist for a given evaluator; for a given target of evaluation? If so, under what conditions?

• Is stigma conceptually and empirically distinct from other strong negative social evaluations?

• Is stigma on the opposite end of some of the other positive social evaluations?

• What are the psychological and social processes that lead to binary categorizations in social evaluations? How do individual differences, such as cognitive style or personality, affect susceptibility to binary evaluations?

• How do binary social evaluations affect individual behavior and decision-making?

• In what ways can binary evaluations be restructured into more nuanced, spectrum-based models? What theoretical apparatus can we mobilize to link positive and negative social evaluations?

• To what extent would embracing a spectrum-based perspective of social evaluations reshape our understanding of stakeholder management?

• What are the long-term societal and organizational effects of dichotomous social evaluations?

• What effect do dichotomous social evaluations have on intra-organizational image work and identity work?

• How do digital media and technology platforms contribute to or mitigate the dichotomization of social evaluations?

• How do stakeholder perceptions differ in the context of binary versus spectrum-based evaluations?

• What are the ethical implications of dichotomous social evaluations, especially in terms of stigma and marginalization?

• How can interdisciplinary approaches enhance our understanding of the dichotomization in social evaluations?

• What role does language play in reinforcing or challenging dichotomous social evaluations?

• What are the historical origins and evolution of dichotomous social evaluations?

• How do narratives and storytelling in media influence the dichotomization of social evaluations?

• How do economic systems and market dynamics contribute to or challenge binary social evaluations?

• What methodologies can be employed to effectively study the complexities beyond binary social evaluations?

• How does polarization influence the binary versus spectrum-based nature of social evaluations?

• How does the binary nature of some social evaluations contribute to or exacerbate polarization within certain societal contexts?

References

• Devers, C.E., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C.A. (2009): “A General Theory of Organizational Stigma.” Organization Science, 20 (1), 154–171.

• Hampel, C., & Tracey, P. (2019): “Introducing a Spectrum of Moral Evaluation: Integrating Organizational Stigmatization and Moral Legitimacy.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 28 (1), 11–15.
• Hudson, B.A. (2008): “Against all odds: A consideration of core-stigmatized organizations.” Academy of Management Review, 33 (1), 252–266.
• Pollock, T.G., Lashley, K., Rindova, V.P., & Han, J. (2019): “Which of These Things Are Not Like the Others? Comparing the Rational, Emotional, and Moral Aspects of Reputation, Status, Celebrity, and Stigma.” Academy of Management Annals, 13, 444–478.
• Roulet, T.J. (2019): “Sins for some, virtues for others: Media coverage of investment banks’ misconduct and adherence to professional norms during the financial crisis.” Human Relations, 72 (9), 1436–1463.
• Shymko, Y., & Roulet, T.J. (2017): “When does Medici hurt da Vinci? Mitigating the signaling effect of extraneous stakeholder relationships in the field of cultural production.” Academy of Management Journal, 60 (4), 1307–1338.
• Siraz, S.S., Claes, B., De Castro, J.O., & Vaara, E. (2023): “Theorizing the Grey Area between Legitimacy and Illegitimacy.” Journal of Management Studies, 60, 924–962.
• Somer, M., & McCoy, J. (2019): “Transformations through polarizations and global threats to democracy.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681 (1), 8–22.
• Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2016): “Managing the Consequences of Organizational Stigmatization: Identity Work in a Social Enterprise.” Academy of Management Journal, 59, 740–765.
• Vergne, J.-P. (2012):” Stigmatized categories and public disapproval of organizations: A mixed-methods study of the global arms industry 1996–2007.” Academy of Management Journal, 55 (5), 1027–1052.
• Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M.D., & Reger, R.K. (2017): “Celebrity and infamy? The consequences of media narratives about organizational identity.” Academy of Management Review, 42 (3), 461–480.
• Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M.D., Reger, R.K., & Shapiro, D.L. (2012): “Managing the Message: The Effects of Firm Actions and Industry Spillovers on Media Coverage Following Wrongdoing.” Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1079–1101.
•