In addition to their conduct, organizations can be stigmatized for conduct they did not engage in. Advancing a conceptual foundation of illusory conduct stigma, I explain how it stems from a perceptional process that is distinct from the one underlying conduct stigma. I use conspiracy theory as an illustrative source of illusory conduct stigma and explain how the former evolves in the absence of evidence, differs from an official narrative, and incorporates organizations. The study proposes that organizations are likely targets when they have higher status, larger size, and recent media coverage, and the targeting is persistent when organizations are complex, diversified, and carry strong emotional appeal. Moreover, organizations are at times participants in the production, facilitation, and forbearance of illusory conduct stigma. The study contributes by explicating how organizations are affected as well as how they participate in the development and propagation of illusory conduct stigma.
AllcottH.GentzkowM. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236.
2.
AllenP. M.VargaL. (2006). A co-evolutionary complex systems perspective on information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 21(4), 229–238.
3.
AralS.DellarocasC.GodesD. (2013). Introduction to the special issue—Social media and business transformation: A framework for research. Information Systems Research.
4.
AtkinsonC. (2019, April25). Fake news can cause “irreversible damage” to companies—And sink their stock price. NBC News.
5.
AzariJ. R.SmithJ. K. (2012). Unwritten rules: Informal institutions in established democracies. Perspectives on Politics, 10(1), 37–55.
6.
BanksJ. S.WeingastB. R. (1992). The political control of bureaucracies under asymmetric information. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 509–524.
7.
BarkunM. (2015). Conspiracy theories as stigmatized knowledge. Diogenes, 62(3–4), 114–120.
8.
BarlowM. A.VerhaalJ. C.HoskinsJ. D. (2018). Guilty by association: Product-level category stigma and audience expectations in the U.S. Craft Beer Industry. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2934–2960.
BhimaniA. (2015). Exploring big data’s strategic consequences. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 66–69.
11.
BundyJ.IqbalF.PfarrerM. D. (2021). Reputations in flux: How a firm defends its multiple reputations in response to different violations. Strategic Management Journal, 42(6), 1109–1138.
12.
CavazosR. (2019). The economic cost of bad actors on the Internet. University of Baltimore.
13.
ChaudhuriA. (2002). A study of emotion and reason in products and services. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1(3), 267–279.
14.
CostasJ.GreyC. (2014). Bringing secrecy into the open: Towards a theorization of the social processes of organizational secrecy. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1423–1447.
15.
DariusP.UrquhartM. (2021). Disinformed social movements: A large-scale mapping of conspiracy narratives as online harms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Social Networks and Media, 26, 100174.
16.
DeephouseD. L.CarterS. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329–360.
17.
DeephouseD. L.SuchmanM. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SuddabyR.SahlinK. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). Sage Publications.
18.
DelmestriG.GreenwoodR. (2016). How Cinderella became a queen: Theorizing radical status change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4), 507–550.
19.
DentithM. (2014). The philosophy of conspiracy theories. Springer.
20.
DeversC. E.DewettT.MishinaY.BelsitoC. A. (2009). A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science, 20(1), 154–171.
21.
DickP. (2005). Dirty work designations: How police officers account for their use of coercive force. Human Relations, 58(11), 1363–1390.
22.
DiestreL.SantalóJ. (2020). Why do firms suffer differently from input stigmatization? The costs of removing stigmatized inputs. Organization Science, 31(1), 47–66.
23.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2023). What Are conspiracy theories? A definitional approach to their correlates, consequences, and communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 271–298.
24.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M.CichockaA. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538–542.
DunneD. D.DoughertyD. (2016). Abductive reasoning: How innovators navigate in the labyrinth of complex product innovation. Organization Studies, 37(2), 131–159.
27.
DurandR.VergneJ. (2015). Asset divestment as a response to media attacks in stigmatized industries. Strategic Management Journal, 36(8), 1205–1223.
28.
EtterM.RavasiD.ColleoniE. (2019). Social media and the formation of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 28–52.
29.
ExlineJ. J.LobelM. (1999). The perils of outperformance: Sensitivity about being the target of a threatening upward comparison. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 307–337.
30.
FlahertyE.SturmT.FarriesE. (2022). The conspiracy of Covid-19 and 5G: Spatial analysis fallacies in the age of data democratization. Social Science & Medicine, 293, 114546.
31.
FordC. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112–1142.
32.
FreemanR. E. (2009). Managing for stakeholders. In BeauchampT. L.BowieN. E.ArnoldD. G. (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (8th ed., pp. 1–27). Prentice Hall.
33.
GinzelL. E.KramerR. M.SuttonR. I. (1992). Organizational impression management as a reciprocal influence process: The neglected role of the organizational audience. In CummingsL. L.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 227–266). JAI Press.
34.
GoffmanE. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice Hall.
35.
GrandyG.MavinS. (2012). Occupational image, organizational image and identity in dirty work: Intersections of organizational efforts and media accounts. Organization, 19(6), 765–786.
36.
GregoryR. L. (1980). Perceptions as hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences, 290(1038), 181–197.
37.
HelmsW. S.PattersonK. D. W. (2014). Eliciting acceptance for “illicit” organizations: The positive implications of stigma for MMA organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1453–1484.
38.
HoppT.FerrucciP. (2020). A spherical rendering of deviant information resilience. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(2), 492–508.
39.
HornseyM. J.PearsonS.KangJ.SassenbergK.JettenJ.Van LangeP. A.MedinaL. G.AmiotC. E.AusmeesL.BagumaP. (2023). Multinational data show that conspiracy beliefs are associated with the perception (and reality) of poor national economic performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(1), 78–89.
40.
HudsonB. A. (2008). Against all odds: A consideration of core-stigmatized organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 252–266.
41.
HudsonB. A.PattersonK. D. W.RouletT. J.HelmsW. S.ElsbachK. (2022). Organizational stigma: Taking stock and opening new areas for research. Journal of Management Studies, 59(8), 1899–1914.
42.
HydeI. (1963). The tragic flaw: Is it a tragic error?Modern Language Review, 58(3), 321–325.
43.
IslamM. S.KamalA.-H. M.KabirA.SouthernD. L.KhanS. H.HasanS. M.SarkarT.SharminS.DasS.RoyT. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine rumors and conspiracy theories: The need for cognitive inoculation against misinformation to improve vaccine adherence. PLoS One, 16(5), e0251605.
44.
ItoT. A.LarsenJ. T.SmithN. K.CacioppoJ. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 887–900.
45.
JosefyM.KubanS.IrelandR. D.HittM. A. (2015). All things great and small: Organizational size, boundaries of the firm, and a changing environment. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 715–802.
46.
KahnemanD. (2010). Thinking, fast and slow (1st ed.). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
47.
KangC.GoldmanA. (2016, December5). In Washington pizzeria attack, fake news brought real guns. The New York Times.
48.
KapantaiE.ChristopoulouA.BerberidisC.PeristerasV. (2021). A systematic literature review on disinformation: Toward a unified taxonomical framework. New Media & Society, 23(5), 1301–1326.
49.
KenyonG. N.SenK. C.NewmanI. (2015). The perception process. In KenyonG. N.SenK. C. (Eds.), The perception of quality: Mapping product and service quality to consumer perceptions (pp. 41–50). Springer.
50.
KhessinaO. M.ReisS.VerhaalJ. C. (2021). Stepping out of the shadows: Identity exposure as a remedy for stigma transfer concerns in the medical marijuana market. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(3), 569–611.
51.
KnightE. L.MehtaP. H. (2017). Hierarchy stability moderates the effect of status on stress and performance in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(1), 78–83.
52.
KnightP. (2008). Outrageous conspiracy theories: Popular and official responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States. New German Critique, 103, 165–193.
LaminA.ZaheerS. (2012). Wall Street vs. Main Street: Firm strategies for defending legitimacy and their impact on different stakeholders. Organization Science, 23(1), 47–66.
55.
LehrerJ. (2010). How we decide. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
56.
LesterT. (2022, July13). Overstock looks to distance itself from former CEO. Furniture Today.
57.
LiJ. S.SarmaA. A.SejnowskiT. J.DoyleJ. C. (2023). Internal feedback in the cortical perception–action loop enables fast and accurate behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(39), e2300445120.
58.
LoveE. G.KraatzM. (2009). Character, conformity, or the bottom line? How and why downsizing affected corporate reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 314–335.
59.
MatherG. (2006). Foundations of perception. Taylor & Francis.
60.
McCauleyC.JacquesS. (1979). The popularity of conspiracy theories of presidential assassination: A Bayesian analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 637–644.
61.
McKenzie-McHargA. (2019). Experts versus eyewitnesses. Or, how did conspiracy theories come to rely on images?Word & Image, 35(2), 141–158.
62.
McKinleyW.PonemonL. A.SchickA. G. (1996). Auditors’ perceptions of client firms: The stigma of decline and the stigma of growth. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(2–3), 193–213.
63.
MedfordN.PhillipsM. L.BrierleyB.BrammerM.BullmoreE. T.DavidA. S. (2005). Emotional memory: Separating content and context. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 138(3), 247–258.
64.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 340–363.
65.
MishinaY.DeversC. E. (2012). On being bad: Why stigma is not the same as a bad reputation. In PollockT. G.BarnettM. L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate reputation. Oxford University Press.
66.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
67.
MithaniM. A. (2017). Liability of foreignness, natural disasters, and corporate philanthropy. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(8), 941–963.
68.
MithaniM. A.KocogluI. (2021). Idea generation in abductive thinking: Not one but three approaches. Academy of Management Review, 49(2), 451–454.
69.
MithaniM. A.O’BrienJ. P. (2021). So what exactly is a “coalition” within an organization? A review and organizing framework. Journal of Management, 47(1), 171–206.
70.
NeuD.WrightM. (1992). Bank failures, stigma management and the accounting establishment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(7), 645–665.
71.
NoackG. (2022, May9). Uncanny valley vibes: Zuckerberg sends the public spiralling over “not human” group selfie. News.Com.Au.
PereiraA. (2016, June15). Mark Zuckerberg, suspected lizard person, predictably denies being a lizard person. SFGATE.
74.
PiazzaA.PerrettiF. (2015). Categorical stigma and firm disengagement: Nuclear power generation in the United States, 1970–2000. Organization Science, 26(3), 724–742.
75.
PipesD. (1999). Conspiracy: How the paranoid style flourishes and where it comes from. Simon and Schuster.
76.
PontikesE.NegroG.RaoH. (2010). Stained red: A study of stigma by association to blacklisted artists during the “Red Scare” in Hollywood, 1945 to 1960. American Sociological Review, 75(3), 456–478.
77.
PlutchikR. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. Harper and Row.
78.
RehS.TrösterC.Van QuaquebekeN. (2018). Keeping (future) rivals down: Temporal social comparison predicts coworker social undermining via future status threat and envy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 399–415.
79.
ReichertC. (2020, May7). 5G coronavirus conspiracy theory leads to 77 mobile towers burned in UK, report says. CNET.
80.
RiggioR. E.ReichardR. J. (2008). The emotional and social intelligences of effective leadership: An emotional and social skill approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2), 169–185.
81.
RindovaV. P.WilliamsonI. O.PetkovaA. P.SeverJ. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033–1049.
82.
SætreA. S.Van de VenA. (2021). Generating theory by abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 684–701.
83.
ShantzA. S.FischerE.LiuA.LévesqueM. (2019). Spoils from the spoiled: Strategies for entering stigmatized markets. Journal of Management Studies, 56(7), 1260–1286.
84.
SharkeyA. J. (2014). Categories and organizational status: The role of industry status in the response to organizational deviance. American Journal of Sociology, 119(5), 1380–1433.
StallL. M.PetrocelliJ. V. (2023). Countering conspiracy theory beliefs: Understanding the conjunction fallacy and considering disconfirming evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 37(3), 675.
87.
StielerM.GermelmannC. C. (2016). The ties that bind us: Feelings of social connectedness in socio-emotional experiences. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(6), 397–407.
88.
StohlC.StohlM. (2011). Secret agencies: The communicative constitution of a Clandestine Organization. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1197–1215.
SullivanD.LandauM. J.RothschildZ. K. (2010). An existential function of enemyship: Evidence that people attribute influence to personal and political enemies to compensate for threats to control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 434.
91.
SulsJ.MartinR.WheelerL. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159–163.
92.
SuttonR. I.CallahanA. L. (1987). The stigma of bankruptcy: Spoiled organizational image and its management. Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 405–436.
TalaricoJ. M.BerntsenD.RubinD. C. (2009). Positive emotions enhance recall of peripheral details. Cognition and Emotion, 23(2), 380–398.
95.
TorresM. N.BarberiaI.Rodríguez-FerreiroJ. (2020). Causal illusion as a cognitive basis of pseudoscientific beliefs. British Journal of Psychology, 111(4), 840–852.
96.
UscinskiJ. E. (2018). Preface. In UscinskiJ. E. (Ed.), Conspiracy theories and the people who believe them (pp. ix–xii). Oxford University Press.
97.
UscinskiJ.EndersA.KlofstadC.SeeligM.DrochonH.PremaratneK.MurthiM. (2022). Have beliefs in conspiracy theories increased over time?PLoS One, 17(7), e0270429.
98.
ValaskiviK. (2022). Circulation of conspiracy theories in the attention factory. Popular Communication, 20(3), 162–177.
99.
van der LindenS. (2015). The conspiracy-effect: Exposure to conspiracy theories (about global warming) decreases pro-social behavior and science acceptance. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 171–173.
100.
van ProoijenJ.-W. (2017). Why education predicts decreased belief in conspiracy theories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 50–58.
101.
van ProoijenJ.-W. (2018). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Routledge.
102.
van ProoijenJ.-W.de VriesR. E. (2016). Organizational conspiracy beliefs: Implications for leadership styles and employee outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 479–491.
103.
van ProoijenJ.-W.DouglasK. M. (2018). Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(7), 897–908.
104.
van ProoijenJ.-W.Van VugtM. (2018). Conspiracy theories: Evolved functions and psychological mechanisms. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(6), 770–788.
105.
VitriolJ. A.MarshJ. K. (2018). The illusion of explanatory depth and endorsement of conspiracy beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(7), 955–969.
106.
WalterN.Ball-RokeachS. J.XuY.BroadG. M. (2018). Communication ecologies: Analyzing adoption of false beliefs in an information-rich environment. Science Communication, 40(5), 650–668.
107.
WangX.RegerR. K.PfarrerM. D. (2021). Faster, hotter, and more linked in: Managing social disapproval in the social media era. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 275–298.
108.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (RothG.WittichC., Eds.). University of California Press.
109.
WestE.MeterkoV. (2015). Innocence project: DNA exonerations, 1989–2014: Review of data and findings from the first 25 years. Albany Law Review, 79, 717.
110.
WestJ. D.BergstromC. T. (2021). Misinformation in and about science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1912444117.
111.
WhitsonJ. A.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322(5898), 115–117.
112.
WoodM. J.DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2012). Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 767–773.
113.
ZannettouS.SirivianosM.BlackburnJ.KourtellisN. (2019). The web of false information: Rumors, fake news, hoaxes, clickbait, and various other shenanigans. Journal of Data and Information Quality, 11(3), 1–37.
114.
ZhangR.WangM. S.ToubianaM.GreenwoodR. (2021). Stigma beyond levels: Advancing research on stigmatization. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 188–222.
115.
ZinkC. F.TongY.ChenQ.BassettD. S.SteinJ. L.Meyer-LindenbergA. (2008). Know your place: Neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron, 58(2), 273–283.
