Content analysis has enabled organizational scholars to study constructs and relationships that were previously unattainable at scale. One particular area of focus has been on sentiment analysis, which scholars have implemented to examine myriad relationships pertinent to organizational research. This article addresses certain limitations in sentiment analysis. More specifically, we bring attention to the challenge of accurately attributing sentiment in text that mentions multiple firms. Whereas traditional methods often result in measurement error due to misattributing text to firms, we offer coreference resolution—a natural language processing technique that identifies and links expressions referring to the same entity—as a solution to this problem. Across two studies, we demonstrate the potential of this approach to reduce measurement error and enhance the veracity of text analyses. We conclude by offering avenues for theoretical and empirical advances in organizational research.
AkbikA.BlytheD.VollgrafR. (2018). Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 1638–1649).
2.
AlantariH. J.CurrimI. S.DengY.SinghS. (2022). An empirical comparison of machine learning methods for text-based sentiment analysis of online consumer reviews. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 39(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.10.011
3.
AnandikaA.ChakravartyS.PaikarayB. K. (2023). Named entity recognition in Odia language: A rule-based approach. International Journal of Reasoning-Based Intelligent Systems, 15(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRIS.2023.128379
4.
AthiwaratkunB.WilsonA. G.AnandkumarA. (2018). Probabilistic fasttext for multi-sense word embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.02901.
5.
BagozziR. P.YiY.PhillipsL. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393203
6.
BednarM. K. (2012). Watchdog or lapdog? A behavioral view of the media as a corporate governance mechanism. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0862
7.
BednarM. K.BoivieS.PrinceN. R. (2013). Burr under the saddle: How media coverage influences strategic change. Organization Science, 24(3), 910–925. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0770
8.
BermissY. S.ZajacE. J.KingB. G. (2014). Under construction: How commensuration and management fashion affect corporate reputation rankings. Organization Science, 25(2), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0852
9.
BhatiaS.KumarA.KhanM. M. (2022). Role of genetic algorithm in optimization of Hindi word sense disambiguation. IEEE Access, 10(1), 75693–75707. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3190406
10.
BoydB. K.GoveS.HittM. A. (2005). Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality?Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.444
BrauerM.WiersemaM.BinderP. (2023). “Dear CEO and board”: How activist investors’ confidence in tone influences campaign success. Organization Science, 34(4), 1487–1508. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1625
13.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3276
14.
BusenbarkJ. R.LangeD.CertoS. T. (2017). Foreshadowing as impression management: Illuminating the path for security analysts. Strategic Management Journal, 38(12), 2486–2507. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2659
15.
ChenW.LiuS.BaoW.JiangH. (2020). An effective approach for citation intent recognition based on BERT and lightGBM. WSDM Cup, Houston, Texas, USA.
16.
ChenD.ManningC. D. (2014). A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (pp. 740–750).
17.
ChenM.-J.MillerD. (2012). Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 135–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.660762
18.
ChoudhuryP.AllenR. T.EndresM. G. (2021). Machine learning for pattern discovery in management research. Strategic Management Journal, 42(1), 30–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3215
19.
ChoudhuryP.WangD.CarlsonN. A.KhannaT. (2019). Machine learning approaches to facial and text analysis: Discovering CEO oral communication styles. Strategic Management Journal, 40(11), 1705–1732. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3067
20.
ClarkK.ManningC. D. (2015). Entity-centric coreference resolution with model stacking. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 1405–1415).
21.
DeephouseD. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600602
DuriauV. J.RegerR. K.PfarrerM. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289252
24.
EftimovT.Koroušić SeljakB.KorošecP. (2017). A rule-based named-entity recognition method for knowledge extraction of evidence-based dietary recommendations. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0179488. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179488
FinkelJ. R.GrenagerT.ManningC. D. (2005). Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by Gibbs sampling. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’05) (pp. 363–370).
27.
FiskeD. W. (1982). Convergent-discriminant validation in measurements and research strategies. In BrinbirgD.KidderL. H. (Eds.), Forms of validity in research (pp. 77–92). Jossey-Bass.
28.
FyffeS.LeeP.KaplanS. (2024). “Transforming” personality scale development: Illustrating the potential of state-of-the-art natural language processing. Organizational Research Methods, 27(2), 265–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231155771
29.
GardnerM.GrusJ.NeumannM.TajfordO.DasigiP.LiuN. F.PetersM.SchmitzM., & ZettlemoyerL. (2018). Allennlp: A deep semantic natural language processing platform. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07640.
30.
GehrmannS.DernoncourtF.LiY.CarlsonE. T.WuJ. T.WeltJ.FooteJr., J., MoseleyE. T.GrantD. W.TylerP. D., & CeliL. A. (2018). Comparing deep learning and concept extraction based methods for patient phenotyping from clinical narratives. PLoS ONE, 13(2), e0192360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192360
31.
Guillamon-SaorinE.OsmaB. G.JonesM. J. (2012). Opportunistic disclosure in press release headlines. Accounting and Business Research, 42(2), 143–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2012.632575
32.
HadaniM. (2025). To toe the party line? The impact of firm and CEO partisanship on corporate mass-media normative legitimacy. Journal of Management, 51(4), 1645–1679. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231225646
33.
HambrickD. C.MasonP. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/258434
34.
HanniganT. R.HaansR. F.VakiliK.TchalianH.GlaserV. L.WangM. S.KaplanS.JenningsP. D. (2019). Topic modeling in management research: Rendering new theory from textual data. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 586–632. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0099
35.
HarmonD. J. (2019). When the Fed speaks: Arguments, emotions, and the microfoundations of institutions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218777475
36.
HawnO. (2021). How media coverage of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility influences cross-border acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 42(1), 58–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3212
37.
HestnessJ.ArdalaniN.DiamosG. (2019). Beyond human-level accuracy: Computational challenges in deep learning. Proceedings of the 24th Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming (pp. 1–14).
38.
HickmanL.ThapaS.TayL.CaoM.SrinivasanP. (2022). Text preprocessing for text mining in organizational research: Review and recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 114–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120971683
39.
HinkinT. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
40.
HussainS.MuhammadL.YakubuA. (2018). Mining social media and DBpedia data using Gephi and R. Journal of Applied Computer Science & Mathematics, 12(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.4316/JACSM.201801002
41.
IqbalF.BundyJ.PfarrerM. D. (2021). Advancing research methods in crisis management. In A. D. Hil, J. K. Le, A. F. McKenny, P. O'Kane, S. Paroutis, & A.D. Smith (Eds.), Research in times of crisis: Research methods in the time of COVID-19 (pp. 53–73). Emerald Publishing Limited.
42.
JanisI. L.FadnerR. H. (1943). A coefficient of imbalance for content analysis. Psychometrika, 8(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288695
43.
JegadeeshN.WuD. (2013). Word power: A new approach for content analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 110(3), 712–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.08.018
44.
JensenM. C.MecklingW. H. (2019). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. In R. I. Tricker (Ed.), Corporate governance (pp. 77–132). Gower.
45.
JimJ. R.TalukderM. A. R.MalakarP., Kabir, M. M., Nur, K., & Firoz, M. M. (2024). Recent advancements and challenges of NLP-based sentiment analysis: A state-of-the-art review. Natural Language Processing Journal, 6(1), 100059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlp.2024.100059
46.
JoachimsT. (2002). Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 133–142).
47.
JollyK. (2018). Machine learning with scikit-learn quick start guide: Classification, regression, and clustering techniques in Python. Packt Publishing Ltd.
48.
Jung MoonS.HyunK. D. (2014). Online media relations as an information subsidy: Quality of Fortune 500 companies’ websites and relationships to media salience. Mass Communication and Society, 17(2), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.779716
49.
KarapandzaR.WisserF. (2022). Coreference resolution for measuring sentiment in financial news. Available at SSRN 4152307.
50.
KathiriaP.ArolkarH. (2020). Document clustering based on phrase and single term similarity using Neo4j. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), 9(3), 3188–3192. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.C9050.019320
51.
KuhnM.WingJ.WestonS.WilliamsA.KeeferC.EngelhardtA.CooperT.MayerZ.KenkelB.BenestyM.LescarbeauR.ZiemA.ScruccaL.YangY.CandanC.HuntT. (2020). Package ‘caret’. The R Journal, 223(7), 48.
52.
KurdiM. Z. (2017). Natural language processing and computational linguistics 2: Semantics, discourse and applications. John Wiley & Sons.
53.
LambertL. S.NewmanD. A. (2023). Construct development and validation in three practical steps: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, 26(4), 574–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221115374
54.
LeeH.ChangA.PeirsmanY.SurdeanuM.JurafskyD. (2013). Deterministic coreference resolution based on entity-centric, precision-ranked rules. Computational Linguistics, 39(4), 885–916. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00152
55.
LeeK.HeL.LewisM.ZettlemoyerL. (2017). End-to-end neural coreference resolution. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 188–119).
56.
LeeK.HeL.ZettlemoyerL. (2018). Higher-order coreference resolution with coarse-to-fine inference. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers).
57.
LeeH.RecasensM.ChangA.SurdeanuM.JurafskyD. (2012). Joint entity and event coreference resolution across documents. Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (pp. 489–500).
58.
LoveE. G.KraatzM. S. (2017). Failed stakeholder exchanges and corporate reputation: The case of earnings misses. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 880–903. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0968
59.
ManningC. D.SurdeanuM.BauerJ.FinkelJ.R.BethardS.McCloskyD. (2014). The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (pp. 55–60).
60.
McDonnellM.-H.KingB. (2013). Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and impression management after social movement boycotts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 387–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213500032
61.
McKennyA. F.AguinisH.ShortJ. C.AnglinA. H. (2018). What doesn’t get measured does exist: Improving the accuracy of computer-aided text analysis. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2909–2933. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316657594
62.
MillsteinF. (2020). Natural language processing with Python: Natural language processing using NLTK. Frank Millstein.
63.
MoilanenK.PulmanS. (2007). Sentiment composition. International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, RANLP. ACL Anthology.
64.
MomorellaS.WoodallI. (2005). Evolution at work: Survey shows the structure of Fortune 500 online newsrooms. Public Relations Tactics, 12(5), 27.
NakagawaT.InuiK.KurohashiS. (2010). Dependency tree-based sentiment classification using CRFs with hidden variables. Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 786–794).
67.
NaseerS.GhafoorM. M.bin Khalid AlviS.KiranA.Ur RahmandS.MurtazaG. (2021). Named entity recognition (NER) in NLP techniques, tools accuracy, and performance. Pakistan Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(2), 293–308. https://pjmr.org/pjmr/article/view/150
68.
NelsonL. K.BurkD.KnudsenM.McCallL. (2021). The future of coding: A comparison of hand-coding and three types of computer-assisted text analysis methods. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(1), 202–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118769114
69.
O’KaneP.OttD. L.SmithA. D.BrownT. C. (2023). Understanding computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software as a tool to enhance systematic literature reviews in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 22(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843221144668
70.
O’KaneP.SmithA.LermanM. P. (2021). Building transparency and trustworthiness in inductive research through computer-aided qualitative data analysis software. Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 104–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119865016
71.
OliverA. G.CampbellR.GraffinS.BundyJ. (2023). Media coverage of earnings announcements: How newsworthiness shapes media volume and tone. Journal of Management, 49(4), 1213–1245. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221080125
72.
OtmazginS.CattanA.GoldbergY. (2022). Lingmess: Linguistically informed multi-expert scorers for coreference resolution. Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 2752–2760).
73.
PangB.LeeL. (2008). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 2(1–2), 1–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1500000011
74.
PengH.ChangK.-W.RothD. (2015). A joint framework for coreference resolution and mention head detection. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (pp. 12–21).
75.
PenningtonJ.SocherR.ManningC. D. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1532–1543).
76.
PfarrerM. D.PollockT. G.RindovaV. P. (2010). A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors’ reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1131–1152. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533222
77.
PlattE. L. (2019). Network science with Python and NetworkX quick start guide: Explore and visualize network data effectively. Packt Publishing Ltd.
78.
PolanyiL.ZaenenA. (2006). Contextual valence shifters. In J. G. Shanahan, Y. Qu, & J. Wiebe (Eds.), Computing attitude and affect in text: Theory and applications (pp. 1–10). Springer.
79.
PollockT. G.RindovaV. P. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 631–642. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040654
80.
PoradaI.ZouX.CheungJ. C. K. (2024). A controlled reevaluation of coreference resolution models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00727.
81.
QomariyahN. N.KazakovD.FajarA. N. (2020). Predicting user preferences with XGBoost learning to rank method. 2020 3rd International Seminar on Research of Information Technology and Intelligent Systems (ISRITI) (pp. 123–128). IEEE.
82.
QuigleyT. J.HubbardT. D.WardA.GraffinS. D. (2020). Unintended consequences: Information releases and CEO stock option grants. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0455
83.
RahmanA.NgV. (2009). Supervised models for coreference resolution. Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 968–977).
84.
RegerR. K.KincaidP. A. (2021). Content and text analysis methods for organizational research. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management (pp. 1–30). Oxford University Press.
85.
SchmiedelT.MüllerO.Vom BrockeJ. (2019). Topic modeling as a strategy of inquiry in organizational research: A tutorial with an application example on organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 941–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118773858
86.
SchmittX.KublerS.RobertJ.PapadakisM.LaTraonY. (2019). A replicable comparison study of NER software: StanfordNLP, NLTK, OpenNLP, SpaCy, Gate. 2019 Sixth International Conference on Social Networks Analysis, Management and Security (SNAMS) (pp. 338–343). IEEE.
87.
Selva BirundaS.Kanniga DeviR. (2021). A review on word embedding techniques for text classification. Innovative Data Communication Technologies and Application: Proceedings of ICIDCA 2020 (pp. 267–281).
88.
ShapiroG.MarkoffG. (1997). Methods for drawing statistical inferences from text and transcripts. In C. W. Roberts (Ed.), Text analysis for the social sciences (pp. 9–31). Routledge.
89.
ShortJ. C.BrobergJ. C.CogliserC. C.BrighamK. H. (2010). Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA): An illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 320–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109335949
90.
ShortJ. C.McKennyA. F.ReidS. W. (2018). More than words? Computer-aided text analysis in organizational behavior and psychology research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 415–435. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104622
91.
SivakumarS.VidelaL. S.KumarT. R.NagarajJ.ItnalS.HarithaD. (2020). Review on word2vec word embedding neural net. 2020 International Conference on Smart Electronics and Communication (ICOSEC) (pp. 282–290). IEEE.
92.
SoricutR.MarcuD. (2003). Sentence-level discourse parsing using syntactic and lexical information. Proceedings of the 2003 Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 228–235).
93.
SpeerA. B.PerrottaJ.KordsmeyerT. L. (2024). Taking it easy: Off-the-shelf versus fine-tuned supervised modeling of performance appraisal text. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281241271249
94.
Srone-RomeroE. F. (2013). Construct validity issues in organizational behavior research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior (pp. 165–190). Routledge.
95.
StewartG.Al-KhassawenehM. (2022). An implementation of the HDBSCAN* clustering algorithm. Applied Sciences, 12(5), 2405. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052405
96.
StylianouN.VlahavasI. (2021). A neural entity coreference resolution review. Expert Systems with Applications, 168(1), 114466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114466
97.
SukthankerR.PoriaS.CambriaE.ThirunavukarasuR. (2020). Anaphora and coreference resolution: A review. Information Fusion, 59(1), 139–162.
98.
SunY.LankE.TerryM. (2017). Label-and-learn: Visualizing the likelihood of machine learning classifier's success during data labeling. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 523–534).
99.
ToprakA.TuranM. (2023). Enhanced named entity recognition algorithm for financial document verification. The Journal of Supercomputing, 79(17), 19431–19451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-023-05371-4
100.
Van AtteveldtW.Van der VeldenM. A.BoukesM. (2021). The validity of sentiment analysis: Comparing manual annotation, crowd-coding, dictionary approaches, and machine learning algorithms. Communication Methods and Measures, 15(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1869198
101.
VasilievY. (2020). Natural language processing with Python and spaCy: A practical introduction. No Starch Press.
102.
WangY.NiX. S. (2019). A XGBoost risk model via feature selection and Bayesian hyper-parameter optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08433.
103.
WestphalJ. D.ParkS. H.McDonaldM. L.HaywardM. L. (2012). Helping other CEOs avoid bad press: Social exchange and impression management support among CEOs in communications with journalists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 217–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212453267
104.
WilcockG. (2009). Shallow parsing with Apache UIMA. Proceedings of the Conference of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 23–27). Citeseer.
105.
ZavyalovaA.PfarrerM. D.RegerR. K. (2017). Celebrity and infamy? The consequences of media narratives about organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 461–480. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0037
106.
ZavyalovaA.PfarrerM. D.RegerR. K.ShapiroD. L. (2012). Managing the message: The effects of firm actions and industry spillovers on media coverage following wrongdoing. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1079–1101. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0608
107.
ZhangD.GongY. (2020). The comparison of LightGBM and XGBoost coupling factor analysis and prediagnosis of acute liver failure. IEEE Access, 8(1), 220990–221003. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3042848
108.
ZhouE.ChoiJ. D. (2018). They exist! Introducing plural mentions to coreference resolution and entity linking. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 24–34).
