Firm actions and Media tenor after a data breach: A quasi replication and extension of Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) product harm study

Abstract

Replications are especially useful to test the generalizability of managerial knowledge across diverse situations and contexts. In this study, we conduct a quasi-replication of Zavyalova and colleagues’ (2012) influential product harm paper, which explored how firm impression management strategies shaped media tenor following misconduct. Extending their approach to a new context, we seek to understand how firm impression management strategies impact media tenor following data breaches, representing a case of firm misfortune. Drawing on a sample of 287 U.S. data breach events, we find that media evaluations are shaped by firm impression management responses and industry features following a breach. Our findings also suggest that firms should respond differently in cases of misfortune than in instances of misconduct, adding important nuance to the literature. Taken together, our study tests the theory of Zavyalova et al. in a different context, finds contextual differences that resulted in dissimilar empirical results, and contributes new knowledge by showing how firm impression management strategies and industry context affect media tenor differently after data breaches than after toy recalls.

Keywords

Data breach impression management behavioral theory of the firm communication replication studies

A growing literature investigates how the media evaluate firms following instances of misconduct or misfortune (see Hersel, Helmuth, Zorn, Shropshire & Ridge, 2019 for review). Organizational misconduct occurs when firms engage in illegal, unethical, or irresponsible behavior that directly harms its stakeholders (Greven, Palmer & Pozner, 2010; Han, Pollock & Graffin, 2023), while misfortune occurs when organizational stakeholders are harmed despite an organization's efforts to safeguard them.

Over a decade ago, Zavyalova, Pfarrer, Reger and Shapiro (2012) investigated how organizational impression management strategies shaped media evaluations of firms following product harm events. Their paper found that firm impression management strategies differentiated media tenor after toy recalls, providing important guidance for firms seeking to navigate instances of misconduct. According to Google Scholar, this article has now attracted over 600 citations, and its findings are assumed to apply across a wide array of events. Building on the Journal of Management Scientific Reports’ mission to publish studies that test the generalizability of existing evidence, we conduct a quasi-replication of Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) influential work to reexamine an array of its relationships and provide further evidence of its generalizability in the context of data breaches, which represent cases of firm misfortune.

Data breaches (hereafter: breaches) are increasingly consequential negative events that are not well understood. For example, the IBM 2016 Cost of Data Breach Study found that the average cost of a breach was four million U.S. dollars. The strategic consequences of breaches also affect firms long after a breach, including heightened regulatory scrutiny, operational disruptions, damage to supplier relationships, and reputational loss. Considering these deleterious consequences, many firms have rated breaches as a critical threat to their core business and survival (Ulsch, 2014). Moreover, the prevalence of breaches raises questions about how the firm should respond after a breach (Kamiya, Kim, Milidonis & Stulz, 2021), including the actions and learning processes needed to mitigate its negative consequences (Madsen & Desai, 2010).

Although firm actions can shape stakeholder evaluations after a negative event (Munyon, Jenkins, Crook, Edwards & Harvey, 2019), existing studies do not distinguish the impacts of breaches compared to other types of negative events, such as product quality issues and recalls (e.g., Zavyalova et al., 2012). As a result, it remains uncertain whether the firm actions—and especially impression management approaches—for instances of misfortune vary from those employed in cases of misconduct. Ultimately, without further evidence, important questions remain about the generalizability of findings from prior studies examining other types of negative events, including optimal corrective actions for firms (e.g., Diestre, Montauti & Pinto de Sousa, 2023; Graf-Vlachy, Oliver, Banfield, König & Bundy, 2020; Hersel et al. 2019; Kibler, Mandl, Farny & Salmivaara, 2021).

This knowledge deficiency is magnified in importance because breaches possess unique characteristics compared to other types of negative events. Breaches are sometimes perceived as unfortunate incidents beyond the firm's control, representing cases of “misfortune” (Barona & Anita, 2017; Butt et al., 2023), whereas other negative events can be deliberate actions (i.e., wrongdoing) taken by the firm, representing cases of “misconduct” (cf. Roulet & Pichler, 2020). Considering the potential distinctions between instances of misfortune and misconduct, replication (i.e., a quasi-replication – Bettis, Helfat and Shaver, 2016) represents a valuable mechanism to determine whether prior evidence applies across these divergent situations. Therefore, a more nuanced quasi-replication that extends and generalizes the original theory to new empirical contexts appears needed (Bettis et al., 2016; Köhler & Cortina, 2021). Specifically, a quasi-replication is needed to examine both the effects of breaches as well as the efficacy of firm response strategies and media reactions following such events, and the purpose of this paper is to quasi-replicate Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) study in a multi-industry data breach context.

Three contributions are intended in this investigation. First, our empirical generalization and quasi-replication of Zavyalova et al. (2012)—using a different context—contributes to the growing call for replications within strategic management research (Bettis et al., 2016; Köhler & Cortina, 2021). Such studies (e.g., Berry & Kaul, 2016; Gong et al., 2021; Howard et al., 2016; Mezias & Regnier, 2007) are increasingly important within the field, in part, because they “assess robustness and/or generalizability” of prior research by considering how the findings from one study apply in new contexts, settings, data sources, and even periods (Bettis et al., 2016: 2195). Second, we contribute to the literature on negative social evaluation/deviation (e.g., Roulet, 2020) and impression management (e.g., Diestre et al., 2023) by highlighting how different firm responses shape social evaluations following a case of firm misfortune. Finally, we contribute to research on media evaluation (Graf-Vlachy et al., 2020; Zavyalova et al., 2012) by examining the media responses following a major negative event. Below, we describe Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) theory and replicate their hypotheses in a new context.

Data breaches versus toy recall: a quasi-replication study

Theory can be refined, tested, and extended by generalizing the empirical findings from one context to another (Tsang & Kwan, 1999). Although breaches and toy recalls both negatively affect stakeholders, including consumers (Culnan & Williams, 2009; Tang, 2008), there are notable differences between these two types of negative events. Data breaches indirectly reveal a firm's liability when breached data are maliciously used, whereas toy quality issues result in direct harm through interactions with defective products (Malhotra & Malhotra, 2011). Furthermore, toy recalls can result from the firm or its suppliers (Cleeren, Dekimpe & van Heerde, 2017), while breaches generally originate from outside forces. Thus, although the findings of Zavyalova et al. (2012) inform how firms can respond to direct product failure incidents, or instances of “misconduct,” contextual differences in breaches suggest that further inquiry is warranted and important to inform how firms should react in situations of “misfortune.”

Media tenor of a firm

As a key stakeholder group, the media assess firm events and activities and generate subsequent coverage about these events and activities (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008). Media tenor reflects the overall positive or negative sentiment that the media expresses concerning a firm and shapes others’ perceptions and behaviors towards the firm (Kellner, 2004; Zavyalova et al., 2012). Theory suggests that tenor becomes negative toward a focal firm when that firm experiences a negative event or violates stakeholder expectations (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008). These effects also compound with repeated failures, such that firms that re-offend or fail to meet stakeholder expectations increase media skepticism regarding the firm's capability to handle such events (Pfarrer et al., 2008a). This effect also reflects observer assessments found in attribution theory, where repeated violations of expectations or norms heighten judgments of responsibility and blame toward a focal firm (Weiner, 1995; 2006). Thus, repeated failures focus attention on the lack of firm capabilities, which should modify how the media assesses firms. In sum, we expect the magnitude or frequency of breaches to shape the firm's media image (Bansal & Clelland, 2004; Deephouse, 1996; Lamin & Zaheer, 2012; Pollock & Rindova, 2003). Stated formally:

Hypothesis 1: The greater the magnitude of a firm's negative event (i.e., data breach), the less positive the tenor of media coverage about the firm.

Media tenor of industries

Although breaches theoretically impact a firm's media tenor, such negative events can spillover and impact the industry in which a firm competes (Zavyalova et al., 2012). This industry spillover effect occurs because stakeholders often believe firms from the same industry may experience similar problems (Barnett & King, 2008; Naumovska & Zajac, 2022), thus reconsidering how they view other industry participants. Breaches can also reveal capability gaps in industries that share the same information security protocols, negatively impacting others within the same industry. For example, since breaches were prevalent in the retailing industry, breaches at Target, Home Depot, and T.J. Maxx might have impacted media stakeholder perceptions and expectations toward other retailers. Thus:

Hypothesis 2: The greater the magnitude of negative breach events in a firm's industry, the less positive the tenor of media coverage about the firm.

By contrast, the magnitude of negative events in an industry may also have the “safety-in-numbers” effect. Specifically, when several firms in an industry experience breaches, a single firm's breach might lose its novelty, convey information that is expected by audiences (Diestre et al., 2023), or highlight causes in the external environment beyond a firm's control (Roulet & Pichler, 2020). The cumulative effect is that repeated negative breaches in a single industry may attract less media attention and, thus, weaker effects on media tenor, given that the media often see novel events in an industry as newsworthy (Pfarrer et al., 2008b). The frequency of breaches in an industry allows media stakeholders to attribute the breaches to industry factors rather than idiosyncratic firm problems (Bundy & Pfarrer, 2015; Pfarrer et al., 2008a), reducing the blame of the firm and shifting it partly to the industry. As a result, the media may blame the firm less when breaches occur within a focal industry prone to breaches. Hence:

Hypothesis 3: The magnitude of negative breach events in a firm's industry attenuates the negative effect of a firm's event on the tenor of media coverage about the firm.

Firm responses

Beyond understanding how media stakeholders react to breaches, firms are interested in knowing how to minimize negative consequences following a breach (Martin, Borah & Palmatier, 2017). Most firms and managers engage in impression management to repair their reputations (Kibler, Mandl, Farny & Salmivaara, 2021). Zavyalova et al. (2012) theoretically categorized two key types of firm responses following major product recalls in the toy industry: technical and ceremonial responses. The primary difference between these two responses is that technical responses attempt to address the causes of a negative event, while ceremonial responses attempt to deflect media attention toward other issues. Following Zavyalova et al. (2012), we argue that these response actions impact media tenor differently following breaches.

Technical responses

Technical responses attempt to address the cause of an issue, offer solutions, and attract media and stakeholder attention to the focal issue (Zavyalova et al., 2012). The negative consequences of breaches might demand that firms be more responsive and effective in terms of offering solutions and providing plans to address the source of the problem (Martin et al., 2017). For example, following Target's payment system hack in 2014, the firm released detailed statements about its investigation on the cause of a breach, informing potentially affected customers to prevent further payment fraud and offering comprehensive credit monitoring services (e.g., LifeLock) (Morad, 2014).

The crisis management literature argues that firms may effectively rebuild media evaluations by taking actions that signal they are in control and are effectively addressing the problem (Benoit, 1997; Coombs, 2007). This argument is especially valid when stakeholders perceive events (e.g., data breaches) as violations of their expectations and thus expect firms to resolve the incident directly; that is, presenting a technical response (Bundy et al., 2017; Durand & Vergne, 2015; Mishina, Block & Mannor, 2012). Therefore, firms appear more likely to restore positive media tenor following a breach by responding technically. Thus:

Hypothesis 4a: A firm's announcements of technical actions attenuate the negative effect of the firm's event (i.e., data breach) on the tenor of media coverage about the firm.

Ceremonial responses

In other cases, focal firms might respond to breaches in a ceremonial manner, meaning that they do not directly address an event's cause but instead focus on the positive characteristics of the firm to deflect stakeholder attention away from the focal event (Kim et al., 2004; Zavyalova et al., 2012). Notably, following negative events, the media are more likely to perceive ceremonial responses that indirectly address the cause of the incident as inconsistent with their expectations of the focal firm and inadequate to remedy perceived deficiencies that enabled a breach (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Fiss & Zajac, 2006). In short, the media might doubt the trustworthiness of a firm if it fails to take action to remedy harm and prevent future breaches (Fiske & Taylor, 2013; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Lingle et al., 1979; Zavyalova et al., 2017). Therefore, when breaches occur, we anticipate that ceremonial responses will magnify the negative media sentiments toward this firm:

Hypothesis 4b: A firm's announcements of ceremonial actions amplify the negative effect of the firm's event (i.e., data breach) on the tenor of media coverage about the firm.

Firm responses and industry effects

Firm reactions following a breach might also be impacted by the firm's industry context, and the relationship between firm responses and media tenor might depend on the magnitude of breaches within an industry. Specifically, attribution theory proposes that actor (i.e., firm) behavior is evaluated in comparison to others in a similar situation (Kelley, 1973). When many firms in an industry are affected by breaches, media evaluations of breached firms should be altered compared to when few firms experience breaches (cf. Harvey et al., 2014).

Technical responses

When multiple data breaches occur in an industry, the media are more likely to attribute a focal firm's breach to industry characteristics rather than causes idiosyncratic to the firm. As a result, the lack of direct responsibility for a breach should attenuate the expectations of others on the firm to rectify the situation via a technical response (Bundy & Pfarrer, 2015; Zavyalova et al., 2012). In contrast, when the magnitude or frequency of breaches in an industry is low, a breached firm may lose its “industry shield,” which otherwise reduces stakeholder blame toward a focal firm. In this instance, failure by the breached firm to directly address stakeholder concerns may generate negative media tenor. For example, insurance companies are seldom targeted in breaches, but AFLAC experienced an isolated breach (DataBreaches.net, 2013). When the firm did not announce a timely technical response, negative media tenor increased about the firm. Hence, we propose:

Hypothesis 5a: A firm's announcements of technical actions amplify the negative effect of the industry's breach events on the tenor of media coverage about the firm.

Ceremonial responses

The strategic categorization literature suggests that the media categorize various strategic issues as either opportunities or threats based on issue novelty. When the magnitude of breaches is high in an industry, an individual firm's breach will become less unique. As a result, the media are more likely to attribute the cause of an event to uncontrollable industry factors than to an individual firm (Ford, 1985; Sjovall & Talk, 2004) and express more tolerance toward the breached firm (cf. LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Thus, when breaches become a common problem in an industry, ceremonial actions might help a breached firm restore its legitimacy by deflecting media attention from the firm to its industry context (Försterling, 2001; Weiner, 1985). For example, 60% of breaches have occurred in high-tech industries, compared to 20% in the manufacturing sectors (Cisco, 2015). In the case of high-tech industries, stakeholders might be more likely to attribute the breach to factors outside the firm (e.g., industry). Thus, a ceremonial response may weaken negative media tenor. Hence:

Hypothesis 5b: A firm's announcements of ceremonial actions attenuate the negative effect of the industry's breach events on the tenor of media coverage about the firm.

Methods

Sample

We followed the original work of Zavyalova et al. (2012) as closely as possible in terms of their assumptions and data collection. To capture breach events, we used reports from the Privacy Rights Clearing House (PRCH) (Kamiya et al., 2021) and the RavenPack News Analytics (RavenPack) databases. The PRCH database captures all major breaches in U.S. organizations reported by government agencies and verified by media sources from 2005 forward. RavenPack captures breaches reported by traditional media (i.e., newspapers, magazines, and broadcasts), social media (i.e., blogs), or firm press releases. To remove “potentially noisy news” that was less salient, we collected reports from RavenPack with relevance scores equal to 100 (Dang, Moshirian & Zhang, 2015: 86).¹ If a breach was recorded in both databases, we cleaned the duplicate record(s). Our final sample involves 287 breaches that occurred in 95 U.S. publicly traded firms during the period 2001–2015. The data were collected in 2016.

Measures

Dependent variable

The main dependent variable in Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) study is media tenor. Thus, our dependent variable is constructed and measured in the same manner.

We measured media tenor exactly following Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) LIWC approach. In particular, we used the Factiva database to identify traditional news and online blog articles published in media newswires. We then calculated the percentage of positive and negative content in each article and coded it as positive if its total affective content was at least 66 percent positive and as negative if its total content was at least 66 percent negative. In this way, we coded each article as a positive or negative article. Following the original study, we measured the tenor of media coverage about a focal firm as the difference between the number of positive and the number of negative articles published about a firm during the present and following quarters of the data breach. To be consistent with the original study, we standardized the dependent variable.

Independent variables

Consistent with Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) conceptualization of wrongdoing, we measured firm data breaches as the total number of breaches that occurred to the focal firm in a given quarter and industry data breaches as the sum of all breaches in the industry in the same quarter. Data were collected from the PRCH. Also, consistent with Zavyalova et al.'s approach (2012), we conducted a structured content analysis of media coverage, firm self-announcements, court and attorney general disclosures, and third-party investigation reports of breaches to create two categories of responses—technical and ceremonial actions. Table 1 reports our coding scheme in line with Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) coding. Technical responses capture: (1) launching self or third-party investigations, (2) informing affected parties to take preventative and remedy actions, (3) offering direct financial compensation, (4) providing preventative security services (e.g., Life Lock, Credit Monitoring), (5) improving security protocols, and (6) cooperating with regulatory agencies for the investigation (cf. Zavyalova et al., 2012). Ceremonial responses capture (1) no direct confirmation, announcement, or comments on the breach, (2) denial of the occurrence of a breach, (3) firm name changes, (4) announcement of company award, (5) promotion of company reputation, and (6) stating the incident will not occur again but without concrete solutions (Zavyalova et al., 2012). We counted the announcements of the actions taken by a firm following a breach to capture the extent to which firms engaged in technical or ceremonial responses. To be consistent with the original study, we standardized all the above independent variables.

Table 1

Coding scheme for firm responses

	Technical actions (Zavyalova et al., 2012)	Ceremonial actions (Kim et al., 2004; Zavyalova et al., 2012)
Definition	Focal firm took actions that are perceived as having the potential to address the cause of data breach and thus attract media and shareholder attention.	Focal firm took actions that are considered as having the potential to alter stakeholders’ perceptions of the firm by emphasizing its alternative characteristics or offer no direct comments in attempts to deflect media and stakeholders’ attentions away from the data breach.
Actions	Launch self or third-party investigations	No confirmation or comments on the incident
	Inform affected parties to take certain preventative action	Firm name changes
	Provide preventative security services (e.g., LifeLock, Credit Monitor)	Promotions of company reputation
	Improve security protocols	Indicate incident will not occur again without concrete solutions
	Cooperation with regulatory agencies for investigation	Directly deny the occurrence of the incident

Control variables

We controlled for firm-level factors consistent with Zavyalova et al. (2012)'s variable selection, including firm age, size, firm performance, and the total amount of media coverage. Past research has found that firm age is highly associated with stock market returns (Zhang, 2006). Thus, we captured firm age by measuring the number of years starting from a firm's IPO year (Linck, Netter & Yang, 2008). If the IPO year was not available, we alternatively used the year when a firm was first covered by COMPUSTAT (Flammer, 2013). Small firms often display higher stock price volatility because they are strongly affected by the credit market and environmental risks (Perez-Quiros & Timmermann, 2000). However, large firms are more likely to be the targets of breaches because they use more Internet and cloud infrastructures (Baker et al., 2011). Thus, we controlled for firm size using the natural logarithm of total assets (Flammer, 2013; Leland, 2007). Prior firm performance is the return on assets (ROA), defined as the ratio of net income to total assets lagged by one year. Firm age, size, and prior financial performance are measured using COMPUSTAT data. The total amount of media coverage is measured by the number of articles published about a firm in a given quarter (Zavyalova et al., 2012).

Consistent with Zavyalova et al. (2012), we also controlled for the social memory of the firm data breach and the social memory of the industry data breach. These two variables capture the effect of a firm's and industry's data breaches on subsequent levels of social evaluation (Zavyalova et al., 2012). The social memory of the firm is measured by the sum of the number of breaches by a firm and a decay measure that assigns a weight of 1/n for each quarter before the quarter of the breach. Likewise, we measured the social memory of the industry data breach as the decay measure of the firm competitors’ breaches and their decayed influence in the same industry. Similar to Zavyalova et al., we also controlled for the media tenor of the industry, which is measured as the difference between the number of positive and negative articles published about a firm's competitors in the quarter of a data breach and the following quarter.

As Zavyalova et al.'s context of toy recalls, breaches that are larger in scope can cause stakeholders to pay closer attention due to their greater potential implications (see Weiner, 2006). Thus, to the extent possible, we captured scope via close proxies to the original study's three control variables: numbers of injuries, scope of incidents, and the average price of toys recalled in a given quarter. Specifically, we coded six dummy variables representing breach scope, including the number of stakeholders affected, social scope, geographic scope, direct financial loss, critical information loss, and legal ramifications (Martin et al., 2017). After conducting a principal components analysis for the six items, we selected five main items that load on the common components and together account for more than 90% of the variance in the data (Xia, 2011). Specifically, we excluded legal ramifications and constructed a single variable measure using weighted items. This method of variable construction is recommended for strategic management research (Boyd, Gove & Hitt, 2005). Table 2 indicates the items, definitions, examples in our sample, eigenvalues, accumulative loading, and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin estimation for our principal components analysis.

Table 2

Coding and principle component analysis results for data breach scope

Item	Definition	Example	Eigenvalue	Accumulative loading	Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure
Direct financial losses	The data breach led to direct customer financial losses	BOA customers credit information lost led to fraudulent transactions	0.539	0.277	0.563
Social scope	The data breach has social responses	Yahoo's server breach led to social media unrest	0.538	0.492	0.564
Shareholders affected	The data breach directly influences shareholders	Nasdaq system hacked impacted investors’ daily trading	0.456	0.642	0.590
Critical information compromised	Critical information breached	StateFarm agent accidently disposed policy documents that contain clients’ SSN and credit card information	0.558	0.782	0.594
Geographical scope	The impact of data breach is nationwide	Target payment system fraud is nationwide	0.428	0.900	0.601
Legal ramifications	The data breach incurs legal litigation or dispute	Class action lawsuit was filed in response to the AOL server hack	0.464	1.000	0.609

Finally, following Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) caution about potential timing effects, we controlled for the potential variance in breach timing, such as when the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act was introduced (Stevens, 2010) and when the social media era emerged (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). All time-variant controls were lagged by one year to help rule out reverse causality (Kenny, 1979).

Zavyalova et al. (2012) focused on the toy manufacturing industry. Therefore, we controlled for the high-tech industry and fixed the industry effect. Because high-tech firms are more vulnerable to data breaches due to their relatively extensive cloud computing (Baker et al., 2011), we modeled these effects. Specifically, the American Electronics Association (AEA) identified 45 SIC codes representing a high-technology industry. If a firm belongs to AEA industries, we coded a 1 and a 0 otherwise (Bracker, Keats & Pearson, 1988). Following Mauri and Michaels (1998), we fixed the industry effects using a two-digit SIC. The summary of the variable comparison between the original study and our replication is shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Variable comparisons

Zavyalova et al. (2012)	Replication involving data breaches
Tenor of media coverage	Tenor of media coverage
Firm wrongdoing	Firm data breaches
Industry wrongdoing	Industry data breaches
Firm actions (technical action/ceremonial action)	Firm actions (technical responses/ceremonial responses)
Firm size	Firm size
Social memory of firm wrongdoing	Social memory of firm data breach
Social memory of industry wrongdoing	Social memory of industry data breach
Numbers of injuries/scope of incidents/average price of toys recalled in a given quarter	Scope of breaches
Articles	Total amount of media coverage
Year 1998/Year 2007	Social media era (since 2007)
Tenor of media coverage about the industry	Media tenor of the industry
Fourth quarter	Federal information security law (since 2009)
Toy industry	High tech industry/fixed industry effect

Analytical techniques

We first performed our quasi-replication. The main difference from the original study's analytical method is that we use two a two-stage least squares (2SLS) model with instruments to control potential endogeneity. This is because, after performing an endogeneity test, we found that, in our sample, firms’ data breaches are highly endogenous in the model. In particular, the results (i.e., Durbin test Χ²(1) = 10.86 (p = 0.0010); Wu–Hausman test F(1, 281) = 11.06 (p = 0.0010) reject the Ho: variables are exogenous. We choose firm reputation as an instrument variable in our 2SLS estimation. We measured firm reputation by collecting and coding rankings of the World's Most Admired Companies (Pfarrer et al., 2010). If a firm was listed in the ranking in a certain year, meaning the firm had high media reputation in that year, we coded it a 1 and 0 otherwise (Pfarrer et al., 2010). The main distinction between media reputation and media tenor is that the former emphasizes stakeholders’ assessments of firm actions over a relatively long period (Mishina et al., 2012; Rindova et al., 2005), while media tenor emphasizes the sentiments of media coverage involving a specific event or firm action over a relatively short period (Zavyalova et al., 2012, 2017).

In particular, for an excluded exogenous variable to be a valid instrument, it must meet two conditions: (1) it must be sufficiently correlated with the included endogenous regressors but (2) uncorrelated with the error term (Wooldridge, 2010). Thus, we performed a regression test: F(1, 282) = 21.37 Prob > F = 0.0000 which indicates strong relevance of the instrument variable (i.e., condition 1 is met), and over-identification test: Sargan statistic: 8.0, χ²(12) p-value = 0.125 which failed to reject the Ho that instruments are uncorrelated with the error term, indicating that the over-identifying restrictions are not violated (i.e., condition 2 is met). We reported the first state regression results in Table 5. It shows that firm reputation predicts the firm data breach (β = 1.44, p = 0.000), which indicates the validity of the instrument. We also utilized a recently developed instrument approach (Baum & Lewbel, 2019; Lewbel, 2012, 2018) to further validate our instrument variable, which provided evidence that the instrument variable is exogenous. In particular, we used certain elements of covariates (vector X), such as breach scope, social memory of the firm, and social memory of the industry, to compose vector Z to generate the Lewbel estimator (i.e., constructed instruments). We ensured that the two underlying assumptions (i.e., A1 and A2 assumptions) of Baum and Lewbel's (2019) model were met. We also used the Sargan–Hansen test to examine the validity of both the internally constructed instruments and the external instrument (i.e., firm reputation). Overall, these test results provide evidence that our variables are valid and robust.

Results

Table 4 presents descriptive statistics of unstandardized variables and correlations for the standardized variables of interest. We also examined the variance inflation factor (VIF) to identify potential multicollinearity problems. Guidelines provided by Kutner, Nachtsheim and Neter (2004) suggest multicollinearity is not a problem in our data. Notably, our media tenor variable has a relatively larger standard deviation and a wider range than Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) sample. We believe this is due to several factors. First, our sample covers various industries instead of only focusing on toy manufacturing. This means that a typical negative event, such as a data breach, will attract a wider range of media exposure. Second, the event of a data breach is more salient than the event of toy recall, especially in high-tech industries where a single data breach might invite greater public attention and media scrutiny (Han et al., 2023; Rosati et al., 2017; Schatz & Bashroush, 2016). Table 6 shows our replication results involving breaches. Model 1 in Table 6 includes control variables plus the magnitude of firm and industry data breaches; Models 2 and 3 introduce technical and ceremonial actions, respectively. Model 4 consists of both firm actions, and Model 5 is the full model with interactions. We report a comparison and interpretation between our results involving breaches and the original study's results in Table 7.

Table 4

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Tenor of media coverage (LIWC)	1.00
2. Technical actions	−0.20	1.00
3. Ceremonial actions	0.09	−0.53	1.00
4. Data breach scope	−0.03	0.21	−0.01	1.00
5. Industry data breach	0.29	−0.16	0.12	−0.07	1.00
6. Firm Size (total assets, logged)	0.16	−0.14	0.17	−0.03	0.18	1.00
7. Social memory of firm data breach	0.13	−0.06	0.02	−0.10	0.35	0.11	1.00
8. Social memory of industry data breach	0.12	−0.17	0.00	−0.15	0.45	−0.15	0.17	1.00
9. Firm total number of data breach	0.53	−0.14	0.11	−0.06	0.68	0.13	0.49	0.27	1.00
10. Amount of media coverage	0.93	−0.14	0.06	−0.05	0.30	0.23	0.11	0.11	0.47	1.00
11. Media tenor of the industry	0.43	−0.19	0.04	−0.18	0.40	−0.13	0.08	0.68	0.32	0.37
12. Social media era (since 2007)	0.07	0.08	−0.03	0.08	0.20	0.00	0.16	−0.02	0.23	0.05
13. Firm age (years since IPO)	0.03	0.17	0.04	0.09	0.02	0.58	−0.02	−0.29	−0.02	0.05
14. Firm performance	0.26	−0.02	−0.05	−0.06	−0.04	0.07	−0.06	0.01	0.09	0.21
15. Firm reputation	0.31	−0.09	0.00	−0.04	0.08	0.18	0.08	0.10	0.25	0.34
16. High-tech firm	0.28	−0.20	0.04	−0.18	−0.05	0.11	0.05	0.37	0.08	0.22
17. Federal information security Law (since 2009)	0.11	−0.02	0.03	0.05	0.35	0.08	0.22	0.06	0.30	0.11
18. Interaction between firm and industry DB	0.45	−0.16	0.14	−0.07	0.84	0.11	0.49	0.32	0.92	0.41
Mean	179.74	1.44	0.52	1.70	4.07	10.27	0.57	24.15	3.19	359.85
Standard dev	381.10	1.59	0.89	0.99	3.21	2.15	0.69	17.73	2.59	625.47
Min	−10	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	4.20	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.00
Max	2350.00	6.00	9.00	3.00	10.00	14.76	2.25	47.11	9.00	4318

	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
11. Media tenor of the industry	1.00
12. Social media era (since 2007)	−0.04	1.00
13. Firm age (year since IPO)	−0.25	0.01	1.00
14. Firm performance	0.06	0.09	0.11	1.00
15. Firm reputation	0.02	0.11	0.05	0.54	1.00
16. High-tech firm	0.40	−0.09	0.01	0.41	0.38	1.00
17. Federal information security law (since 2009)	−0.06	0.56	−0.01	−0.07	0.06	−0.08	1.00
18. Interaction between firm and industry DB	0.38	0.19	−0.03	−0.02	0.15	0.00	0.30	1.00
Mean	6924.04	0.92	26.96	0.06	0.12	0.38	0.78	18.62
Standard deviation	7482.82	0.27	17.14	0.11	0.34	0.49	0.41	25.76
Min	0	0.00	1.00	−0.63	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00
Max	23105.00	1.00	62.00	1.00	2.00	1.00	1.00	90.00

Note: N = 287, Correlations with absolute values no less than 0.12 are significant at the p < 0.05 level.

Table 5

First stage regression predicting firm data breach

	Model 1	Model 2
DV: Firm data breach
Firm size	0.040 ^0.563	0.040 ^0.563
	(0.068)	(0.068)
Firm age	0.0027 ^0.749	0.0027 ^0.749
	(0.0085)	(0.0085)
Firm performance	2.05 ^0.078	2.05 ^0.078
	(1.17)	(1.17)
Social memory of firm	1.44 ^0.000	1.45 ^0.000
	(0.17)	(0.17)
Social memory of industry	0.017 ^0.073	0.017 ^0.073
	(0.0094)	(0.0094)
Scope of breach	0.024 ^0.837	0.024 ^0.837
	(0.12)	(0.12)
Amount of media coverage	0.0014 ^0.000	0.0014 ^0.000
	(0.00022)	(0.00022)
Media tenor of industry	0.000055 ^0.021	0.000055 ^0.021
	(0.000024)	(0.000024)
Year 2007 (social media era)	0.63 ^0.223	0.63 ^0.223
	(0.52)	(0.52)
Year 2009 (federal information law)	0.82 ^0.018	0.82 ^0.018
	(0.35)	(0.35)
High tech firm	−0.73 ^0.013	−0.73 ^0.013
	(0.29)	(0.29)
Reputation		1.44 ^0.000
		(0.17)
_cons	−0.51 ^0.510	−0.51 ^0.510
	(0.78)	(0.78)
R²	0.480	0.481
F-test	22.98 ^0.000	23.13 ^0.000

Note: N = 287, Standard deviations are in parentheses and p-values are annotated as superscript italics.

Table 6

Results of 2SLS regression predicting tenor of media coverage using LIWC approach

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Tenor of media coverage (LIWC)
Firm data breach (H1)	0.20 ^0.000	0.20 ^0.000	0.20 ^0.000	0.20 ^0.000	0.23 ^0.000
	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.04)
Industry data breach (H2)	−0.095 ^0.004	−0.10 ^0.001	−0.098 ^0.003	−0.10 ^0.002	−0.095 ^0.005
	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Industry *Firm data breach (H3)					−0.044 ^0.070
Industry *Firm data breach (H3)					(0.02)
Firm data breach*Technical response (H4a)					−0.064 ^0.261
Firm data breach*Technical response (H4a)					(0.06)
Firm data breach*Ceremonial response (H4b)					0.17 ^0.050
Firm data breach*Ceremonial response (H4b)					(0.09)
Industry data breach*Technical response (H5a)					0.0089 ^0.844
Industry data breach*Technical response (H5a)					(0.05)
Industry data breach*Ceremonial response (H5b)					−0.11 ^0.050
Industry data breach*Ceremonial response (H5b)					(0.06)
Firm size	−0.025 ^0.041	−0.035 ^0.004	−0.028 ^0/023	−0.034 ^0.005	−0.035 ^0.003
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Firm age	0.0015 ^0.314	0.0029 ^0.048	0.0016 ^0.265	0.0030 ^0.046	0.0034 ^0.022
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Firm performance	0.41 ^0.040	0.43 ^0.027	0.44 ^0.029	0.43 ^0.029	0.37 ^0.055
	(0.20)	(0.20)	(0.20)	(0.20)	(0.19)
Social memory of the firm	−0.027 ^0.409	−0.023 ^0.473	−0.024 ^0.463	−0.024 ^0.464	−0.0015 ^0.961
	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Social memory of the industry	−0.0060 ^0.001	−0.0059 ^0.001	−0.0058 ^0.001	−0.0060 ^0.000	−0.0072 ^0.000
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Scope of breach	0.026 ^0.193	0.036 ^0.067	0.025 ^0.202	0.037 ^0.064	0.039 ^0.045
	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Total amount of media coverage	0.0013 ^0.000	0.0013 ^0.000	0.0013 ^0.000	0.0013 ^0.000	0.0012 ^0.000
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Media tenor of industr	0.00002 ^0.000	0.00002 ^0.000	0.00002 ^0.000	0.00002 ^0.000	0.00002 ^0.000
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Year 2007 (social media era)	−0.049 ^0.577	−0.024 ^0.780	−0.043 ^0.621	−0.024 ^0.781	−0.052 ^0.532
	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.08)
Year 2009 (federal information law)	0.091 ^0.139	0.086 ^0.153	0.090 ^0.141	0.086 ^0.154	0.062 ^0.280
Year 2009 (federal information law)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)
High tech firm	0.10 ^0.062	0.077 ^0.152	0.096 ^0.078	0.077 ^0.152	0.089 ^0.086
	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.05)
Industry fixed effect Technical response	Included	Included	Included	Included	Included
		−0.076 ^0.000		−0.080 ^0.001	−0.080 ^0.001
		(0.02)		(0.02)	(0.02)
Ceremonial response			0.032 ^0.104	−0.0077 ^0.735	0.0057 ^0.803
			(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Constant	−0.37 ^0.012	−0.34 ^0.019	−0.36 ^0.017	−0.34 ^0.018	−0.24 ^0.115
	(0.15)	(0.14)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.15)
R²	0.90	0.91	0.91	0.91	0.92

Note: N = 287, Standard deviations are in parentheses and p-values are annotated as superscript italics.

Table 7

Hypothesis test comparison

Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) Hypotheses/supported in Zavyalova et al. (yes/no)	Our hypotheses/supported by replication (yes/no)	Standardized magnitude (current study vs Zavyalova et al.)	P value
Hypothesis 1. The greater the magnitude of a firm's wrongdoing, the less positive the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (yes)	Hypothesis 1 (H1): The greater the magnitude of a firm's data breach, the less positive the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (no)	0.23 vs −0.03	0.000 vs p < 0.05
Hypothesis 2. The greater the magnitude of wrongdoing in a firm's industry, the less positive the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (yes)	Hypothesis 2 (H2): The greater the magnitude of data breaches in a firm's industry, the less positive the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (yes)	−0.095 vs −0.02	0.005 vs p < 0.10
Hypothesis 3. The magnitude of wrongdoing in a firm's industry attenuates the negative effect of a firm's wrongdoing on the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (yes)	Hypothesis 3 (H3): The magnitude of data breaches in a firm's industry attenuates the negative effect of a firm's data breach on the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (no)	−0.044 vs 0.02	0.070 vs p < 0.05
Hypothesis 4a. A firm's announcements of technical actions attenuate the negative effect of the firm's wrongdoing on the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (yes)	Hypothesis 4a (H4a): A firm's announcements of technical actions attenuate the negative effect of the firm's data breach on the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (no)	−0.064 vs 0.05	0.261 vs p < 0.01
Hypothesis 4b. A firm's announcements of ceremonial actions amplify the negative effect of the firm's wrongdoing on the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (yes)	Hypothesis 4b (H4b): A firm's announcements of ceremonial actions amplify the negative effect of the firm's data breach on the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (no)	0.17 vs −0.09	0.050 vs p < 0.01
Hypothesis 5a. A firm's announcements of technical actions amplify the negative effect of industry wrongdoing on the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (yes)	Hypothesis 5a (H5a). A firm's announcements of technical actions amplify the negative effect of an industry's data breach on the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (yes)	0.0089 vs −0.01	0.844 vs p (N/A)
Hypothesis 5b. A firm's announcements of ceremonial actions attenuate the negative effect of industry wrongdoing on the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (yes)	Hypothesis 5b (H5b). A firm's announcements of ceremonial actions attenuate the negative effect of an industry's data breach on the tenor of media coverage about the firm. (yes)	−0.11 vs 0.03	0.50 vs p < 0.05

In Hypothesis 1, we predicted that the magnitude of a firm's negative events is less positively related to media tenor about the firm; the results of coefficient and exact p-value in full model 5 are β = 0.23 and p = 0.000. For H1, our results are in the opposite direction of that of Zavyalova et al. In terms of economic/practical magnitude, if one additional data breach occurred to the firm, the number of net positive articles (the number of positive articles – the number of negative articles) published about it would increase by about 88 articles (0.23*381). By contrast, Zavyalova et al. showed a 2-article decrease.

In Hypothesis 2, we predicted that the number of industry events would result in a less positive (i.e., more negative) tenor of the media coverage; the results shown in the full model 5: β = −0.095, p = 0.005. If we interpret the economic magnitude using our full model, when one extra data breach occurred in the industry, the number of net positive articles (the number of positive articles – the number of negative articles) published about it would decrease by about 36 articles (−0.095*381). This is significantly larger than the decrease of 1.5 articles found by Zavyalova et al., but nevertheless provides support for H2.

In Hypothesis 3, we predicted that industry breaches would attenuate the effects of a firm's breaches on the tenor of its media coverage. The results are shown in model 5: β = −0.044, p = 0.070. We followed recent work on interpreting this moderating effect (Busenbark et al., 2022) to include an interaction term in the correlation table and provide an interaction plot. In order to make a more complete comparison with the original study, we report interaction plots for all interaction effects (From H3 to H5b). First, the interaction plot in Figure 1 shows that in an industry with high data breach levels, firms with more data breaches tend to receive less positive media tenor compared to firms in an industry with low data breach levels. For the finding of H3, our results are in the opposite direction of that of Zavyalova et al. By comparing our figure with the original study's figure 1, we discovered that the line of low industry wrongdoing presents an opposite slope than the original study's line.

Figure 1

Moderating effect of industry data breach on the relationship between firm data breach and media tenor

In Hypotheses 4a and 4b, we predicted that technical actions (H4a) and ceremonial actions (H4b) interact with firm events to affect media tenor. Specifically, we proposed that a firm's announcement of technical actions attenuates the negative effect of the firm breaches on the firm's media tenor, whereas a firm's announcements of ceremonial actions amplify the negative effect of the firm breaches. The results in the full model 5 for H4a is: β = −0.064, p = 0.261, and for H4b is: β = 0.17, p = 0.050. The interaction plot in Figure 2 shows that when a firm announces a high level of technical actions, firms with more data breaches tend to receive less positive media tenor compared to firms that announce a low level of technical actions. For the finding of H4a, our results are in the opposite direction of that of Zavyalova et al. Similarly, compared with the original study's Figure 2, our slope of high technical actions is opposite to that identified by Zavyalova et al. (2012).

Figure 2

Moderating effect of technical actions on the relationship between firm data breach and media tenor

The interaction plot in Figure 3 suggests that when firms announced a high level of ceremonial actions, those with more data breaches tended to receive more positive media tenor compared to firms that announced a low level of ceremonial actions. For H4b, our results are in the opposite direction of that of Zavyalova et al. Compared with the original study's Figure 3, our slope of high ceremonial actions is opposite to that of the original study.

Figure 3

Moderating effect of ceremonial actions on the relationship between firm data breach and media tenor

In Hypotheses 5a and 5b, we predicted that firm announcements of technical actions amplify the negative effect of the industry breaches (H5a) on the tenor of media coverage, but firm announcements of ceremonial actions attenuate the negative effects of industry breaches (H5b) on the tenor of media coverage. The results in the full model 5 showed for H5a: β = 0.0089, p = 0.844 and for H5b: β = −0.11, p = 0.050. The overall effect sizes we found are generally stronger than that of the original study, suggesting that the effect of data breaches on media tenor tends to be greater than the toy recalls studied by Zavyalova et al. (2012).²

The interaction plot in Figure 4 shows that when a firm announces a high level of technical actions, firms in an industry with high data breach levels tend to receive less positive media tenor compared to firms that announce a low level of technical actions. The results are consistent with the H5a.

Figure 4

Moderating effect of technical actions on the relationship between industry data breach and media tenor

The interaction plot in Figure 5 shows that when breached firms announced a high level of ceremonial actions, firms in an industry with a high level of data breaches tend to receive more positive media tenor compared with firms that announced a low level of ceremonial actions. The results thus support H5b. Compared with the original study's Figure 4, our line of low ceremonial action slope is in the opposite direction of the original study slope.

Figure 5

Moderating effect of ceremonial actions on the relationship between industry data breach and media tenor

Robustness analyses

We conducted a series of robustness analyses by altering the data source (RavenPack), analytical approach (non-2SlS estimation), and industry context (only looking at B2C industries). The detailed results and interpretations are included in the appendix. The results of our robustness analyses demonstrated that using different data sources in a replication study can provide further validation for the original study. The robustness check comparison between LIWC and RavenPack approaches reveals that although the magnitude and statistical significance are in general consistent, there are some notable inconsistencies in terms of the direction of estimates; for example, the results of H2, H4b, and H5b show opposite signs of coefficients between the two approaches. In particular, by comparing all three versions of results, LIWC, RavenPack, and the original study, we noticed three key differences. (1) For H2, our RavenPack results are the opposite of that of the original study, whereas our LIWC results are consistent with that of the original study. (2) For H4b, our RavenpPack results are consistent with that of the original study, yet our LIWC results are the opposite of that of the original study. (3) For H5b, our RavenPack results are consistent with that of the original study.

Collectively, these robustness tests reveal important nuanced relationships depending on empirical contexts and data sources. In terms of practical magnitude, RavenPack results indicate that for H1, if one additional data breach occurred to the firm, the number of net positive articles (the number of positive articles – the number of negative articles) published about it would increase by about 2291 articles (0.28* 8183). This is compared with that of the original study, which shows a 2-article decrease. Using an LIWC approach, we found an 88-article increase. Moreover, RavenPack results indicate that for H2, when one extra data breach occurred in the industry, the number of net positive articles (the number of positive articles – the number of negative articles) published about it would increase by about 982 articles (0.12*8183), compared with a decrease of 1.5 articles in the original Zavyalova et al. (2012) study or a decrease of 36 articles using the LIWC approach. Given these practical and statistically significant differences, we advise future researchers to be aware of data source differences that may alter hypothesis tests and practical implications. Ideally, media tenor research should include RavenPack and LIWC approaches, along with comparisons of findings between these two data sources.

In terms of industry context, we replicated the results in both general industries and B2C industries only. By looking at the B2C industries only in our robustness analysis, we attempted to replicate the industry context of the original study closely, and a comparison of general industry and B2C industries shows fairly consistent results (see Appendix Table C). This suggests that our replication study's results can be further generalized to other industry contexts, and further validate the original study's findings that firm actions following a negative event influence media tenor.

Discussion

Organizations are often faced with negative events that jeopardize stakeholders’ well-being, yet it is often unclear how firms should respond. In this study, we replicated many aspects of Zavyalova et al.'s product harm study (2012) to examine how firm responses shape media evaluations following a data breach. In doing so, we explored how theory and findings from prior firm misconduct events generalize to events of firm misfortune (Han et al., 2023; Hersel et al., 2019), including breaches. Data breaches represent an ideal generalizability test because they are pervasive negative events that threaten firms and their stakeholders (Martin et al., 2017), are generally externally initiated, and result in indirect latent harm in contrast to the direct harm of product harm events (e.g., Han et al., 2023; Zavyalova et al., 2012).

Our quasi-replication study showed some key similarities with Zavyalova et al. (2012). First, negative events that happened in the industry can reduce a firm's media tenor (H2), suggesting that firm media evaluations could be sensitive to negative events that occurred in the industry (i.e., spillover effects). Also consistent with Zavyalova et al. (2012), technical actions following a breach amplify (i.e., moderate) the effect of industry data breaches on subsequent media evaluations (H5a). Ceremonial actions attenuate the effect of industry data breaches on media evaluations (H5b).

Yet, in contrast to Zavyalova et al. (2012), our results also shed new light on the contextual differences between product harm and breach events. First, Zavyalova et al. (2012) found firms’ toy recalls are negatively related to media tenor, yet we found a positive relationship for data breaches (H1), which may have resulted from at least two reasons. First, the impact of data breaches may exhibit a short-term nature, given that firms typically initiate responses to address data breaches within a few weeks. Consequently, the negative influence of data breach magnitude on media tenor over the 180-day period might gradually diminish, potentially replaced by a positive tone from the media towards firms’ responses. Second, the existing literature suggests that journalists tend to concentrate on trending topics rather than consistently scrutinizing an event over two quarters (Wang, Reger and Pfarrer, 2021). To investigate the short-term impact of data breach magnitude versus the long-term impact, we conducted a regression of the data breach magnitude on CAR (Cumulative Abnormal Returns) within various windows, particularly within one or two weeks. We found a significant negative effect in the short term, adding credence to this logic.

Second, although Zavyalova et al. predicted the moderating effect of technical action and ceremonial actions on firms’ data breach consequences (H4a and H4b), we found contrasting evidence in our results. These findings might be explained by considering the different attributes of toy recalls and breaches, including the source of the negative event and its direct or indirect harm to stakeholders. Specifically, regarding Hypothesis 4b, negative events caused by internal misconduct are perceived by stakeholders as more salient (Vergin & Qoronfleh, 1998). Thus, when firms respond to product harm incidents, such as toy recalls, via ceremonial actions, stakeholders may view the response as less genuine and less instrumental in addressing harmful causes (Elsbach, Sutton & Principe, 1998; Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). Conversely, the harm to stakeholders caused by data breaches is less direct and may unfold over longer time windows (Han et al., 2023; Rosati et al., 2017; Schatz & Bashroush, 2016). The complex causality associated with data breaches may also obscure the utility of technical responses. In such instances, a firm's ceremonial actions might be perceived by stakeholders as adequate actions that highlight other positive aspects of the firm, or only tangentially related to data breaches.

Last, our series of robustness tests revealed that researchers should be aware of data source heterogeneity, which can affect the convergent validity and practical substitutability of empirical measures. For example, results from using the LIWC approach and RavenPack approach indicate inconsistencies compared with those of the original study. In terms of practical magnitude, RavenPack results show a much larger magnitude than that of either the LIWC approach or the original study and some inconsistencies in terms of the directions of the effect. For example, regarding the relationship between number of breaches and number of positive articles, Ravenpack results suggest a 2291-article increase for each additional breach, compared with an 88-article increase using LIWC and a 2-article decrease in the original study. These robustness tests suggest that scope differences between data sources resulted in these consistencies. In particular, the LIWC includes traditional media coverage such as WSJ and Financial Times, which appeared in only traditional newswires. Yet, RavenPack's methodology includes additional news articles, blogs, and social media coverage of the firm, which is much more comprehensive than LIWC. However, RavenPack's news sentiment score rating technique follows the same principle of calculating positive and negative sentiments as LIWC.

As another point of contrast, RavenPack's rating is less constrained when multiple firms are mentioned in the text because of its independent rating technique. It also covers a broader spectrum of media coverage than Lexis-Nexis. In recent years, RavenPack data have been widely accepted in finance, economics, and accounting literature to measure news coverage and sentiment regarding public firms (Drake, Guest and Twedt, 2014; Ho, Shi and Zhang, 2013; Smales, 2014; Twedt, 2016). Due to these differences, the RavenPack scale of media tenor is bigger and less positive than the LIWC measure, which ultimately bears on the nature of results found leveraging these data sources.

Practical implications

Beyond our theoretical contributions, this paper also offers practical insights for firms and stakeholders. First, industry context is a critically important consideration, and firms should adapt their post-breach responses to accommodate the industry conditions in which they operate. Specifically, our results suggest that negative media tenor is increased for “strays” or companies experiencing a breach in an industry where breaches do not normally occur. Thus, it appears important for firms to maintain “best in class” solutions to reduce exposure to breaches. Such actions may necessitate ongoing communication with internal stakeholders and training to increase awareness of breach risks. Yet, for firms experiencing a breach in industries where they are common, silence may be the best option, lest they make themselves salient and open to critiques by the media. Pragmatically speaking, our results also highlight useful response strategies for companies experiencing a breach or planning communication strategies in response to a breach.

Limitations and directions for future research

There are several potential limitations of this research. First, although a range of stakeholders beyond the media and stakeholders are important (Donaldson & Preston, 1995), we were unable to examine whether breaches affect other stakeholders, including managers and employees. Yet, because breaches may compromise important data that jeopardizes employee or customer privacy and instigate legal actions against the firm (Munyon & Kane-Frieder, 2015), each of these effects may threaten stakeholders as well as the operations and positioning of the firm.

Second, as outsourcing has become increasingly important for firms (Williamson, 1999), another potential limitation is that we were unable to observe whether the breach occurred through systems developed and maintained by the focal firm or via an outsourcing relationship (e.g., enterprise resource software). Also, because so many firms are involved in developing hardware and software (i.e., constellations of partners), it is typically challenging for the media and other stakeholders to pinpoint the direct causes of such negative events. Building on our earlier discussion of attribution theory, more research is needed that integrates theories involving trust and inter-organizational relationships (Connelly et al., 2018).

Third, although our research model is consistent with impression management and attribution theories, we recognize the possibility that other theoretical lenses might also explain media or stakeholder reactions to breaches. For example, upper echelons theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) proposes that managerial characteristics and experiences impact firm decisions and responses. Thus, executives with prior experience managing breaches may respond more effectively than those lacking experience, helping the organization learn from and adapt to mitigate future breaches. Similarly, our study primarily focused on general media coverage of breaches without differentiating between traditional and social media sources. Although we controlled for the emergence of social media, studies have found different effects of traditional and social media on speed, emotion, and network diffusion about negative events (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017). Consequently, future research is needed to explore how stakeholders weigh different media forms, including those that originate from company press, social media, and traditional media. Recent research also suggests that firm status impacts the depth of media coverage and how negative events become scandals (Han et al., 2023). Although our purpose was to quasi-replicate Zavyalova et al.'s product harm study, these insights may also shed new light on how data breaches become larger scandals in the media over time. Finally, our replication is not without empirical limitations. For example, due to the differences in model specifications and empirical context, we cannot fully replicate Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) original estimation procedure using the Heckman approach to account for the endogeneity of recalls and actions.

Conclusion

Given the recent growth in breaches alongside their potential negative consequences, we examined how firm responses following a data breach shaped media sentiment of that firm. In doing so, we quasi-replicated Zavyalova et al.'s (2012) toy recall study, finding that breaches do not negatively impact the media tenor of firms. However, industry characteristics and firms’ certain responses can alter the media effects of breaches. We hope that this investigation will stimulate further inquiry into the firm-level implications of breaches and other crisis events.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank JOMSR Senior Associate Editor Dr. Xavier Martin and anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. We also wish to thank anonymous reviewers of SMS annual conference and participants in the University of Tennessee Pathways paper-development workshops.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Jiaju Yan

Xinran Wang

Timothy P. Munyon

Notes

Appendix:

References

Ashforth

B. E.

Gibbs

B. W.

1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2): 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177

Baker

W. H.

Hylender

Pamula

C. D.

Porter

Spitler

2011. 2011 Data breach investigations report. Verizon RISK Team. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/04/ Verizon-2011-DBIR_04-13-11.pdf

Bansal

Clelland

2004. Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1): 93–103. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159562

Barnett

M. L.

King

A. A.

2008. Good fences make good neighbors: A longitudinal analysis of an industry self-regulatory institution. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6): 1150–1170. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.35732609

Barona

Anita

E. A. M.

2017. A survey on data breach challenges in cloud computing security: Issues and threats. International conference on circuit, power, and computing technologies. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2017(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCPCT.2017.8074287

Baum

C. F.

Lewbel

2019. Advice on using heteroskedasticity-based identification. The Stata Journal, 19(4): 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X19893614

Benoit

W. L.

1997. Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2): 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0

Berry

Kaul

2016. Replicating the multinationality-performance relationship: Is there an S-curve? Strategic Management Journal, 37(11): 2275–2290. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2567

Bettis

R. A.

Helfat

C. E.

Shaver

J. M.

2016. The necessity, logic, and forms of replication. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11): 2193–2203. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2580

10.

Boyd

B. K.

Gove

Hitt

M. 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

11.

Bracker

J. S.

Keats

B. W.

Pearson

J. N.

1988. Planning and financial performance among small firms in a growth industry. Strategic Management Journal, 9(6): 591–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090606

12.

Bundy

Pfarrer

M. D.

2015. A burden of responsibility: The role of social approval at the onset of a crisis. Academy of Management Review, 40(3): 345–369. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0027

13.

Bundy

Pfarrer

M. D.

Short

C. E.

Coombs

W. T.

2017. Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development. Journal of Management, 43(6): 1661–1692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316680030

14.

Busenbark

J. R.

Graffin

S. D.

Campbell

R. J.

Lee

E. Y.

2022. A marginal effects approach to interpreting main effects and moderation. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1): 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120976838

15.

Butt

U. A.

Amin

Mehmood

Aldabbas

Alharbi

Albaqami

2023. Cloud security threats and solutions: A survey. Wireless Personal Communications, 128(1): 387–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-022-09960-z

16.

Cisco 2015. Annual report. Accessed Jan 1, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/assets/about/ar/ pdf/2015-cisco-annual-report.pdf

17.

Cleeren

Dekimpe

M. G.

Van Heerde

H. J.

2017. Marketing research on product-harm crises: A review, managerial implications, and an agenda for future research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(2017): 593–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0558-1

18.

Connelly

B. L.

Crook

T. R.

Combs

J. G.

Ketchen Jr

D. J.

Aguinis

2018. Competence-and integrity-based trust in interorganizational relationships: Which matters more? Journal of Management, 44(3): 919–945. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315596813

19.

Connelly

B. L.

Lee

K. B.

Tihanyi

Certo

S. T.

Johnson

J. L.

2019. Something in common: Competitive dissimilarity and performance of rivals with common shareholders. Academy of Management Journal, 62(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0515

20.

Coombs

W. T.

2007. Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2007): 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

21.

Culnan

M. J.

Williams

C. C.

2009. How ethics can enhance organizational privacy: Lessons from the choicepoint and TJX data breaches. MIS quarterly, 33(4): 673–687. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650322

22.

Dang

T. L.

Moshirian

Zhang

2015. Commonality in news around the world. Journal of Financial Economics, 116(1): 82–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.11.007

23.

DataBreaches.net 2013. HHS updates its breach tool, but still leaves us pretty much in the dark. https://www.databreaches.net/hhs-updates-its-breach-tool-but-still-leaves-us-pretty-much-in-the-dark/ [April 18, 2018].

24.

Deephouse

D. L.

1996. Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 1024–1039. https://doi.org/10.5465/256722

25.

Deephouse

D. L.

Suchman

2008. Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 49(2008): 77. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387

26.

Diestre

Montauti

Pinto de Sousa

2023. Someone else to blame: The effectiveness of egocentric and Alter-centric impression management tactics in the U.S. Food retail industry. Organization Science, 34(3): 1134–1156. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1612

27.

Donaldson

Preston

L. E.

1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992

28.

Drake

M. S.

Guest

N. M.

Twedt

B. J.

2014. The media and mispricing: The role of the business press in the pricing of accounting information. The Accounting Review, 89(5): 1673–1701. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50757

29.

Durand

Vergne

J. P.

2015. Asset divestment as a response to media attacks in stigmatized industries. Strategic Management Journal, 36(8): 1205–1223. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2280

30.

Elsbach

K. D.

Sutton

R. I.

Principe

K. E.

1998. Averting expected challenges through anticipatory impression management: A study of hospital billing. Organization Science, 9(1): 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.1.68

31.

Fiske

S. T.

Taylor

S. E.

2013. Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage.

32.

Fiss

P. C.

Zajac

E. J.

2006. The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6): 1173–1193. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.23478255

33.

Flammer

2013. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3): 758–781. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0744

34.

Ford

J. D.

1985. The effects of causal attributions on decision makers’ responses to performance downturns. Academy of Management Review, 10(4): 770–786. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4279100

35.

Försterling

2001. Attribution. In An introduction to theories, research and applications (pp. 1–10). Hove, England: Psychology. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315804514

36.

Gong

T. J.

C. M. J.

Huang

K. F.

2021. Strategic similarity and firm performance: Multiple replications of Deephouse (1999). Strategic Organization, 19(2): 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127019890342

37.

Graf-Vlachy

Oliver

A. G.

Banfield

König

Bundy

2020. Media coverage of firms: Background, integration, and directions for future research. Journal of Management, 46(1): 36–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319864155

38.

Greenwald

A. G.

Banaji

M. R.

1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1): 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4

39.

Greven

H. R.

Palmer

Pozner

2010. Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1): 53–107. https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/19416521003654186

40.

Hambrick

D. C.

Mason

P. A.

1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628

41.

Han

J.-H.

Pollock

T. G.

Graffin

S. D.

2023. Now you see me: How status and categorical proximity shape misconduct scandalization. Academy of Management Journal. forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2022.0365

42.

Harvey

Madison

Martinko

Crook

T. R.

Crook

T. A.

2014. Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: The road traveled and the path ahead. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2): 128–146. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0175

43.

Hersel

M. C.

Helmuth

C. A.

Zorn

M. L.

Shropshire

Ridge

J. W.

2019. The corrective actions organizations pursue following misconduct: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2): 547–585. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0090

44.

K. Y.

Shi

Zhang

2013. How does news sentiment impact asset volatility? Evidence from long memory and regime-switching approaches. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 26(2013): 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2013.02.015

45.

Howard

M. D.

Withers

M. C.

Carnes

C. M.

Hillman

A. J.

2016. Friends or strangers? It all depends on context: A replication and extension of B eckman, Haunschild, and P hillips (2004). Strategic Management Journal, 37(11): 2222–2234. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2573

46.

Kamiya

Kang

J. K.

Kim

Milidonis

Stulz

R. M.

2021. Risk management, firm reputation, and the impact of successful cyberattacks on target firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 139(3): 719–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.05.019

47.

Kaplan

A. M.

Haenlein

2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1): 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

48.

Kelley

H. H.

1973. The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2): 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225

49.

Kellner

2004. The media and social problems. In Ritzer

(Ed.) Handbook of Social Problems: A Comparative International Perspective: 209–226. Thousand Oaks: Sage, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412973526

50.

Kenny

D. A.

1979. Correlation and Causality. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

51.

Kibler

Mandl

Farny

Salmivaara

2021. Post-failure impression management: A typology of entrepreneurs’ public narratives after business closure. Human Relations, 74(2): 286–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719899465

52.

Kim

P. H.

Ferrin

D. L.

Cooper

C. D.

Dirks

K. T.

2004. Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1): 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104

53.

Köhler

Cortina

J. M.

2021. Play it again, Sam! An analysis of constructive replication in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 47(2): 488–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319843985

54.

Kutner

Nachtsheim

Neter

2004. Applied Linear Statistical Models. New York: McGraw-Hill.

55.

Lamin

Zaheer

2012. Wall Street vs. Main Street: Firm strategies for defending legitimacy and their impact on different stakeholders. Organization Science, 23(1): 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0631

56.

Leland

H. E.

2007. Financial synergies and the optimal scope of the firm: Implications for mergers, spinoffs, and structured finance. The Journal of Finance, 62(2): 765–807. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2007.01223.x

57.

Leonardi

P. M.

Vaast

2017. Social media and their affordances for organizing: A review and agenda for research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1): 150–188. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0144

58.

LePine

J. A.

Van Dyne

2001. Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 67–84. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011953

59.

Lewbel

2012. Using heteroscedasticity to identify and estimate mismeasured and endogenous regressor models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 30(1): 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2012.643126

60.

Lewbel

2018. Identification and estimation using heteroscedasticity without instruments: The binary endogenous regressor case. Economics Letters, 165(2018): 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.01.003

61.

Linck

J. S.

Netter

J. M.

Yang

2008. The determinants of board structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(2): 308–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.03.004

62.

Lingle

J. H.

Geva

Ostrom

T. M.

Leippe

M. R.

Baumgardner

M. H.

1979. Thematic effects of person judgments on impression organization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(5): 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.5.674

63.

Lyon

T. P.

Maxwell

J. W.

2011. Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1): 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x

64.

Madsen

P. M.

Desai

2010. Failing to learn? The effects of failure and success on organizational learning in the global orbital launch vehicle industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3): 451–476. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51467631

65.

Malhotra

Kubowicz Malhotra

2011. Evaluating customer information breaches as service failures: An event study approach. Journal of Service Research, 14(1): 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510383409

66.

Martin

K. D.

Borah

Palmatier

R. W.

2017. Data privacy: Effects on customer and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 81(1): 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0497

67.

Mauri

A. J.

Michaels

M. P.

1998. Firm and industry effects within strategic management: An empirical examination. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3): 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199803)19:3<211::AID-SMJ947>3.0.CO;2-T

68.

Mezias

S. J.

Regnier

M. O.

2007. Walking the walk as well as talking the talk: Replication and the normal science paradigm in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 5(3): 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127007079958

69.

Mishina

Block

E. S.

Mannor

M. J.

2012. The path dependence of organizational reputation: How social judgment influences assessments of capability and character. Strategic Management Journal, 33(5): 459–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.958

70.

Morad

2014. Target makes a comeback one year after security breach. Retreived April 18, 2018, from LifeLock: https://www.lifelock.com/education/target-makes-comeback-almost-year-security-breach/

71.

Munyon

T. P.

Jenkins

M. T.

Crook

T. R.

Edwards

Harvey

N. P.

2019. Consequential cognition: Exploring how attribution theory sheds new light on the firm-level consequences of product recalls. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(5): 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2350

72.

Munyon

T. P.

Kane-Frieder

R. E.

2015. The politics of employment liability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1): 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1951

73.

Naumovska

Zajac

E. J.

2022. How inductive and deductive generalization shape the guilt-by-association phenomenon among firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 33(1): 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1440

74.

Perez-Quiros

Timmermann

2000. Firm size and cyclical variations in stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 55(3): 1229–1262. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00246

75.

Pfarrer

M. D.

Decelles

K. A.

Smith

K. G.

Taylor

M. S.

2008a. After the fall: Reintegrating the corrupt organization. Academy of Management Review, 33(3): 730–749. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.32465757

76.

Pfarrer

M. D.

Pollock

T. G.

Rindova

V. 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.

Pfarrer

M. D.

Smith

K. G.

Bartol

K. M.

Khanin

D. M.

Zhang

2008b. Coming forward: The effects of social and regulatory forces on the voluntary restatement of earnings subsequent to wrongdoing. Organization Science, 19(3): 386–403. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0323

78.

Pollock

T. G.

Rindova

V. 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

79.

RavenPack News Analytics 2016. User Guide and Service Overview. RavenPack. Retrieved from https://www.ravenpack.com/page/ravenpack-news-analytics/

80.

Rindova

V. P.

Williamson

I. O.

Petkova

A. P.

Sever

J. 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.19573108

81.

Roodman

D. M.

2009. A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71: 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00542.x

82.

Rosati

Cummins

Deeney

Gogolin

Van der Werff

Lynn

2017. The effect of data breach announcements beyond the stock price: Empirical evidence on market activity. International Review of Financial Analysis, 49(1): 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2017.01.001

83.

Roulet

T. J.

2020. The power of being divisive: Understanding negative social evaluations. Redwood City, CA, USA: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503613904

84.

Roulet

T. J.

Pichler

2020. Blame game theory: Scapegoating, whistleblowing and discursive struggles following accusations of organizational misconduct. Organization Theory, 1(4): 2631787720975192. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720975192

85.

Schatz

Bashroush

2016. The impact of repeated data breach events on organisations’ market value. Information & Computer Security, 24(1): 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICS-03-2014-0020

86.

Sjovall

A. M.

Talk

A. C.

2004. From actions to impressions: Cognitive attribution theory and the formation of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2004): 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540225

87.

Smales

L. A.

2014. News sentiment in the gold futures market. Journal of Banking & Finance, 49(2014): 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.09.006

88.

Stevens

2010. Federal information security and data breach notification laws. Collingdale, PA, USA: DIANE Publishing.

89.

Tang

C. S.

2008. Making products safe: Process and challenges. International Commerce Review: ECR Journal, 8(1): 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12146-008-0028-2

90.

Tsang

E. W.

Kwan

K. M.

1999. Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 759–780. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553252

91.

Twedt

2016. Spreading the word: Price discovery and newswire dissemination of management earnings guidance. The Accounting Review, 91(1): 317–346. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51129

92.

Ulsch

2014. Cyber threat!: how to manage the growing risk of cyber attacks. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118915028

93.

Vergin

R. C.

Qoronfleh

M. W.

1998. Corporate reputation and the stock market. Business Horizons, 41(1): 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-6813(98)90060-X

94.

Wang

Reger

R. K.

Pfarrer

M. D.

2021. Faster, hotter, and more linked in: Managing social disapproval in the social media era. Academy of Management Review, 46(2): 275–298. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0375

95.

Weiner

1985. An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4): 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

96.

Weiner

1995. Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York City, NY, USA: Guilford Press.

97.

Weiner

2006. Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach. London, UK: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410615749

98.

Williamson

O. E.

1999. Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12): 1087–1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199912)20:12<1087::AID-SMJ71>3.0.CO;2-Z

99.

Wooldridge

J. M.

2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Boston, MA: MIT press.

100.

Xia

2011. Mutual dependence, partner substitutability, and repeated partnership: The survival of cross-border alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3): 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.87

101.

Zavyalova

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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0037

102.

Zavyalova

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(5): 1079–1101. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0608

103.

Zhang

X. F.

2006. Information uncertainty and stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 61(1): 105–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00831.x