Familiarity, Creativity, and the Adoption of Category Labels in Technology Industries

References

• Abernathy WJ, Clark KB (1985) Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Res. Policy 14(1):3–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abernathy WJ, Utterback JM (1978) Patterns of industrial innovation. Tech. Rev. 80(7):40–47.Google Scholar
• Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(4):604–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anthony CC, Nelson AJ, Tripsas M (2016) “Who are you?... I really wanna know”: Product meaning and competitive positioning in the nascent synthesizer industry. Strategy Sci. 1(3):129–233.Link, Google Scholar
• Argyres N, Bigelow L, Nickerson JA (2015) Dominant designs, innovation shocks, and the follower’s dilemma. Strategic Management J. 36(2):216–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bauer L (1990) Be-heading the word. J. Linguistics 26(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Tripsas M (2012) The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: The evolution of digital cameras. Strategic Management J. 33(3):277–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Anal. 20(3):351–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bingham CB, Kahl SJ (2013) The process of schema emergence: Assimilation, deconstruction, unitization and the plurality of analogies. Acad. Management J. 56(1):14–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bisetto A, Scalise S (2005) The classification of compounds. Lingue Linguaggio 4(2):319–332.Google Scholar
• Bowker GC, Star SL (2000) Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psych. Sci. 6(1):3–5.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carnabuci G, Operti E, Kovács B (2015) The categorical imperative and structural reproduction: Dynamics of technological entry in the semiconductor industry. Organ. Sci. 26(6):1734–1751.Link, Google Scholar
• Cattani G, Porac J, Thomas H (2017) Categories and competition. Strategic Management J. 38(1):64–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cecere G, Corrocher N, Battaglia RD (2015) Innovation and competition in the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design? Telecomm. Policy 39(3):162–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark KB (1985) The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Res. Policy 14(5):235–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collins AM, Loftus EF (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psych. Rev. 82(6):407–428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dalpiaz E, Di Stefano G (2018) A universe of stories: Mobilizing narrative practices during transformative change. Strategic Management J. 39(3):664–696.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dalpiaz E, Rindova V, Ravasi D (2016) Combining logics to transform organizational agency: Blending industry and art at Alessi. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(3):347–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dobbin F, Dowd T (2000) The market that antitrust built: Public policy, private coercion, and railroad acquisitions, 1825 to 1922. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 65(5):631–657.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Downing P (1977) On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53(4):810–842.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Durand R, Paolella L (2013) Category stretching: Reorienting research on categories in strategy, entrepreneurship, and organization theory. J. Management Stud. 50(6):1100–1123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Durand R, Vergne JP (2015) Asset divestment as a response to media attacks in stigmatized industries. Strategic Management J. 36(8):1205–1223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenman M (2013) Understanding aesthetic innovation in the context of technological evolution. Acad. Management Rev. 38(3):332–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Etzion D, Ferraro F (2010) The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organ. Sci. 21(5):1092–1107.Link, Google Scholar
• Fieller EC (1954) Some problems in interval estimation. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. B 16(2):175–185.Google Scholar
• Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Sci. 47(1):117–132.Link, Google Scholar
• Fonti F, Maoret M, Whitbred R (2017) Free‐riding in multi‐party alliances: The role of perceived alliance effectiveness and peers’ collaboration in a research consortium. Strategic Management J. 38(2):363–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foster RN (1988) Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage (Summit Books, Orangeville, ON, Canada).Google Scholar
• Garud R, Rappa MA (1994) A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organ. Sci. 5(3):344–362.Link, Google Scholar
• Gerlach J, Stock RM, Buxmann P (2014) Never forget where you’re coming from: The role of existing products in adoptions of substituting technologies. J. Product Innovation Management 31(S1):133–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gourville JT (2006) Eager sellers, stony buyers: Understanding the psychology of new-product adoption. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84(6):99–106.Google Scholar
• Grodal S, Gotsopoulos A, Suarez FF (2015) The coevolution of technologies and categories during industry emergence. Acad. Management Rev. 40(3):423–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guevara E, Scalise S (2009) Searching for universals in compounding. Scalise S, Magni E, Bisetto A, eds. Universals of Language Today (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherlands), 101–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gurses K, Ozcan P (2015) Entrepreneurship in regulated markets: framing contests and collective action to introduce pay TV in the US. Acad. Management J. 58(6):1709–1739.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haans RF, Pieters C, He ZL (2016) Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U‐and inverted U‐shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management J. 37(7):1177–1195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon AB, Douglas Y (2001) When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(3):476–501.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu G, Hannan MTKoçak Ö (2009) Multiple category memberships in markets: An integrative theory and two empirical tests. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74(1):150–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones C, Maoret M, Massa FG, Svejenova S (2012) Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and expansion of the de novo category “modern architecture,” 1870–1975. Organ. Sci. 23(6):1523–1545.Link, Google Scholar
• Kahl SJ, Grodal S (2016) Discursive strategies and radical technological change: Multilevel discourse analysis of the early computer (1947–1958). Strategic Management J. 37(1):149–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Tripsas M (2008) Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Res. Policy 37(5):790–805.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kennedy MT, Fiss PC (2013) An ontological turn in categories research: From standards of legitimacy to evidence of actuality. J. Management Stud. 50(6):1138–1154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lo JYC, Kennedy MT (2014) Approval in nanotechnology patents: Micro and macro factors that affect reactions to category blending. Organ. Sci. 26(1):119–139.Link, Google Scholar
• Lounsbury M, Glynn MA (2001) Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management J. 22(6‐7):545–564.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lounsbury M, Ventresca M, Hirsch PM (2003) Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural–political perspective on US recycling. Sociol. Econom. Rev. 1(1):71–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martins LL, Rindova VP, Greenbaum BE (2015) Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: a cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 9(1):99–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazzucato M (2015) The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (Anthem Press, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Montauti M, Wezel FC (2016) Charting the territory: Recombination as a source of uncertainty for potential entrants. Organ. Sci. 27(4):801–1064.Link, Google Scholar
• Navis C, Glynn MA (2010) How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(3):439–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Negro G, Leung MD (2013) “Actual” and perceptual effects of category spanning. Organ. Sci. 24(3):684–696.Link, Google Scholar
• Negro G, Koçak Ö, Hsu G (2010) Research on categories in the sociology of organizations. Res. Sociol. Organ. 31:3–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Norman DA (2004) Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things (Basic Civitas Books, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ, Gash DC (1994) Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Trans. Inform. Systems 12(2):174–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG (2010) Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment Decision Making 5(5):411–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piazza A, Perretti F (2015) Categorical stigma and firm disengagement: Nuclear power generation in the United States, 1970-2000. Organ. Sci. 26(3):724–742.Link, Google Scholar
• Pinker S (1994) How could a child use verb syntax to learn verb semantics? Lingua 92:377–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pontikes EG (2012) Two sides of the same coin how ambiguous classification affects multiple audiences’ evaluations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 57(1):81–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porac JF, Rosa JA, Saxon MS (2001) America's family vehicle: the minivan market as an enacted conceptual system. Garud R, Karnoe P, eds. Path Dependence and Path Creation (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ),213–242.Google Scholar
• Quillian MR (1969) The teachable language comprehender: A simulation program and theory of language. Comm. ACM. 12(8):459–476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riedl M, Geishecker I (2014) Keep it simple: Estimation strategies for ordered response models with fixed effects. J. Appl. Statist. 41(11):2358–2374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rindova VP, Petkova AP (2007) When is a new thing a good thing? Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations. Organ. Sci. 18(2):217–232.Link, Google Scholar
• Rosa JA, Judson K, Porac J (2005) On the sociocognitive dynamics between categories and product models in mature markets. J. Bus. Res. 58(1):62–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosch E (1978) Principles of categorization. Rosch E, Lloyd BB, eds. Cognition and Categorization (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), 27–48.Google Scholar
• Ruef M, Patterson K (2009) Credit and classification: The impact of industry boundaries in nineteenth-century America. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(3):486–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Russo MV (2001) Institutions, exchange relations, and the emergence of new fields: Regulatory policies and the independent power production in America, 1978-1992. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(1):57–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling M (1998) Technological lockout: An integrative model of the economic and strategic factors driving technology success and failure. Acad. Management Rev. 23(2):267–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schumpeter JA (1939) Business Cycles, vol. 1 (McGraw-Hill, New York), 161–174.Google Scholar
• Sine WD, Haveman HA, Tolbert PS (2005) Risky business? Entrepreneurship in the new independent power sector. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(2):200–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suarez FF, Lanzolla G (2005) The half-truth of first-mover advantage. Harvard Bus. Rev. 83(4):121.Google Scholar
• Suarez FF, Utterback JM (1995) Dominant designs and the survival of firms. Strategic Management J. 16(6):415–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suarez FF, Grodal S, Gotsopoulos A (2015) Perfect timing? Dominant category, dominant design, and the window of opportunity for firm entry. Strategic Management J. 36(3):437–448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(3):439–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Utterback J (1994) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change (Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468–472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vergne JP (2012) Stigmatized categories and public disapproval of organizations: A mixed-methods study of the global arms industry, 1996–2007. Acad. Management J. 55(5):1027–1052.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Verhaal JC, Khessina OM, Dobrev SD (2015) Oppositional product names, organizational identities, and product appeal. Organ. Sci. 26(5):1466–1484.Link, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (1999) The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5):1398–1438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (2000) Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and de-diversification. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(3):591–619.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (2016) Optimal distinctiveness revisited: An integrative framework for understanding the balance between differentiation and conformity in individual and organizational identities. Pratt MG, Schultz M, Ashforth BE, Ravasi D, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity (Oxford University Press, New York), 183–199.Google Scholar