On the Role of Institutional Logics in Legitimacy Evaluations: The Effects of Pricing and CSR Signals on Organizational Legitimacy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between institutional logics and organizational legitimacy remains largely unaddressed in organizational theory and management research. We explore how individual evaluators primed with a particular institutional logic react to organizational signals sent by a firm's product/service pricing and by its engagement in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. In three experimental studies, we identify how the activation of a market logic or a family logic in evaluators' minds moderates the effect of pricing and CSR engagement signals on their judgments of legitimacy of a firm, as well as on their behavioral intentions. An unexpected finding from our study was that, while participants primed with the family logic reacted positively to a CSR engagement signal sent by the firm but remained indifferent to a market-based premium-pricing signal, those primed with the market logic reacted positively to both premium-pricing and CSR engagement signals, suggesting that CSR engagement forms part of their understanding of the market logic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it