The Impact of Anger and Dependence on Supplier Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The research combines social exchange theory with the appraisal tendency framework to explore how anger impacts supplier decision-making when threatened by customers. When making the decision whether or not to comply with customers, suppliers may be influenced by other factors explored in this study, including relational norms, procedural justice, cost-benefit analysis, mimetic isomorphism, relationship quality, dependence, and interdependence.Method Over 1,000 respondents were recruited through Mechanical Turk and participated in a scenario-based experiment with vignettes. Using high/low levels of anger, and high-low levels of dependence, each condition assessed compliance and relative importance of supplier outcomes. The study employed mixed-effects logistic regression with a random intercept, Odds-Ratios, and a three-way repeated-measures ANOVA to test hypotheses.Findings This study demonstrates that anger reduces compliance and skews five decision-making criteria. Specifically, anger inflates the influence of (1) relational norm violation and (2) procedural justice but reduces the importance of (3) mimetic isomorphism. Contingent upon whether the supplier is dependent or not, anger can lower the influence of (4) cost-benefit analysis (if not dependent) and (5) relationship quality (if dependent).Research Implications This manuscript addresses the calls for more research by the academic community suggesting that in order to understand B2B exchanges more deeply Social Exchange Theory (SET) should be combined with other theories.While integrating the appraisal tendency framework (ATF) and SET, this study reduces criticisms about prior research that ignore emotions in social exchanges and provides ideas for how organizational decision-making can be influenced by anger.Practical Implications By understanding how anger influences suppliers, both parties can make better decisions and decrease the possibility of relationship dissolution.Originality/Value/Contribution This study highlights the role of anger in organizational decision-making.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".