Entrepreneurial Market Leadership Claims, Cultural Resonance, and Investor Evaluations in Nascent Markets: The Goldilocks Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cultural entrepreneurship research emphasizes entrepreneurs’ use of cultural resources to influence audience evaluations through resonance. However, the process by which such cultural resonance is achieved remains underexplored, particularly as an intermediary outcome. We investigate how cultural resonance may be attained by focusing on entrepreneurs’ use of a prevalent cultural resource in nascent markets: market leadership claims. Incorporating insights from social psychological research, we propose that the frequency of these claims becomes an important prompt in triggering investors’ cognitive processing and affects the attainment of cultural resonance. Specifically, we theorize a ‘Goldilocks effect’: a venture’s increased claiming frequency initially enhances resonance with investors, resulting in more favourable evaluations, but excessive claims reduce it, resulting in less favourable evaluations. Using a multimethod approach comprising an archival study and an experiment, we find support for our theory. These findings offer new insights into research on cultural entrepreneurship, discursive strategy, and nascent market strategies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".