 |
 |
Call for Papers: Mental Models and Cognitive Frames in International Business Submission deadline: February 15 Special Issue Editorial Team: Sokol Celo (Sawyer Business School, Suffolk University) James Nebus (Sawyer Business School, Suffolk University) William Newburry (Florida International University), AIB Insights Editor Elizabeth L. Rose (Indian Institute of Management Udaipur), AIB Insights Associate Editor AIB Insights is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes Actionable International Business Insights. Short, topical, thought-provoking articles should be akin to written "TED Talks", with an applied/actionable focus; articles should be heavy on insights, but light on references, jargon, methods, and theory. These insights must be relevant to the international business community of researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and educators. With this call for papers, we invite submissions that offer novel and applied insights addressing managers' mental models and cognitive frames used in decision-making in international business. Cognitive psychology is concerned with the study of mental processes such as attention, perception, memory, and thinking. Its applications in strategic management and organization theory have provided insights into how the cognitive structures and processes, or mental models, individuals use to make sense of the world around them are formed (e.g., Kaplan, 2011; Maitland and Sammartino, 2015a). It has also drawn our attention to the importance of assessing the accuracy of such mental models, since ". while these knowledge structures may transform complex information environments into tractable ones, they may also blind strategy makers, ., compromising their ability to make sound strategic decisions" (Walsh, 1995). While IB literature recognizes that the accuracy of managerial mental models is a critical factor in the success of international business operations, studies dedicated to the topic are rare. The purpose of this special issue is to provide a forum for IB-scholars to have a conversation about this important topic and give practical advice for managers and practitioners. IB-research has not sufficiently leveraged theories of cognitive psychology to explain IB phenomena. As Buckley, Devinney, and Louviere (2007: 1087) point out, IB "borrowed heavily from economics, sociology, social psychology and management but little from cognitive psychology" further arguing that "(T)his has limited the field in many ways." That said, in IB-research, cognitive psychology has been applied in various ways, such as the study of cross-cultural differences in cognitive processes, the investigation of cross-country variation in communication processes and implications for companies that operate in various markets, and in case of international marketing, the study of the effect of cultural differences in cognitive processes on consumer behavior. Yet, the majority of IB research does not explicitly incorporate managerial cognition despite the cognitive foundations of several key constructs that are crucial to a variety of important decisions, such as internationalization (e.g., Maitland & Sammartino, 2015b) and entry mode (e.g., Harzing, 2004). Studies that do employ cognitive psychology (e.g., Buckley et al., 2007) share a common finding: there is substantial heterogeneity in the mental models of FDI decision makers having the same information. Leveraging cognitive theories on heuristics, Bingham and Eisenhardt (2011) found that MNEs during internationalization, develop a small and increasingly strategic portfolio of heuristics. Nebus and Celo (2020) employ the contrast model in cognitive psychology (Tversky, 1977) to conduct a set of experiments finding evidence of systemic biases in country similarity perceptions. Given the dearth of research on managerial mental models in IB-research, it is not surprising that studies focusing on the accuracy of such models and its effect on MNE outcomes are rare. They mostly deal with the accuracy of mental models in the context of the perception of 'country distance.' These studies demonstrate how managers' past experiences and existing beliefs lead to under- or overestimation of the differences of a foreign country from their own. These under- or over-estimations may in turn negatively affect performance (Baack et al., 2015; O'Grady and Lane, 1996), or knowledge transfer and organizational commitment in cross-border M&As (Yildiz and Fey, 2016). A general finding of this line of research is that the accuracy of managerial mental frames can have a significant impact on the success of international business operations (e.g., Maitland and Sammartino, 2015b; Mukherji et al., 2013). Inaccurate or flawed managerial mental frames can lead to poor decision-making, communication breakdowns, and ultimately, failed business ventures. It is therefore essential for managers involved in international business to develop accurate mental frames that enable them to navigate the complexities of global business operations. All the above literature sheds light on the decision-making pitfalls resulting from inaccurate mental models. However, it remains mostly descriptive. This special issue seeks to build on this research by taking stock of what we have learned and applying it to prescribe methods and best practices that increase the accuracy of the mental models and lead to improved managerial decision-making. Examples of topics the special issue editors will consider for publication include (but are not limited to) the following: * What cognitive psychology theories, that have not previously been applied in IB, would help IB researchers? * What methods can be used to assess the accuracy of managers' cognitive frames in international business? * How can managers identify and correct any cognitive biases that may affect their decision-making in international business? What are some best practices? * How can our research establish the connection between cognition and strategic outcomes? What are some of the methodological challenges? * How can organizations foster a culture that promotes the development and assessment of accurate cognitive frames among managers in international business? * Do more recent events have a disproportionate effect on managerial perception or is managerial perception based on a larger sample of events over a longer time period? How do crises situations (such as the Covid-19) challenge the established mental frames of managers? * How does culture affect managers' perception of risk? * Submission Process AIB Insights is an official publication of the Academy of International Business that provides an outlet for short (around 2500 words, inclusive), interesting, topical, current, and thought-provoking articles. Colleagues interested in submitting to this Special Issue should consult the AIB Insights <https://insights.aib.world/for-authors> Editorial Policy and use the <http://app.scholasticahq.com/submissions/aibinsights/new> Online Manuscript Submission System. Please mention "Special Issue: Mental Issues and Cognitive Frames" in your cover letter when submitting your manuscript. Deadline The full manuscript submission deadline is February 15, 2024. Expected publication of the Special Issue is late 2024. Note that, in order to accelerate the review process, manuscripts submitted prior to the submission deadline will be reviewed upon receipt. References Baack, D. W., Dow, D., Parente, R., & Bacon, D. R. (2015). Confirmation bias in individual-level perceptions of psychic distance: An experimental investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(8), 938-959. Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. Rational heuristics: the 'simple rules' that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1437-1464. Buckley, P. J., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. 2007. Do managers behave the way theory suggests? A choice-theoretic examination of foreign direct investment location decision-making. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(7), 1069-1094. Harzing, A. W. (2004). The role of culture in entry-mode studies: From neglect to myopia? Advances in International Management, 15, 75-127. Kaplan, S. (2011). Research in cognition and strategy: Reflections on two decades of progress and a look to the future. Journal of Management Studies, 48(3), 665-695. Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. (2015a). Decision making and uncertainty: The role of heuristics and experience in assessing a politically hazardous environment. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1554-1578. Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. (2015b). Managerial cognition and internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(7), 733-760. Mukherji, A., Mukherji, J., Dibrell, C., & Francis, J. D. (2013). Overbidding in cross-border acquisitions: Misperceptions in assessing and valuing knowledge. Journal of World Business, 48(1), 39-46. Nebus, J., & Celo, S. (2020). Cognitive biases in the perceptions of country distance. Journal of International Management, 26(3), 100774. O'Grady, S., & Lane, H. (1996). The psychic distance paradox. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2), 309-333. Tversky, A., 1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84 (4), 327-352. Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6, 280-321. Yildiz, H. E., & Fey, C. F. (2016). Are the extent and effect of psychic distance perceptions symmetrical in cross-border M&As? Evidence from a two-country study. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(7), 830-857. ____ AIB-L is brought to you by the Academy of International Business. For information: http://aib.msu.edu/community/aib-l.asp To post message: [log in to unmask] For assistance: [log in to unmask] --- You must be an active AIB member to post to AIB-L . AIB-L has a moderator which checks messages for basic relevance. However, AIB does not edit or screen messages for accuracy or reliability of content. All subscribers are recommended to perform their own due-diligence before responding to any requests or calls. AIB accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided.