Search

Income inequality is a growing social issue in the United States, yet little research has examined whether and how it affects consumers' everyday purchasing decisions. To address this gap, we analyze the role of income inequality in shopper behavior, namely grocery shoppers' preference for private labels versus national brands. Since income inequality increases people's interest in brands that are associated with higher status than others, we predict that shoppers facing higher inequality have a stronger preference for national brands rather than private labels. The results support our thesis: Americans living in places with high versus low income inequality include fewer private label items in their shopping baskets and are willing to pay a higher premium for national brands. Further, consistent with social comparison theory, we find that the link between income inequality and preference for private labels versus national brands is stronger when people have higher social comparison orientation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Networks are a key source of social capital for achieving goals in professional and personal settings. Yet, despite the clear benefits of having an extensive network, individuals often shy away from the opportunity to create new connections because engaging in instrumental networking can make them feel morally impure. In this article, we explore how the motives people have when engaging in networking impact these feelings and, as result, change how frequently they engage in networking and their job performance. Across a correlational survey study, a laboratory experiment (with samples from the United States and Italy), two online studies, an organizational network survey study, and a field experiment with professionals (total N = 2,551), we examine how self-regulatory focus, whether promotion or prevention, affects people's experience of and outcomes from networking. We find that a promotion focus, as compared to a prevention focus or a control condition, is beneficial to professional networking, as it lowers feelings of moral impurity from instrumental networking. As such, networking with a promotion focus increases the frequency of instrumental networking as compared to a control condition, whereas networking with a prevention focus decreases frequency of instrumental networking as compared to a control condition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: Surgical excellence demands teamwork. Poor team behaviors negatively affect team performance and are associated with adverse events and worse outcomes. Interventions to improve surgical teamwork focusing on frontline team members' nontechnical skills have proliferated but shown mixed results. Literature on teamwork in organizations suggests that team behaviors are also contingent on psychosocial, cultural, and organizational factors. This study examined factors influencing surgical team behaviors to inform more contextually sensitive and effective approaches to optimizing surgical teamwork., Methods: This qualitative study of cardiac surgical teams in a large United States teaching hospital included 34 semistructured interviews. Thematic network analysis was used to examine perceptions of ideal teamwork and factors influencing team behaviors in the operating room., Results: Perceptions of ideal teamwork were largely shared, but team members held discrepant views of which team and leadership behaviors enhanced or undermined teamwork. Other factors affecting team behaviors were related to the local organizational culture, including management of staff behavior, variable case demands, and team members' technical competence, and fitness of organizational structures and processes to support teamwork. These factors affected perceptions of what constituted optimal interpersonal and team behaviors in the operating room., Conclusions: Team behaviors are contextually contingent and organizationally determined, and beliefs about optimal behaviors are not necessarily shared. Interventions to optimize surgical teamwork require establishing consensus regarding best practice, ability to adapt as circumstances require, and organizational commitment to addressing contextual factors that affect teams., (Copyright © 2018 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Dishonesty and unethical behavior are widespread in the public and private sectors and cause immense annual losses. For instance, estimates of U.S. annual losses indicate $1 trillion paid in bribes, $270 billion lost due to unreported income, and $42 billion lost in retail due to shoplifting and employee theft. In this article, we draw on insights from the growing fields of moral psychology and behavioral ethics to present a three-principle framework we call REVISE. This framework classifies forces that affect dishonesty into three main categories and then redirects those forces to encourage moral behavior. The first principle, reminding, emphasizes the effectiveness of subtle cues that increase the salience of morality and decrease people's ability to justify dishonesty. The second principle, visibility, aims to restrict anonymity, prompt peer monitoring, and elicit responsible norms. The third principle, self-engagement, increases people's motivation to maintain a positive self-perception as a moral person and helps bridge the gap between moral values and actual behavior. The REVISE framework can guide the design of policy interventions to defeat dishonesty., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

An organization with a strong learning culture faces the unpredictable deftly. However, a concrete method for understanding precisely how an institution learns and for identifying specific steps to help it learn better has remained elusive. A new survey instrument from professors Garvin and Edmondson of Harvard Business School and assistant professor Gino of Carnegie Mellon University allows you to ground your efforts in becoming a learning organization. The tool's conceptual foundation is what the authors call the three building blocks of a learning organization. The first, a supportive learning environment, comprises psychological safety, appreciation of differences, openness to new ideas, and time for reflection. The second, concrete learning processes and practices, includes experimentation, information collection and analysis, and education and training. These two complementary elements are fortified by the final building block: leadership that reinforces learning. The survey instrument enables a granular examination of all these particulars, scores each of them, and provides a framework for detailed, comparative analysis. You can make comparisons within and among your institution's functional areas, between your organization and others, and against benchmarks that the authors have derived from their surveys of hundreds of executives in many industries. After discussing how to use their tool, the authors share the insights they acquired as they developed it. Above all, they emphasize the importance of dialogue and diagnosis as you nurture your company and its processes with the aim of becoming a learning organization. The authors' goal--and the purpose of their tool--is to help you paint an honest picture of your firm's learning culture and of the leaders who set its tone.