Suchergebnisse

Abstract
"Companies are relying more and more on online communication to reach consumers. While some viral campaigns are tremendously successful, others remain far below expectations. But why are certain pieces of online content more viral than others?
An analysis conducted on the New York Times' most-emailed list, along with further experimental evidence, showed that positive content is more viral than negative content. However, the relationship between emotion and social transmission is more complex than valence alone. Virality is driven, in part, by activation and arousal. Content that evokes either high-arousal positive emotions (awe) or negative emotions (anger or anxiety) tends to be more viral. Content that evokes low arousal or deactivating emotions (e.g., sadness) tends to be less viral. These results were also true when examining how surprising, interesting, or practically useful content is (all of which are positively linked to virality), as well as external drivers of attention (e.g., how prominently content is featured). Taking the effect of emotions into account helps to design effective viral marketing campaigns.
"

We investigate the role of workgroup gender and race composition on the career mobility of professionals in "up-or-out" organizations. We develop a nuanced perspective on the potential career mobility effects of workgroup demography by integrating the social identification processes of cohesion, competition, and comparison. Using five years of personnel data from a large law firm, we examine the influence of demographic match with workgroup superiors and workgroup peers on attorneys' likelihood of turnover and promotion. Survival analyses reveal that higher proportions of same-sex superiors enhance junior professionals' career mobility. On the flip side, we observe mobility costs accruing to professionals in workgroups with higher proportions of same-sex and same-race peers. Qualitative data offer insights into the social identification processes underlying demographic similarity effects on turnover and promotion in professional service organizations.

People make personal plans regarding whether, when, where, and how to undertake certain actions. We discuss three questions related to personal plans. First, what are the effects of plans on behavior? Second, when are plans formed? Third, how do plans deviate from optimality? For each of these questions, we (a) offer a brief overview of research that sheds light on the issue and (b) identify gaps in current knowledge. We emphasize connections to the growing theoretical literature that gives personal plans a substantive role, but we conclude that more research is needed, especially on the latter two questions we cover.

Abstract
How can behavioral insights best be leveraged to solve pressing policy challenges? Because research studies are typically designed to test the validity of a particular idea, surprisingly little is known about the relative efficacy of different approaches to changing behavior in any given policy context. We discuss megastudies as a research approach that can surmount this and other obstacles to developing optimal behaviorally informed policy interventions. We define a megastudy as "a massive field experiment in which many different treatments are tested synchronously in one large sample using a common, objectively measured outcome." We summarize this apples-to-apples approach to research and lay out recommendations, limitations, and promising future directions for scholars who might want to conduct or evaluate megastudies.

Why do some homogeneous groups face backlash for lacking diversity, whereas others escape censure? We show that a homogeneous group's size changes how it is perceived and whether decision makers pursue greater diversity in its ranks. We theorize that people make different inferences about larger groups than smaller ones—with consequences for diversity management—due to Bayesian reasoning. This can produce sensitivity to a lack of diversity in large groups and limited sensitivity to a lack of diversity in small groups. Because each group member represents the outcome of a hiring decision, larger homogeneous groups signal a diversity problem more strongly than smaller homogeneous groups. Across three preregistered experiments (n = 4,283), we show that decision makers are more likely to diversify larger homogeneous groups than smaller ones and view larger homogeneous groups as (i) more likely to have resulted from an unfair selection process; (ii) less diverse; (iii) more likely to face diversity-related impression management concerns; and (iv) less open to the influence of newly added underrepresented members. Further, (i)–(iii) mediate the relationship between homogeneous group size and decisions to diversify. We extend our findings to S&P 1500 corporate boards, showing that larger homogeneous boards are more likely to add women or racial minorities as directors. Larger homogeneous boards are also rarer than expected, whereas smaller homogeneous boards are surprisingly abundant. This suggests that decision makers neglect homogeneity in smaller groups, while investing extra effort toward diversifying larger homogeneous groups. Our findings highlight how group size shapes diversity-related perceptions and decisions and identify mechanisms that kickstart diversification efforts. Supplemental Material: The online supplement is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.14705 .