Suchergebnisse

This service record is an account of military actions during the American Civil War by veteran George W. Newman (1844- ), dated from 1921. ; 1 leaf ; 2 pdf pages. ; All descriptive lists and service records in this United Confederate (Civil War) Veterans manuscript collection believed to be based out of Robert E. Lee Camp #158 of the United Confederate Veterans (Fort Worth, Tex.). United Confederate Veterans. R.E. Lee Camp No. 158 (Fort Worth, Tex.) ; The Southwest Collection Manuscript Record can be accessed at the following URL: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/ttusw/00119/tsw-00119.html

We report five studies that examine preferences for the allocation of environmental harms and benefits. In all studies, participants were presented with scenarios in which an existing environmental inequality between two otherwise similar communities could either be decreased or increased through various allocation decisions. Our results demonstrate that despite well-established preferences toward equal outcomes, people express weaker preferences for options that increase equality when considering the allocation of environmental harms (e.g., building new polluting facilities) than when considering the allocation of environmental benefits (e.g., applying pollution-reducing technologies). We argue that this effect emerges from fairness considerations rooted in a psychological incompatibility between the allocation of harms, which is seen as an inherently unfair action, and equality, which is a basic fairness principle. Since the allocation of harms is an inevitable part of operations of both governments and businesses, our results suggest that where possible, parties interested in increasing environmental equality may benefit from framing such proposals as bestowing relative benefits instead of imposing relative harms.

Abstract
Doing good does not necessarily imply doing well for a company. Ironically, in the case of green products it can even be quite the contrary. Deliberately enhancing a product with environmental benefits to make it more appealing may actually lead to a decrease in consumer interest because consumers suspect that quality was reduced on other dimensions. Even explicitly stating that the company cares about both the environment and quality is not sufficient to overcome consumers' skepticism, according to our experiments. Fortunately, there are ways to communicate environmental improvements successfully. Companies improving a basic product feature like making something more eco-friendly should either position the improvement as unintended or emphasize that the primary goal is improving the quality of the product. Focusing on eco-conscious market segments also helps to avoid harm and might even be beneficial. Improvements on dimensions that are not inherent to a product's composition, like fair trade or other social benefits, turned out to be less critical in the experiments.

Prospective donors are often sensitive to the amount of overhead in charitable fundraising. The present studies examine how differences in one's personal commitment to a cause moderate the relative focus on overhead versus outcomes in charitable fundraising. Three experiments find that donors who are more committed to the cause are, in fact, accepting of higher levels of overhead. Experiment 1 demonstrates that people are willing to accept a higher level of overhead for causes that are more (vs. less) important to them. Experiment 2 provides process evidence by showing that perceptions of cause importance generally influence how people evaluate the intentions behind charitable fundraising versus its outcomes. Experiment 3 directly manipulates cause importance and demonstrates a downstream effect on actual donations. Together, these studies suggest a more general framework whereby differences in personal commitment change the relative focus on the intentions behind pro-social behavior versus the outcomes achieved.

Abstract
Across many different contexts, individuals consult customer ratings to inform their purchase decisions. The present studies document a novel phenomenon, dubbed "the binary bias," which plays an important role in how individuals evaluate customer reviews. Our main proposal is that people tend to make a categorical distinction between positive ratings (e.g., 4s and 5s) and negative ratings (e.g., 1s and 2s). However, within those bins, people do not sufficiently distinguish between more extreme values (5s and 1s) and less extreme values (4s and 2s). As a result, people's subjective representations of distributions are heavily impacted by the extent to which those distributions are imbalanced (having more 4s and 5s vs. more 1s and 2s). Ten studies demonstrate that this effect has important consequences for people's product evaluations and purchase decisions. Additionally, we show this effect is not driven by the salience of particular bars, unrealistic distributions, certain statistical properties of a distribution, or diminishing subjective utility. Furthermore, we demonstrate this phenomenon's relevance to other domains besides product reviews, and discuss the implications for existing research on how people integrate conflicting evidence.

Abstract. The present studies examine how culturally held stereotypes about gender (that women eat more healthfully than men) implicitly influence food preferences. In Study 1, priming masculinity led both male and female participants to prefer unhealthy foods, while priming femininity led both male and female participants to prefer healthy foods. Study 2 extended these effects to gendered food packaging. When the packaging and healthiness of the food were gender schema congruent (i.e., feminine packaging for a healthy food, masculine packaging for an unhealthy food) both male and female participants rated the product as more attractive, said that they would be more likely to purchase it, and even rated it as tasting better compared to when the product was stereotype incongruent. In Study 3, packaging that explicitly appealed to gender stereotypes ("The muffin for real men") reversed the schema congruity effect, but only among participants who scored high in psychological reactance.

Abstract
Heritage branding is a common marketing strategy that has been shown to increase product appeal. Here, we find that certain forms of heritage branding can also have potentially negative consequences by leading consumers to react negatively to changes made to the brand's original, flagship product—even if those changes objectively improve it. We demonstrate that when firms engage in heritage branding that emphasizes a brand's longevity, consumers evaluate enhanced products less favorably than the original versions of those same products due to decreased perceptions of continuity authenticity. We demonstrate this effect across a variety of product domains (e.g., cosmetics, cookware, and food products), using online experiments as well as in-person product trials. Moreover, we provide a framework that distinguishes between types of heritage branding cues that lead to negative evaluations of enhanced products versus those that do not. Finally, beyond identifying an important boundary condition based on specific aspects of heritage branding, we further show how the negative evaluations of enhanced products can be attenuated if brands reframe product changes as continuous with the brand's origins. Together, these studies contribute to existing theory regarding heritage branding and authenticity, while also providing a number of practical recommendations for heritage brands.