Suchergebnisse

This book reviews and synthesizes the theories, research, and empirical evidence between human flourishing and the humanities broadly, including history, literary studies, philosophy, religious studies, music, art, theatre, and film. Via multidisciplinary essays, this book expands our understanding of how the humanities contribute to the theory and science of well-being by considering historical trends, conceptual ideas, and wide-ranging interdisciplinary drivers between positive psychology and the arts.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide an investigation of how different types of gig workers engage in the gig economy. Specifically, the authors distinguish between workers who view gig work as primary income (or not) and those workers who view it as a job (or not).Design/methodology/approachIn total, 1,190 Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers completed surveys across two studies examining whether types of workers differ based on demographic characteristics, utilization of MTurk, why they participate in the gig economy on MTurk (i.e. push and pull factors) and how this impacts life satisfaction.FindingsWorkers relying on MTurk as a primary income had lower incomes and spent more time completing large numbers of work units. This group of workers also reported fewer pull factors (e.g. enjoyment) as a reason for working in the gig economy and had lower levels of self-reported current and predicted future life satisfaction. Individuals who view MTurk as a job were more likely to treat MTurk like a job – engaging in online communities and having a regular work schedule. These workers were more likely to report pull factors (e.g. enjoyment and challenge) and did not differ on life satisfaction.Originality/valueThe current research contributes to our understanding of MTurk, one of the largest online platforms for gig work, as part of the diverse gig economy and highlights potential areas for future research.

This methods case study discusses how the focus and reporting of a series of impression formation experiments evolved over time. Support for the initial study hypotheses was not obtained, but effects that were initially viewed as peripheral were ultimately recognized as telling a different, but nonetheless interesting and cohesive narrative. Thus, we reframed our presentation of this work, and in doing so had the responsibility to be transparent about this change in focus and mindful about best research practices. This case study begins by summarizing the original intent of this research project and proceeds to discuss an anticipated methodological issue: whether to manipulate variables within- or between-subjects. We then proceed to discuss two unanticipated challenges. First, as we wrote up results that did not support our focal hypotheses, we had to negotiate the desire to streamline the reporting of the findings with the need to be ethical and transparent about our original research intentions. Second, upon receiving reviewer comments, we decided the best way to address these was to bring in a statistics expert to advise us on addressing more sophisticated questions regarding the mechanism underlying the obtained effects. We conclude our discussion with a brief reflection on the project as a whole and our advice based on this experience.