Search

Past research revealed that morality judgements of consumers behaving unethically depends on consumer characteristics. One basic consumer characteristic is whether consumers are described as wealthy (vs. not wealthy). Previous literature raises the point that consumers behaving unethically in the marketplace might be judged differently, depending on the level of wealth. Unethical consumer behavior refers to consumers violating accepted norms in a market exchange setting (Campbell & Winterich 2018). Similar research reveals that consumers requiring government assistance are judged as more unethical when buying organic products (vs. wealthy consumers who earn their money; Olson et al. 2016). Contrary, little research has systematically investigated the relationship between the level of wealth in an unethical consumer behavior setting (Campbell & Winterich 2018). In line, the reason for how consumers derive their moral judgements must be better understood. The role of dehumanization (understood as the denial of humanness; Haslam 2006) has not been sufficiently understood within market exchanges and particular in the domain of morality in market exchanges (cf. Henkel et al. 2018), even though previous research pointed out that generally wealthy consumers are dehumanized differently compared to not-wealthy consumers (Sainz et al. 2018/2019). In addressing these gaps in literature, this online experiment analyzes if the level of wealth influences how consumers are morally judged and dehumanized differently, when showing (un)ethical consumer behavior. To put it in a research question – How do morality judgements of unethical consumer behaviors differ depending on the level of wealth? Are consumers dehumanized differently based on their level of wealth when behaving unethically?

Extant research found that consumer characteristics influence morality judgements when consumers behave unethically. Unethical consumer behavior refers to consumers violating accepted norms in an exchange setting (Campbell & Winterich 2018). Overall, one basic distinction that can be derived is the level of income consumer receive. While we know that consumers who receive government benefits are judged as more unethical when they buy organic products (vs. wealthy consumers who earn their money), little research as investigated how the source of the income influences judgements for high-income consumers. Specifically, how the type of income impacts the morality judgement of wealthy consumers, when they behave unethically in the marketplace is unknown (Olson et al. 2016; Campbell & Winterich 2018). Similarly, the role of dehumanization has not been sufficiently understood within market exchanges (cf. Campbell & Winterich 2018; Henkel et al. 2018), even though previous research pointed out that generally wealthy consumers are dehumanized differently compared to not-wealthy consumers. However, the impact of the source of the income has not been sufficiently studies. This is why, this online experiment investigates if the type of income influences how wealthy consumers are morally judged and dehumanized, when showing (un)ethical consumers behavior. Specifically, we will manipulate whether consumers are wealthy, because they worked for it, whether they inherited the same amount of wealth or won it in a lottery. The overall research question would be the following – How does the source of income influence the morality judgement of wealthy consumers behaving unethically? And are wealthy consumers dehumanized differently based on their type of income?

Consumer characteristics are important in determining the morality in a market exchange setting, particularly in the marketplace morality (Olson et al. 2016; Campbell & Winterich 2018). Previous research has revealed that low-income consumers are judged as more unethical if they receive government benefits and buy organic products (vs. high-income consumers; Olson et al. 2016). Contrary and to a limited extent, previous research has only marginally looked at high-income consumers and how they are perceived (Sainz et al. 2018/2019). Particularly, subgroups of wealthy consumers have been thus far neglected (Sainz et al. 2019). Studying subgroups of wealthy consumers, this is why research suggests that it might be interesting to investigate how the type of job of high-income consumers impacts morality judgements (Olson et al. 2016). The distinction of the type of job that might be particularly interesting is whether the described consumers has a prosocial job (doctor at a children’s hospital) vs. egoistic job (banker in a private bank). This might be particularly interesting when consumer behave unethically – referring to consumers violating accepted norms in an exchange setting (Campbell & Winterich 2018). In Understanding moral judgements, the role of dehumanization might be important. Dehumanization refers to the denial of humanness; Haslam 2006). Dehumanization has not been sufficiently understood within market exchanges (cf. Campbell & Winterich 2018; Henkel et al. 2018), even though previous research pointed out that generally that wealthy consumers are dehumanized differently compared to not-wealthy consumers (Sainz et al. 2018/2019). Hence, this study undertakes an online experiment investigating if the type of job influences how wealthy consumers are morally judged and dehumanized, when showing (un)ethical consumers behavior. Specifically, we will manipulate whether consumers have either a prosocial vs. egoistic job. The overall research question would be the following – How does the source of income influence the morality judgement of wealthy consumers behaving unethically depending on the type of job? And are wealthy consumers dehumanized differently based on the type of job they have?

Public sector organizations are often the target of negative media coverage and are associated with inefficient procedures and burdensome rules (Marvel, 2015; Hvidman & Andersen, 2016). These negative stereotypes about public sector services are can spill-over to public servants, who are commonly stereotyped as being lazy, inefficient, and slow (Baldwin, 1990; De Boer, 2020; Willems, 2020). However, despite the prevalence of such stereotypic beliefs, and their potentially devastating consequences, relatively little is known on how the awareness of these negative stereotypes influences public servants’ attitudes and behavior. We argue that this stereotype-awareness might create a threatening environment for public servants, and might further lead to stereotype threat, which in turn is resulting in self-hindering behavior. Stereotype threat is defined as a situational dilemma, in which individuals are impaired or threatened by the mere knowledge of a negative stereotype (Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele et al., 2002; Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007; Inzlicht & Schmader, 2012). Those concerned may fear confirming a corresponding stereotype as a self- or group-characteristic and thereby overstrain cognitive resources that are required for optimal performance. Considering the functions of the public sector, it is precisely in this area, where research on stereotype threat is likely to be of great importance. In our study, we examine (1) whether respondents that are primed towards a public sector work context, experience stereotype threat, and thus perform less, compared to not primed respondents. Moreover, we (2) ask under which circumstances this stereotype threat effects their job-related performance behavior.

Die Stadt Wien zählt seit mehreren Jahren als eine der Spitzenreiterinnen unter den weltweit lebenswertesten Städten. In unserem Forschungsprojekt haben wir uns näher mit den Akteur_innen beschäftigt, die für diesen Erfolg als verantwortlich gesehen werden. In der Theorie bestehen bereits verschiedene wissenschaftliche Ansätze über „Interactive Governance“, „Public Value Creation“ und „Smart Cities“, jedoch bleibt das Wissen über die verantwortlichen Akteur_innen und deren Dynamik untereinander nach wie vor fragmentiert. Unser Forschungsprojekt besteht aus drei Studien, die sich auf qualitativen als auch quantitativen Datenerhebungen beruhen. In unserer ersten Studie haben wir durch einen Mixed-Methods-Ansatz die konkreten Akteur_innen, die als einflussreich für den hohen Lebensstandard Wiens gelten, determiniert. In unserer zweiten Studie haben wir die Bedürfnisse und Präferenzen der beteiligten Akteuer_innen, sowie ihre Mitwirkung am urbanen Ökosystem, auf qualitative Weise durch eine Medienanalyse untersucht. Anhand der Erkenntnisse von der ersten und zweiten Studie konnten wir in unserer dritten Studie fünf Conjoint Experimente durchführen, die einen Überblick über die konkreten Abwägungen der Attribute der Akteur_innen verschafft. Somit liefert unsere Forschung konkrete Erkenntnisse über die relevanten Akteur_innen und deren Attribute, die ausschlaggebend sind um sich an der Stadtgestaltung zu beteiligen und um Städte lebenswertig zu erhalten. Unsere Ergebnisse tragen nicht nur zum theoretischen Diskurs über Lebensqualität und Stadtgestaltung bei, sondern haben auch praktische Anwendungen. So ist es zum Beispiel wichtig zu verstehen, dass die Verwaltung von lebenswerten Städten auf Kompromisse zwischen den Präferenzen und Bedürfnissen verschiedener Interessengruppen beruht.

Tätigkeiten im öffentlichen Dienst bieten häufig die Möglichkeit, anderen zu helfen sowie einen Beitrag zum Gemeinwohl zu leisten. Diese als prosozialer und gesellschaftlicher Einfluss bezeichneten Eigenschaften, bieten ein großes Motivationspotenzial. Oftmals gewöhnen sich Beschäftigte allerdings an diese positiven Aspekte ihrer Tätigkeit und der Motivationsanreiz geht verloren. Der Artikel präsentiert die Ergebnisse dreier Experimente, in denen Beschäftigte über ihren prosozialen und gesellschaftlichen Einfluss reflektieren. Die Ergebnisse legen nahe, dass die Erinnerung an den prosozialen und gesellschaftlichen Einfluss einer Tätigkeit im öffentlichen Dienst das Wohlbefinden der Beschäftigten erhöhen, ihre Kündigungsabsicht verringern und sie eher dazu neigen, ihre Tätigkeit anderen zu empfehlen.

Austrians felt they could help others less in the corona-lock down, compared to one year before the crisis, but still feel helped by others. This is the output of a quantitative comparison of survey data collected in 2019 and 2020. Further qualitative exploration suggests that the social distancing is a major reason for not being able to help others, as social contact is often seen as a condition to help others. However, having the feeling of being helped by others – and thus be more dependent on others – relates negative with how people help others themselves, and with prosocial intentions and public service motivation. Moreover, people that felt more helped by others were also less satisfied about the corona measures and how other citizens (did not) comply with these measures.

Wie soll die Arbeitswelt nach der Krise aussehen? Ausgehend von den überraschenden Erkenntnissen der Befragung von 18.000 Mitarbeitenden soll die Zukunft von Homeoffice & Co. im öffentlichen Dienst diskutiert werden.

Zielsetzung und Design: Die Umfrage (482 in Österreich lebende Personen) erhebt in Form von zwei offenen Fragen die Wahrnehmung von persönlichen und gesellschaftlichen Nachteilen in der Zeit des COVID-19 bedingten Shutdowns. Die Daten werden im Hinblick auf Inhalt und Häufigkeit für die Gesamtgruppe sowie geschichtet nach Alter und Geschlecht analysiert. Zielsetzung ist, die direkten sozialen, wirtschaftlichen, ökologischen und politischen Folgen der Krise bzw. der zur Bewältigung gesetzten Maßnahmen zu identifizieren, und für die wissenschaftliche und politische Auseinandersetzung mit Krisensituationen aufzubereiten. Erkenntnisse: Die Ergebnisse zeigen ein gewisses Auseinanderfallen der wahrgenommenen individuellen Nachtteile und der gesellschaftlichen Nachteile: Während als die drei wichtigsten persönlichen Nachteile das Social Distancing, der Alltag in der neuen Situation und die eingeschränkte (Bewegungs)freiheit genannt werden, wird auf gesell-schaftlicher Ebene primär der wirtschaftliche Nachteil, Social Distancing und der Bereich Politik | Medien | Gesellschaft genannt.