Search results

There is a tendency for opposing partisans to ideological disputes to imagine that their opponents are extremist, biased, and in diametric opposition to themselves. The current investigation examined the role of these imagined ideological differences in face‐to‐face negotiations. Experiment 1 examined the problems that develop when negotiators attend to irrelevant ideological differences. Dyads who were made aware of political differences, even imagined ones (i.e., their political views were actually similar), required more time to allocate hypothetical funds and perceived their partner less favorably than did dyads who were unaware of their political differences. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the hypothesis that ideological opponents who acquire accurate information about their counterpart's beliefs (thus reducing the effects of imagined ideological differences) will have more successful negotiations. Opposing partisans to abortion (Experiment 2) and the death penalty (Experiment 3) reached more comprehensive, integrative agreements and perceived each other more favorably when they disclosed their own views to each other before negotiating. The relevance of these findings to other mediation techniques and real world conflicts was discussed.

As a complex social emotion, awe includes both positive emotion and negative emotion. But few studies have explored the downstream effects and psychological mechanisms of two different types of awe. As a self-transcendence emotion, awe will arouse the small self, that is, reduce self-awareness. In the era of the sharing economy, the obstacle to sharing is the strong self-awareness that consumers have built about their belongings. Therefore, this paper aims to explore how two different types of awe can affect consumers' sharing, especially with different relationships.

This study conducted two experiments to test the effect of awe on consumer sharing of their own products. Study 1 aimed to examine the main effect of different awe on consumer sharing of their product as well as the underlying mechanism. Study 2 aimed to examine the interacting role of tie strength in the effect of awe on consumer product sharing.

Through two empirical tests, the authors have found that, relative to the control group, the sense of awe arouses the feeling of small self and significantly increases the consumers' willingness of sharing. Also, the authors have found that threat-based awe which leads to self-diminishment is more conducive to promoting the sharing of weak ties; on the contrary, the nonthreat-based awe which leads to a feeling of vastness is more conducive to promoting the sharing of strong ties.

This research expands the literature in the field of sharing. While the mainstream sharing a focus on information sharing, this research extends it to product sharing. What is more important is, this research explores how to encourage sharing to weak ties, which contributes to sharing economy.

The authors present nine dimensions to provide structure for the many Futures of Work (FoW). This is done to advance a more sociotechnical and nuanced approach to the FoW, which is too-often articulated as singular and unidimensional. Futurists emphasize they do not predict the future, but rather, build a number of possible futures – in plural – often in the form of scenarios constructed based on key dimensions. Such scenarios help decision-makers consider alternative actions by providing structured frames for careful analyses. It is useful that the dimensions be dichotomous. Here, the authors focus specifically on the futures of knowledge work.

Building from a sustained review of the FoW literature, from a variety of disciplines, this study derives the nine dimensions.

The nine FoW dimensions are: Locus of Place, Locus of Decision-making, Structure of Work, Technologies’ Roles, Work–Life, Worker Expectations, Leadership Model, Firm’s Value Creation and Labor Market Structure. Use of the dimensions is illustrated by constructing sample scenarios.

While FoW is multi-dimensional, most FoW writing has focused on one or two dimensions, often highlighting positive or negative possibilities. Empirical papers, by their nature, are focused on just one dimension that is supported by data. However, future-oriented policy reports tend are more often multi-faceted analyses and serve here as the model for what we present.