Search results

This research aims to examine some of the main sources of frustration in the relationship between retailers and teen shoppers and the coping strategies they use as they interact with each other in a mall environment.

Data were collected from retailers and teen shoppers via depth interviews and the data were coded using a grounded theory approach.

Retailers in the study expressed frustration with teen shoppers arising from disruptive behavior, and refusal to accept assistance. Retailers attempt to deal with these issues at both the individual and the corporate level. Teens' frustration with retailers stems from being ignored, and/or treated with suspicion. Teens also indicated that retailers attempt to manipulate and persuade them. Teens deal with these issues by neutralizing or proactively coping with the situation.

The results of this study provide some significant insights for retailers. Most of the retail informants did not report any specific training with respect to interacting with teenage shoppers. The results of this study, however, suggest that providing retail employees with an understanding of teens' shopping behaviors and perceptions might promote more positive interactions with teen shoppers. This study utilized two independent sets of data to capture informants' perceptions and self‐reported behaviors. Studying actual interactions between retailers and teen shoppers might help to address any potential bias associated with self‐reported data.

The findings suggest that it is not a question of whether or not retailers should interact with teens but rather a question of how to interact with them so they do not feel ignored but also not pressured or treated with suspicion. Retailers should review the current strategies they use when customers first enter the store. By allowing teens to initiate the interaction, they are likely to feel more in control and less pressured.

Very little, if any, previous research has combined data from both retailers and teen shoppers in one study. Novel managerial suggestions are made as well as conceptual contributions in the under‐researched area of teen persuasion detection and persuasion coping.

Organizational researchers have long recognized the important role that top managers play within entrepreneurial firms (Ireland, Hitt and Sirmon 2003). Utilizing Covin and Slevin’s (1989) conceptual framework, the current study explores three key entrepreneurial characteristics of top managers and the impact these characteristics have on firm performance. Specifically, we argue that top managers with a high tolerance of risk, those who favor innovative activities and those who display a high degree of proactiveness will positively impact firm performance. In addition, this study examines the influence of top managers’ prestige, structural and expert power on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. We conclude the study with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications of our findings and suggestions for future research in this area of study.

Hiring managers commonly rely on system-justifying motives and attitudes during résumé screening. Given the prevalent use of modern résumé formats (e.g. LinkedIn) that include not only an applicant's credentials but also headshot photographs, visible sources of information such as an applicant's race are also revealed while a hiring manager simultaneously evaluates a candidate's suitability. As a result, such screening is likely to activate evaluation bias. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of a hiring manager's perceptions of race-system justification, that is, support for the status quo in relations between Black and White job candidates in reinforcing or mitigating hiring bias related to in-group and out-group membership during résumé screening.

Drawing from system justification theory (SJT) in a pre-selection context, in an experimental study involving 174 human resource managers, the authors tested two boundary conditions of the expected relationship between hiring manager and job candidate race on candidate ratings: (1) a hiring manager's affirmative action (AA) attitudes and system-justifying attitudes and (2) a job candidate's manipulated suitability for a position. This approach enabled us to juxtapose the racial composition of hiring manager–job candidate dyads under conditions in which the job candidate's race and competency for a posted position were manipulated to examine the conditions under which White and Black hiring managers are likely to make biased evaluations. The authors largely replicated these findings in two follow-up studies with 261 students and 361 online raters.

The authors found that information on a candidate's objective suitability for a job resulted in opposite-race positive bias among Black evaluators and same-race positive bias among White evaluators in study 1 alone. Conversely, positive attitudes toward AA policies resulted in in-group favoritism and strengthened a positive same-race bias for Black evaluators (study 1 and 2). We replicated this finding with a third sample to directly test system-justifying attitudes (study 3). The way in which White raters rated White candidates reflected the same attitudes against systems (AA attitudes) that Black raters rating Black candidates exhibited in the authors’ first two studies. Positive system-justifying attitudes or positive attitudes toward AA did not, however, translate into the elevation of same-race candidate ratings of suitability above those of opposite-race candidates.

Although the size of the sample is on par with the percentage of Blacks nationwide in private-sector managerial-level positions ideally, the authors would have preferred to oversample Black HR managers. Given the scarcity of focus on Black HR managers, future researchers, using diverse samples of evaluators should also consider not only managers' and candidates' race but also their social dominance orientation. Moreover, it is important that future researchers use more racially diverse samples from other industries to more fully identify the ways in which the dynamics of system-justifying processes can emerge to influence evaluation bias during résumé screening.

Advances in technology pose new challenges to HR hiring practices. This study attempts to fill a void regarding the unintended effects of bias during digital résumé screening. These trends have important HR implications. Initial screening of a job applicant's credentials while concurrently viewing the individual's photograph is likely to activate subconscious evaluation bias, produces inaccurate applicant ratings. This study's findings should caution hiring managers about the potential for bias to arise when viewing job candidates' digital résumés and encourage them to carefully examine various boundary conditions on racial similarity bias effects on applicant pre-screening and subsequent hiring decisions.

The study’s results suggest that bias might be attenuated as organizational leaders engage in efforts to understand their system-justifying motives and examine perceptions of the workplace social hierarchy (i.e. responses to status hierarchies) linked to perceptions of the status quo. For example, understanding how system justifying motives influence evaluation bias will inform how best to design training and other interventions that link discussions of workforce diversity to the relationships among groups within the organization's social hierarchy. This line of research should be further explored to better understand the complex forces at work when hiring managers adopt system-justifying motives during hiring evaluations.

The authors address the limitations of prior research by examining interactions between boundary conditions in a real-world context using real human resources hiring managers and more contemporary personnel-screening practices to test changes in the direction and strength of the relationship between hiring manager–job candidate race and hiring manager evaluations. Thus, the authors’ findings have implications for hiring bias and understanding of system-justification processes, particularly regarding how, when and why hiring managers support the status quo (i.e. perpetuate inequity) even if they are disadvantaged as a result.

The purpose of this study is to provide a nuanced understanding of Chinese family tourists’ value co-creation by examining three important aspects of family vacation: What do families do during vacation? How do they make meaning of what they do? Do travelers’ role identities within their families play a role in the value creation process?

Upon reviewing related theoretical work, the authors undertook a mixed-method study consisting of both survey data and in-depth interviews.

The analysis revealed three clusters of family interactional content, including We open and share our worlds, We build knowledge and skills and We co-create and co-evaluate, and five clusters of family travelers, including Outdoor enthusiasts, Socializers, Nature lovers, Culture admirers and Relaxation seekers. Family roles, life situations and destination environments also interfaced with family activity participation and family conversations. A family vacation value co-creation process framework with four propositions was, thus, proposed.

Further exploration and validation of the proposed framework and propositions which emerged from the findings of this study are needed. Impacts of various family types and relational dynamics also warrant future investigation.

The results of family interactional and relational well-being facilitated by family vacation are pertinent to academia, industry and public policy-making.

Family vacation can be a positive intervention for the creation of family value and a means of meaning-making. Programs that integrate multiple family roles and address family-level value propositions would be collectively enriching.

The current study initiated a pioneering investigation by providing a depiction of how family travelers experience and make sense of a shared tourism experience, along with their value perceptions in such a co-created consumptive scenario.

This study aims to test the effect of a falsely balanced message (i.e. exposure to two opposing arguments) on perceived expert consensus about an interrogation practice.

Participants (N = 254) read a statement about minimization tactics and were assigned randomly to one of four conditions, where true expert consensus about the tactic was either presented as high or low, and a balanced message (i.e. read two opposing arguments about the factual nature of the tactic) was present or absent.

Results showed that exposure to balanced messages led to less perceived expert consensus; especially when true expert consensus about the tactic was high. Exposure to balanced messages also reduced public support for experts testifying about the interrogation tactic.

Such findings suggest that pairing expert knowledge (i.e. empirical evidence) about investigative interviewing issues with denials might be powerful enough to override scientific beliefs about important matters in this field.

Researchers in the field of investigative interviewing have put much effort into developing evidence-based interviewing practices and debunking misconceptions on the field. While knowledge mobilization is particularly important in this consequential, applied domain, there are some individuals who aim to hinder the advancement and reform of investigative interviewing. Falsely balancing scientific findings (e.g. minimization tactics imply leniency) with denials is but one of many practices that can distort the public’s perception of expert consensus on an issue. It is crucial for investigative interviewing researchers to recognize such strategies and develop ways to combat science denialism.

The present study aimed to investigate whether male consumers report weaker green consumption values than their female counterparts, and whether such a presumed sex difference, at least in part, can be explained by different levels of intrasexual competition. In other words, the study tested the notion that intrasexual competition acts as a psychological mechanism explaining why male (vs female) consumers are sometimes less prone to prefer and purchase sustainable goods, with their higher tendency to compete with same-sex rivals making them less likely to engage in green consumption.

The study was based on a large cross-sectional survey, in which a final sample of 1,382 participants (823 female and 559 male) provided complete responses on well-validated scales measuring intrasexual competition and green consumption values. The large sample size implies that even small effect sizes could be detected with high statistical power. The data were analyzed using a series of Mann–Whitney U tests to compare the responses made by male and female participants. Subsequently, multiple linear regressions as well as regression-based mediation and moderation analyses were performed with control variables added to show robustness of the results, test the proposed chain of events, and demonstrate generalizability.

Male (vs female) participants expressed significantly higher levels of intrasexual competition both generally and on the two subdimensions corresponding to superiority striving and inferiority irritation. Further, they were slightly less inclined to express green consumption values. Importantly, the sex difference in green consumption values was mediated by inferiority irritation as well as the entire intrasexual competition scale but not by superiority striving. Thus, men's inferiority irritation, in particular, and their more pronounced propensity to compete with same-sex rivals, in general, drove them away from green consumption, whereas women's weaker willingness to compete with same-sex rivals instead increased their inclination of “going green.”

Drawing on findings from the domains of competitiveness and gender stereotypes, the current research demonstrates a novel mechanism through which green consumption responses can be understood. Specifically, this study provides empirical evidence for the mediating role of intrasexual competition, especially regarding the more negatively charged subdimension of inferiority irritation, in explaining why male and female consumers may differ in terms of their green consumption values. The present research also contributes to the literature by questioning the unidimensional structure of the intrasexual competition scale and showing that the negative (vs positive) subdimension of this scale is more influential in explaining sex-differentiated patterns in consumers' green consumption values, thereby supporting the notion that “bad is stronger than good.”

This paper aims to describe an ethnographic research study conducted within French families in order to examine the transfer of food learning between parents and children.

An ethnographic study in the respondents' home was conducted. Semi‐directive interviews with children and parents and observation were carried out in heterogeneous families.

Results indicate that food meal time is a way of socializing family members in consumption skills related to food. Food learning took place in two ways: from parents to children and from children to parents. Through different socialization factors, children will discover new food products or food practices and will be able to bring them to the home. By sharing these new experiences, children teach (directly or indirectly) parents new consumption skills related to the food domain. The food environment (e.g: familial atmosphere, interactions around the meal), more than the act of eating itself allows for a better understanding of food transmission within the family.

These findings would be of benefit to public policy as well as to investors and food manufacturers by integrating the reverse socialization aspect. Limits and research perspectives are discussed after the presentation of the results.

The paper investigates interactions between parents and children within their natural setting: their home.