Search results

The purpose of this paper is to take the perspective of repairing the negative effect of social exclusion, discussing how anthropomorphized brand role (partner vs servant) releases the negative effect of social exclusion.

In this research, two behavioral studies are conducted. Study 1 uses a one-factor (social exclusion vs social inclusion) between-subjects design. The purpose of Study 1 is to test the effect of social exclusion on consumers’ WTP for the anthropomorphized brand (H1). Study 2 uses a 2 (self-esteem (SE): high vs low) × 2 (anthropomorphized brand role: servant vs partner) between-subjects design. The aim of Study 2 is to investigate that after being socially excluded, how anthropomorphized brand roles (servant vs partner) and SE interactively release individuals’ negative feelings (H2a and H2b) and how the need for control recovery mediates this interaction effect (H3).

This study proposes that when individuals are socially excluded, they are willing to pay more for anthropomorphized brands than those who are not because anthropomorphized brands provide a quasi-social relationship. This study further posits that socially excluded consumers prefer the different role of anthropomorphized brands, given a different level of SE to meet their needs for control recovery. High self-esteem (HSE) (vs low self-esteem (LSE)) consumers are willing to pay more for a servant-like brand because such brands help them recover from low control by regaining a master role. In contrast, HSE and LSE consumers have no significant differences in WTP for a partner-like brand.

Few research studies have discussed how social exclusion influences individuals’ WTP. To fill this gap, the authors used WTP as the dependent variable, showing that after being socially excluded, individuals tend to pay a higher price for the anthropomorphized brand. Also, the research not only adds a contribution to research on the need for control recovery but also indicates how HSE vs LSE individuals behave differently in socially excluded contexts.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

Social exclusion can be defined as a process leading to a state of multiple functioning deprivations. Cross-sectional headcount ratios of social exclusion may overstate the extent of the problem if most individuals do not remain in the same state in successive years. To address this issue, we need to focus on mobility. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyse changes in the individual levels of social exclusion focusing on the extent to which individuals change place in social exclusion distribution. We find that social exclusion is partially transitory and, therefore, we suggest a more restrictive definition of social exclusion.

We examine how social exclusion and temporal distance (i.e. being socially excluded in the present or the anticipation of exclusion in the future) shape whether people choose hedonic or utilitarian products.

We conduct four experiments to test the hypotheses. Study 1a and study 1b provide the initial evidence that consumers strategically engage in differentiation in response to social exclusion in the present and in the future. Study 2 and study 3 replicate the basic interaction effect of social exclusion and temporal distance on product choices and test the underlying mechanism.

We find that temporal distance affects consumer product choices through people’s coping strategies. When consumers are socially excluded, they are more likely to have a problem-solving tendency and more likely to choose utilitarian products. In contrast, when consumers imagine being socially excluded in the future, they are more likely to have to use emotions to solve problems and choose hedonic products.

Our study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it deepens our understanding of the psychological drivers of social exclusion in consumer research. Second, it offers insights into understanding prior findings that document both problem-solving and emotion-regulating behavior in response to social exclusion. Third, by showing that social exclusion and temporal distance can influence the type of products selected, our findings contribute to a new stream of work that examines the impact of people’s fundamental desire for control on consumer behavior.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the connections between financial inclusion and agricultural commercialization among farmers in Ghana.

In order to address endogeneity and sample selectivity bias, the study employs endogenous switching regressions (ESRs) to examine whether financially included and financially excluded maize farm households differ in their commercialization behavior and whether financial inclusion affects commercialization. The Heckman Treatment Effect (HTE) model is used to test for robustness of the results. The data used contain a random sample of 2,230 maize farmers across the ten regions of Ghana.

The results from the ESRs show that financial inclusion significantly fosters agricultural commercialization. Specifically, financially included households sell 13.25 percent more output than their financially excluded counterparts. In terms of the counterfactual, financially excluded households would have sold 5.04 percent more output if they were to have access to financial services. Results from the HTE model confirm that financial inclusion promotes agricultural commercialization.

Financial inclusion is low among maize farmers; this implies that there are more benefits to be gained by ensuring that farmers have access to a broad range of financial services.

The findings imply that the quest for the integration of smallholder farmers into markets cannot overlook measures to ensure financial inclusion.

It represents the first attempt at linking financial inclusion to agricultural commercialization using econometric methodology. The study serves as a foundation paper and for that matter will serve as a guide to future research on the financial inclusion-agricultural commercialization nexus.

This research aims to study whether consumers differ in their attitudes toward equivalent prices that include vs exclude taxes and fees. In addition, this research will study whether computation ease-based processing fluency and perceived price fairness mediate this relationship in parallel, and whether need for cognition and political beliefs and affiliation moderate the effect.

Two experiments were conducted in which participants evaluated two price formats and then responded to relevant measures.

This research shows that consumers perceive prices that include (vs exclude) taxes and fees to be easier to process, and a fairer price, and subsequently exhibit a higher willingness to buy. Additionally, this effect is moderated by need for cognition, and political beliefs and affiliation.

Future research could investigate potential additional situational moderators (such as price type – total vs unit, consumption category, relative sizes of base price vs taxes and fees) and dispositional moderators (such as price sensitivity and tightwadism/spendthriftism).

This research provides insights to marketers regarding the downstream impact of pricing decisions – such as including vs excluding taxes and fees from total price. Further, depending on the product category and target customer characteristics (political affiliation), marketers can determine whether to include or exclude taxes and fees.

This research highlights the tendency of conservatives to avoid taxes and fees. As such, it adds to the understanding of conservative consumer groups.

This research contributes to existing research on price-framing research by finding an interesting effect related to multi-dimensional pricing and partitioned pricing. Additionally, this research contributes to existing research on computation ease-based processing fluency and price fairness perception. Finally, this contributes to an increasingly important body of research: the effect of political affiliation on consumption. This also provides clear guidance to marketers with regard to deciding service pricing.

Purpose – UK urban state schools have recently experienced increased pressure to improve pupil performance levels and punitive policies appear to be one way of dealing with “problematic” young people. While some are permanently excluded for serious acts, others, who are by comparison less problematic, are unofficially “excluded” and referred to off-site educational provision (OSEP) where they receive reduced timetables and unchallenging courses. This research study set out to examine why 20 young people were “unofficially” excluded from school and their progress in OSEP.

Methodology – The study made use of ethnographic methods with 20 excluded young people in one south London borough in the UK. The research was undertaken from March 2009 to August 2009.

Findings – This chapter shows how “unofficial” exclusionary processes, to which these urban young people are exposed, have implications for their identity, self-worth and lifestyles, and makes them increasingly vulnerable to crime and victimization. The chapter makes use of labeling perspectives to understand the significance of the social reaction to deviant labels young people receive in school (Becker, 1953) and how they respond as a consequence (Lemert, 1972).

This paper provides an experimental examination of the effects of ostracism on cooperation. Ostracism is one of the most radical forms of peer pressure. More generally, ostracism is the exclusion of disapproved individuals from interaction with a social group. By performing a laboratory experiment involving a public good game with exclusion, the paper provides empirical evidence that threats of exclusion increase contributions. The results show that subjects exclude their peers for two reasons. Subjects are willing to punish unfair behaviors (non‐strategic reason) and expect changes in behavior in response to exclusions (strategic reason).

The purpose of this paper is to rationalise the continued conceptual utility of social exclusion, and in so doing addresses the prevailing question of what to do with it. This is relevant from social exclusion’s declining relevance in contemporary UK social policy and academia, where its consideration as a concept to explain disadvantage is being usurped by other concepts, both old and new.

The paper analyses criticisms of limitations of social exclusion which have typically centred on the operationalisation of the concept, but the author will argue that there are distinctive operationalisation and conceptual strengths within social exclusion which make it value-added as a concept to explain disadvantage. Specifically, there will be an analysis of both New Labour’s and the present Coalition government’s conceptualisation of the term in policy in relation to work.

The analysis highlights the significant difference that a focus on processes rather than outcomes of social exclusion can make to our understanding of inequality and social injustice, and locates this difference within an argument that social exclusion’s true applied capabilities for social justice requires a shift to a conceptualisation built on the processes that cause it in the first place.

The paper acts as a rejoinder to prevailing theoretical and political thinking of the limited and diminishing value of social exclusion for tackling disadvantage. In particular, the paper shows how social exclusion can be conceptualised to provide a critical approach to tackling inequality and social injustice, and in doing so foregrounds the truly applied capabilities of social exclusion for transforming social justice.