Search results

This study analyses direct effects of risk-related factors on perceived quality for private labels.

A total of 159 usable data was collected through survey, using mall intercept method in one regional retail chain in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The results confirm that the perceived risk has a significant and negative impact on consumers’ perceptions of the quality of private labels, and that the financial risk, performance risk, and physical risk are significant determinants of overall perceived risk, thus indirectly influencing the perception of the quality of these brands.

This chapter shows that the perceived quality of private labels is significantly determined by the perceived risk to which consumers are exposed. The findings of this research can help retailers in terms of adequately defining marketing policies aimed at reducing the perceived risk that consumers are exposed to when purchasing their own brands.

We test the proposition that criminal sentiments, which we define as a negative and potent view of a juvenile delinquent (JD), moderate the effect of a delinquency adjudication on self-sentiments. We expect criminal sentiments to reduce self-evaluation and increase self-potency among juvenile delinquents but have no effect on self-sentiments among non-delinquents. We also examine the construct validity of our measure of criminal sentiments by assessing its relationship to beliefs that most people devalue, discriminate against, and fear JDs.

We test these hypotheses with self-administered survey data from two samples of college students and one sample of youths in an aftercare program for delinquent youths. We use endogenous treatment-regression models to identify and reduce the effects of endogeneity between delinquency status and self-sentiments.

Our construct validity assessment shows, as expected, that criminal sentiments are positively related to beliefs that most people devalue, discriminate against, and fear JDs. Our focal analyses support our self-evaluation predictions but not our self-potency predictions.

Our findings suggest that the negative effect of a delinquency label on JDs’ self-esteem depends on the youths’ view of the delinquency label.

This study is the first to test a modified labeling theory proposition on juvenile delinquents.

Centuries ago labeling and classification of people was insignificant; survival was the major concern. Individuals with disabilities were prevented from full participation in activities necessary for survival, were left out on their own to perish, and, in some instances, were even killed (Berkson, 2004). In later years, derogatory labels such as imbecile, stupid, and retarded were used to describe individuals who did not conform to the societal norms. Clearly, regardless of the terms used, their function was geared to exclude people with disabilities from facilities, and activities enjoyed by people without disabilities. Unfortunately, this resulted in alienation, isolation, and institutionalization of individuals with disabilities (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2009).

Bitcoin is difficult to categorize and indeed has been associated with 112 different labels in the British media (e.g., “private money,” “commodity”) – most of which poorly describe bitcoin. Specifically, our analyses of 674 media articles, focusing on the relationship between labeling and categorization, identify classification inconsistencies at three levels: within clusters of labels, between labels and categories, and between category attributes. These inconsistencies hamper categorization based on attribute similarity, audience goals, and causal models, respectively. We identify four factors that nurture this categorical anarchy and conclude with a call for research on the socioeconomic revolution heralded by blockchain technology.

Labelling is the product of imposing one's perceptions on the comparatively powerless, and it damages those who label as well as those to whom labels are attached. This chapter concentrates on the latter, although it does contain messages and advice for those who label. While damage is rarely intentional, it is substantial and inevitable and can be avoided with the application of little more than common sense, professional awareness and human decency. We know that statistical trends are not statements of absolute truths, yet many teachers and senior staff make decisions based on just that misapprehension – whether with regard to ethnicity, gender, age, [dis]ability and other socially constructed categories – and can even be influenced by such non-educational trivia as surnames and post codes. The statistics do not lie, they simply tell us exactly what they tell us and that is almost nothing about any particular school student. Labelling is easy; we all do it in various contexts, and it is immensely damaging. This chapter explains how and why that is the case, and offers an alternative approach.

Despite the fact that labels such as “smart industry” and “industry 4.0” (terms used to denote the fourth industrial revolution) have become popular topics within academia and in practice, their meaning remains an issue of concern. It’s a concern that has drawn the attention of various authors. It is a struggle we engaged in as well – specifically regarding the Dutch “smart industry” label – to aid our aim of assessing whether our call to combine forces can be extended beyond industry 4.0 and industrie 4.0. We provide here initial indications of whether there is more unity in meaning and, thus, reasons to take steps toward combining labels. By means of 20 interviews with Dutch smart industry experts, a representation of smart industry was obtained as understood in the Netherlands. Based on this representation, we examined the extent of overlap between the Dutch “smart industry” label and the general term “fourth industrial revolution” as well as the “industry 4.0” label as defined by various scholars. Our findings showed that smart industry in the Netherlands does not match the denotation of an industrial revolution. Several signals were, however, detected indicating that the content observed under the Dutch smart industry label overlaps with what is being presented under the label industry 4.0. These results reveal that there is indeed more unity in meaning between the various labels that exist and, as such, strengthens our call to combine forces.

Reducing food-related greenhouse gas emissions is one of the major tasks in the future, as food causes one-third of global emissions. Influencing customers' purchasing decisions towards low-carbon food is thus decisive. Nudging has been proven to be an adequate mechanism to influence people towards sustainable food choices. Another relatively new approach is boosting, which promotes people's education, inducing autonomous decision-making. In the context of sustainable food, research on nudging and boosting is still at the beginning. Therefore, this chapter conducts a systematic literature review to identify, classify and assess the potential of cognitively oriented nudges and boosts towards sustainable food choices. The sample consists of 217 English-speaking papers published between 2011 and 2021. After three filtering steps, 21 scientific journal publications remained in the data extraction form. All articles are field experiments, comprising descriptive labelling, evaluative labelling, and visibility enhancements. The analysis shows that menu restructurings (e.g. placing a vegetarian option on the top of the menu) in restaurants are the most effective intervention to reshape customers' demands. Evaluative labels (e.g. traffic-light labels on the menu or product packaging) are the second most effective measure. They help people understand eco-related information and thus make better decisions. The effect of descriptive labels seemed small, as they provide no meaningful frame assisting people in processing the data. In conclusion, the research recommends applying cognitively oriented nudges and boosts to promote sustainable food choices and deduces practical implications for appropriate implementation and marketing.

We analyze how institutional persistence unfolds. Building on an historical analysis of 3,307 bottle labels in the Bordeaux wine community, France, between 1924 and 2005, we find that the persistence of a chateau tradition requires considerable effort at maintenance. Instead of greater compression and taken-for-grantedness, we propose that expansion along multimodal carriers provides a marker of a deepening institutionalization. We underscore the role of community organizations in enabling a wine tradition to persist. The implications of our findings for institutional theory and multimodality research are discussed.

Purpose: Previous research identified a measurement gap in the individual assessment of social misconduct in the workplace related to gender. This gap implies that women respond to comparable self-reported acts of bullying or sexual discrimination slightly more often than men with the self-labeling as “bullied” or “sexually discriminated and/or harassed.” This study tests this hypothesis for women and men in the scientific workplace and explores patterns of gender-related differences in self-reporting behavior.

Basic design: The hypotheses on the connection between gender and the threshold for self-labeling as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against were tested based on a sample from a large German research organization. The sample includes 5,831 responses on bullying and 6,987 on sexual discrimination (coverage of 24.5 resp. 29.4 percentage of all employees). Due to a large number of cases and the associated high statistical power, this sample for the first time allows a detailed analysis of the “gender-related measurement gap.” The research questions formulated in this study were addressed using two hierarchical regression models to predict the mean values of persons who self-labeled as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against. The status of the respondents as scientific or non-scientific employees was included as a control variable.

Results: According to a self-labeling approach, women reported both bullying and sexual discrimination more frequently. This difference between women and men disappeared for sexual discrimination when, in addition to the gender of a person, self-reported behavioral items were considered in the prediction of self-labeling. For bullying, the difference between the two genders remained even in this extended prediction. No statistically significant relationship was found between the frequency of self-reported items and the effect size of their interaction with gender for either bullying or sexual discrimination. When comparing bullying and sexual discrimination, it should be emphasized that, on average, women report experiencing a larger number of different behavioral items than men.

Interpretation and relevance: The results of the study support the current state of research. However, they also show how volatile the measurement instruments for bullying and sexual discrimination are. For example, the gender-related measurement gap is considerably influenced by single items in the Negative Acts Questionnaire and Sexual Experience Questionnaire. The results suggest that women are generally more likely than men to report having experienced bullying and sexual discrimination. While an unexplained “gender gap” in the understanding of bullying was found for bullying, this was not the case for sexual discrimination.

Studies of the social construction of markets have not determined which social environments, which we refer to as proximate social space, are most likely to trigger social construction processes. We find that U.S. nonprofit fiscal sponsors respond to greater potential for category emergence when proximate social space is defined by geography but not by market segment. Further, in addition to responding to potential claimants based on geographic peers, organizations also respond to actual claimants based on peers in the market segment. The pattern suggests that geographic social proximity triggers initial label claiming, which in turn triggers responses from market segment peers.