Search results

We suggest that globalization, a process that fosters greater interdependence and mutual awareness among actors around the world in their economic, political, social, and cultural interactions, will also decrease the social distance among them and thus increase individuals' propensities to cooperate with distal others. We demonstrate in a multi-country public goods experiment that among the four domains of individual participation in globalization, economic participation in globalization has the least effect in prompting cooperation. Conversely, the other three domains of globalization have strong effects on individual cooperation, and this is robust to different specifications of the econometric model.

Advances in Group Processes publishes theoretical analyses, reviews, and theory-based empirical chapters on group phenomena. The series adopts a broad conception of “group processes.” This includes work on groups ranging from the very small to the very large, and on classic and contemporary topics such as status, power, trust, justice, influence, decision-making, intergroup relations, and social networks. Previous contributors have included scholars from diverse fields including sociology, psychology, political science, business, philosophy, computer science, mathematics, and organizational behavior.

This research provides accounting-ethics authors and administrators with a benchmark for accounting-ethics research. While Bernardi and Bean (2010) considered publications in business-ethics and accounting’s top-40 journals this study considers research in eight accounting-ethics and public-interest journals, as well as, 34 business-ethics journals. We analyzed the contents of our 42 journals for the 25-year period between 1991 through 2015. This research documents the continued growth (Bernardi & Bean, 2007) of accounting-ethics research in both accounting-ethics and business-ethics journals. We provide data on the top-10 ethics authors in each doctoral year group, the top-50 ethics authors over the most recent 10, 20, and 25 years, and a distribution among ethics scholars for these periods. For the 25-year timeframe, our data indicate that only 665 (274) of the 5,125 accounting PhDs/DBAs (13.0% and 5.4% respectively) in Canada and the United States had authored or co-authored one (more than one) ethics article.

This chapter investigates the difference between ultimatum games over gains and over losses. Although previous research in decision making has found that individuals treat losses and gains differently, losses have not previously been investigated in strategic situations. In the field, however, the problem of negotiating over losses is as unavoidable and problematic as the problem of negotiating over gains. In addition, data on how we bargain over losses can shed some theoretical light on fairness preferences. Two experiments use within-subject designs, the first in the U.S. and the second in the U.S., China and Japan. We find that offers and demands are higher in losses than in gains, and that these results hold across the three countries. We adapt Bolton's (1991) model of fairness to explain the results. Specifically, we extend prospect theory's loss aversion to unfairness, suggesting that unfairness in losses looms larger than unfairness in gains.

THE end of October saw the return of most of our overseas visitors, continental and otherwise, to their homes, leaving with us pleasant memories of a mutually successful visit. The Englishman's proverbial difficulties with foreign tongues, even of neighbouring France, did not complicate matters unduly or reduce too much those interchanges which conference and school afforded. We can repeat our frequently‐expressed hope that there will be an ever increasing series of visits, both of the foreigner to England and of ourselves as foreigners to other countries. We would welcome longer stays in both cases. Nothing but good can come from them.

FIRST THINGS FIRST AUTUMN may be a time for a new review of our work which is additional to our supreme task of providing and exploiting books. There is no single thing that we have done for the past fifty years that may not be made the better for examination, so long as that examination is cautious. Our publicity for example; is it direct, dignified, appealing; or, is it flabby, sometimes actually silly and sometimes a vain competing with that of great stores or newspapers with their relatively enormous resources? If the truth is accepted that the best expenditure we can make is on books and that the light that radiates from our shelves is from them we shall do well. Open shelves, well‐filled with modern editions of the new and old, are our best exhibition and the only permanently valuable one; our best publicity agents are our satisfied readers. The public will always pass on to others news of things it has proved to be good. If we came without previous knowledge to examine library literature today we might easily infer that books are now a negligible part of the thought of librarians. So much indeed that even librarians themselves have been heard to plead for some knowledge of the greater books of the world amongst themselves. Other writers in these pages and writers elsewhere have done this occasionally. The explanation lies in the fact that the “frills” we add to the real fabric of libraries are just attracting additions made to draw further attention to the existing excellent book‐services we now give. It is probable that the concern for information services, gramophone records and so many other now familiar extras is shown most by librarians whose bookstock is already excellent and is being kept so. Such an explanation we should like to believe.