Search results
1 – 2 of 2Sanne Raghoebar, Ellen van Kleef and Emely de Vet
The purpose of this paper is to test whether the IKEA-effect (Norton et al., 2012) – better liking for self-crafted products than for identical products crafted by others – can be…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to test whether the IKEA-effect (Norton et al., 2012) – better liking for self-crafted products than for identical products crafted by others – can be exploited to increase liking and consumption of vegetable snacks in children.
Design/methodology/approach
A between-subjects experiment was conducted at an after school care facility. In total, 86 children aged four to six either crafted a peacock with vegetables or with non-food objects following an example. After the task, children ate snack vegetables ad libitum, and rated their liking for the vegetables and pride in crafting the peacock.
Findings
No significant main effect of the vegetable snack creation on consumption and liking was observed. Also, perceived pride did not mediate the effect of self-crafting vegetable snacks on consumption of and liking for vegetables.
Research limitations/implications
Vegetable consumption did not differ between children who were either simply exposed to vegetable snacks while crafting or those who were crafting the vegetable snacks themselves. The equal consumption might suggest that this is caused by simple exposure, but more research is needed comparing self-crafting and exposure to a condition where there is no initial exposure to vegetables.
Originality/value
Although the IKEA-effect has been demonstrated in adults, this is one of the first studies evaluating the IKEA-effect in children and as a means to increase liking for a generally disliked product in this target group, i.e. vegetables. The IKEA-effect could not be replicated under these more stringent conditions, where the experimental set-up enabled disentangling exposure and crafting effects.
Details
Keywords
Anastasia Miller and Lynn Unruh
Public safety personnel (law enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical services and dispatchers) face work environments which are high stress. These can lead to burnout…
Abstract
Purpose
Public safety personnel (law enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical services and dispatchers) face work environments which are high stress. These can lead to burnout, secondary traumatic stress and a reduction of compassion satisfaction. However, very little is known about what individual and work factors influence these negative coping mechanisms in public safety personnel. It is also unknown how perceived organizational and coworker support, debriefing methods, or individual characteristics are associated with the aforementioned coping mechanisms. The differences between these fields are also unknown. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach
A cross-sectional administration of surveys to Florida public safety personnel was done. A total of 1,360 public safety individuals completed the survey. Three regression analyses were carried out, utilizing the three Professional Quality of Life Version 5 subscales as the dependent variables. The Perceived Coworker Support Survey, Survey of Perceived Organizational Support, the Brief Resilience Survey and questions regarding debriefing practices were included.
Findings
Public safety personnel cannot be treated as a singular population for many things. An exception of this was that perceived organizational support and psychological resilience were associated with positive outcomes, albeit, to varying degrees in all fields. The other individual and organizational factors had very distinct impacts on the varying fields.
Research limitations/implications
There are limitations due to the nature of cross-sectional survey design and due to the sample size.
Originality/value
This study displays statistical relationships between factors which public safety agencies could use to increase employee job satisfaction and potentially reduce turnover. It was the only study the authors could find which include dispatchers when comparing these four public safety fields.
Details