Exhibiting altruism toward and cooperativeness with others is a key ingredient for successful work relationships and managerial decision making. Rising political polarization creates a hazard because it ruptures this fabric and impedes the interaction of employees, especially across political isles. This paper’s focus is to examine various behavioral-, belief-, and norm-based layers of (non)strategic decision making that are plausibly affected by polarization. I quantify this phenomenon via five preregistered studies in the context of Donald J. Trump, comprising 15 well-powered behavioral experiments and a diverse set of over 8,600 participants. To capture the pervasiveness of polarization, I contrast the findings with various political and nonpolitical identities. Overall, I consistently document strong heterogeneous effects: ingroup-love occurs in the perceptional domain (how close one feels toward others), whereas outgroup-hate occurs in the behavioral domain (how one helps/harms/cooperates with others). The rich setting also enables me to examine the mechanisms of observed intergroup conflict, which can be attributed to one’s grim expectations regarding cooperativeness of the opposing faction, rather than one’s actual unwillingness to cooperate. For the first time, the paper also tests whether popular behavioral interventions (defaults and norm-nudges) can reduce the detrimental impact of polarization in the contexts studied here. The tested interventions improve prosociality but are ineffective in closing the polarization gap. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, behavioral economics and decision analysis. Funding: This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Grant EXC 2126/1–390838866]. Supplemental Material: Data and the online appendix are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4701 . 

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/225541/1/ECONtribute-029-2020.pdf

Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences

Political polarization has ruptured the fabric of U.S. society. The focus of this paper is to examine various behavioral-, belief-, and norm-based layers of (non-)strategic decision-making that are plausibly affected by polarization in the context of Donald J. Trump. I quantify this phenomenon through the use of 5 pre-registered studies, comprising 15 well-powered behavioral experiments and a diverse set of over 8,600 participants. To capture the pervasiveness of polarization, I contrast the findings with various political and non-political identities in the same settings. Overall, I consistently document strong heterogeneous effects: ingroup-love occurs in the perceptional domain (how close one feels towards others), whereas outgroup-hate occurs in the behavioral domain (how one helps/harms/cooperates with others). The rich setting also allows me to examine the mechanisms of observed intergroup conflict, which can be attributed to one's grim expectations regarding cooperativeness of the opposing faction, rather than one's actual unwillingness to cooperate. For the first time, the paper also tests whether popular behavioral interventions (defaults and norm-nudging) can eradicate the detrimental impact of polarization in the (non-)strategic contexts studied here. The interventions are ineffective in closing the polarization gap, suggesting that structural -- on top of behavioral -- changes are needed to mend existing social ruptures.

/pdf/hate-trumps-love-the-impact-of-political-polarization-on-3v2nvu2ysz.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/07439156211000741

May the Force Be with You: Expanding the Scope for Marketing Research as a Force for Good in a Sustainable World:

Dominant policy approaches have failed to generate action at anywhere near the rate, scale or depth needed to avert climate change and environmental disaster. In particular, they fail to address the need for a fundamental cultural transformation, which involves a collective shift in mindsets (values, beliefs, worldviews and associated inner human capacities). Whilst scholars and practitioners are increasingly calling for more integrative approaches, knowledge on how the link between our mind and the climate crisis can be best addressed in policy responses is still scarce. Our study addresses this gap. Based on a survey and in-depth interviews with high-level policymakers worldwide, we explore how they perceive the intersection of mind and climate change, how it is reflected in current policymaking and how it could be better considered to support transformation. Our findings show, on the one hand, that the mind is perceived as a victim of increasing climate impacts. On the other hand, it is considered a key driver of the crisis, and a barrier to action, to the detriment of both personal and planetary wellbeing. The resultant vicious cycle of mind and climate change is, however, not reflected in mainstream policymaking, which fails to generate more sustainable pathways. At the same time, there are important lessons from other fields (e.g. education, health, the workplace, policy mainstreaming) that provide insights into how to integrate aspects of mind into climate policies. Our results show that systematic integration into policymaking is a key for improving both climate resilience and climate responsiveness across individual, collective, organisational and system levels and indicate the inner human potential and capacities that support related change. We conclude with some policy recommendations and further research that is needed to move from a vicious to a virtuous cycle of mind and climate change that supports personal and planetary wellbeing.The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10584-022-03398-9. 

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10584-022-03398-9.pdf

At the intersection of mind and climate change: integrating inner dimensions of climate change into policymaking and practice

Abstract As brand activism continues to move up the corporate agenda, a more comprehensive understanding of its effects is needed. This paper contributes to the evolving research by investigating moral emotions (i.e. other-praising and other-condemning emotions) as mediating factors and consumer-brand identification (CBI) as a moderator that shape consumer reactions to brand activism. Three scenario-based experiments on two divisive topics show that activist messages elicit moral emotions that determine how individuals respond to them, depending on whether or not they agree with the brand’s stance. Moreover, this effect of (dis)agreeing with the brand’s stance on brand attitude is moderated by CBI. In case of a strong identification, an activist message does not affect brand attitude as CBI attenuates the activation of moral emotions – both in the positive case of agreement and in the negative case of disagreement. Finally, brand activism may counter the brand’s social goals, as it disproportionally motivates opponents of the brand’s stand to advocate their own contrary views on the contentious issue. In sum, these findings underscore both the emotional nature of consumer reactions to brand activism and the high level of social responsibility of companies that position themselves as political actors. 

/pdf/is-brand-activism-an-emotional-affair-the-role-of-moral-1l4exiri.pdf

Is brand activism an emotional affair? The role of moral emotions in consumer responses to brand activism

Political polarization is a marked political division in the population, characterized by multiple manifestations. The authors argue that it can affect consumer psychology, which in turn influences...

Political Polarization: Challenges, Opportunities, and Hope for Consumer Welfare, Marketers, and Public Policy:

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Pradeep Jacob

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Political Polarization: Challenges, Opportunities, and Hope for Consumer Welfare, Marketers, and Public Policy: