Individuals often encounter risk throughout their lives. They are faced with decisions that do not have guaranteed outcomes but are aware of the probabilities, a coinflip for instance. How each...Show moreIndividuals often encounter risk throughout their lives. They are faced with decisions that do not have guaranteed outcomes but are aware of the probabilities, a coinflip for instance. How each person reacts to the outcomes of their choices also contributes to how these decisions will affect their lives. Past literature focused mostly on how people make decisions under risk, this paper will look to explore how the risk preferences of individuals affect their outcome satisfaction. Participants (N=89) took part in a gambling task; the task was structured into 2 conditions. The first condition, the free choice condition, presented participants with a gamble between a safe option that had a guaranteed sum and a risky option, participants were not informed of the outcome. The first condition aimed to assess the risk profile of the participants. The second condition, the manipulation condition, also presented two options to the participants; however, this time, they were told their choice could be randomly reversed. Additionally, in the manipulation condition, after each decision, the participants were asked to report their satisfaction with the outcome. The second condition aimed to understand how the risk profile of the participants related to their outcome satisfaction. Additionally, the manipulation condition ensured that risk-averse participants also experienced risky decisions and their outcomes. The findings of this study are that risk-averse participants were more satisfied with the outcome of their choices than risk-seeking participants. Furthermore, the outcome of each trial was not a significant mediator between risk attitudes and outcome satisfaction.Show less
Food waste is an important issue with serious consequences for the environment and the society at large. The aim of this study was to investigate the antecedents of food waste intention of Dutch...Show moreFood waste is an important issue with serious consequences for the environment and the society at large. The aim of this study was to investigate the antecedents of food waste intention of Dutch consumers. It was hypothesized that injunctive norms as well as perceived behavioral control (PBC) have a significant influence on food waste intention while gender moderates this effect. 124 Dutch participants filled out an online survey about food waste intentions and were asked questions about injunctive norms as well as PBC. It was found that injunctive norms have a highly significant effect on food waste intentions while perceived behavioral control did not have a significant effect. Both times gender did not moderate this relationship. Implications and limitations of the study have been discussed. Future research should investigate long-term effects and how injunctive norms as well as perceived behavioral control influence food waste intention across different contexts.Show less
Ingroup bias is the human tendency to favor one’s own group over others in seemingly all types of interactions. Religious individuals are often associated with moral values closely related to...Show moreIngroup bias is the human tendency to favor one’s own group over others in seemingly all types of interactions. Religious individuals are often associated with moral values closely related to prosociality, such as charity and selflessness. In this paper, I focused on the influence of religion on prosociality in economic decision-making. The goal was to test if religiosity is related to increased overall giving. Further, I predicted that religiosity is inversely associated with ingroup bias due to the religious participants’ increased prosociality. To test this assumption, I used an economic game in which participants had to divide money between an in- and outgroup recipient. While there was a significant effect of ingroup bias in the sample overall, religiosity did not relate to ingroup bias. Religious participants did not give more money to recipients regardless of their in- or outgroup status than non-religious ones overall, nor did they show reduced ingroup bias. Perhaps the sample size or the study’s setup was not appropriate to detect significant results for the effect of religiosity. Alternatively, religiosity is genuinely not associated with reduced ingroup bias nor increased overall giving because religious people might not be more prosocial than non-religious ones. Finally, it could also be that religiosity only matters in the context of ingroup bias when the in- and outgroups are related to religious identities (e.g., Christian ingroup and Muslim outgroup).Show less
