Currently, online travel agencies (OTA) disclose their sponsored hotel options in such a way that the sponsorship disclosure may not be recognized as such by consumers. We hypothesise that by...Show moreCurrently, online travel agencies (OTA) disclose their sponsored hotel options in such a way that the sponsorship disclosure may not be recognized as such by consumers. We hypothesise that by increasing the prominence and clarity of symbols indicating sponsorship disclosure recognition may be increased. Further, we hypothesise that sponsorship disclosures may lead to positive responses in consumers. 300 UK-based participants took part in a randomized online experiment. Participants were presented with one of four sponsorship disclosure symbols on a mock-up website, on which they chose a hotel. Further, recognition of sponsorship disclosures, as well as fairness perceptions and purchase intention, were assessed. Results showed that more prominent and clearer symbols led to increased recognition of sponsorship disclosure. Significant decreases in purchase intention and fairness perceptions were found for disclosing sponsorship to participants after choosing a hotel. We suggest that the obtained insights may be used to refine sponsorship disclosure guidelines.Show less
Climate change is a worldwide problem and it has become clearer that costly actions are needed to stop this. Costs to prevent climate change can be distributed across different countries to solve...Show moreClimate change is a worldwide problem and it has become clearer that costly actions are needed to stop this. Costs to prevent climate change can be distributed across different countries to solve this problem. However, what do people think is the fair way to distribute these costs and will they change their mind when they are informed about their country’s allocated costs? The hypothesis in this research is that the higher the wealth and pollution level of a country, the more costs will be distributed towards it. Additionally, it is expected that people who receive explicit information about their country’s wealth or pollution level will distribute less costs towards themselves. In this study the participants had to distribute costs between four country sets based on either wealth or pollution. Some received explicit knowledge about the wealth or pollution level of their country, to see if this influenced their distributive preference. Results showed that people distribute more costs to a country the higher its wealth or pollution level. When informed about their own country’s wealth or pollution level, people from less wealthy sets are willing to contribute more to the climate costs. This shows that people might be willing to pay more than would be expected at first hand.Show less
Reducing the harmful effects of climate change on the planet is one of the most important, yet challenging issues countries across the world are currently facing. Doing so requires cooperation, but...Show moreReducing the harmful effects of climate change on the planet is one of the most important, yet challenging issues countries across the world are currently facing. Doing so requires cooperation, but collectively mitigating the effects of climate change results in a public goods dilemma in which everyone benefits, despite contributing to the costs accompanied. With this, questions regarding fairness on distributing these costs arise. This study adds to the small body of literature on solving public goods dilemmas related to climate change by examining how the six cultural dimensions defined by Hofstede (2001) correlate with the preference to pay more to reduce the effects of climate change. Doing so, the distribution preferences of 3771 participants in 51 countries were measures. The results show that long-term orientation correlates with the preference to pay more, especially for the richest set of countries. Individualism, power distance, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and indulgence do not significantly correlate to the preference to pay more to reduce the effects of climate change, contradicting previous research on public good dilemmas and pro-environmental behavior. Implications of these findings, alongside limitations of the study and further research directions are discussed.Show less
Climate change is a collective problem and a serious threat the whole world. To stabilize the climate pollution globally, a lot of money is necessary to mitigate climate change. But what is fair in...Show moreClimate change is a collective problem and a serious threat the whole world. To stabilize the climate pollution globally, a lot of money is necessary to mitigate climate change. But what is fair in who is going to pay? In the current study the preferences of citizens from 51 countries have been collected about how they feel the climate costs should be distributed across different countries when the wealth and the pollution level of the participating countries were taken into account. Additionally, it was researched if those preferences changed when participants got specific information about their own country’s wealth and pollution level. Besides, we examined if the distributive preferences differed between people living in developing and developed countries. According to this research we can conclude that people have a preference to allocate the climate costs according to countries’ wealth and pollution level, with a higher allocation as a country has a higher wealth or pollution level. Additionally, people who knew that they were living in a low wealth or low pollution level country decided to allocate more of the climate costs to themselves, compared to people who did not have that knowledge. Furthermore, there was no difference found between distributive preferences of climate costs of developing versus developed countries. These findings provide insights into what people feel is a fair distribution of climate costs between countries based on their wealth and pollution levels. Further research to other factors is necessary to contribute to the solution for a fair distribution of the climate costs.Show less
Comparison websites are on the rise; they have become increasingly well-known under the ordinary consumer. However, what is less well-known, is that comparison websites are making use of...Show moreComparison websites are on the rise; they have become increasingly well-known under the ordinary consumer. However, what is less well-known, is that comparison websites are making use of sponsorships. This means that the ranking of options is based on a financial agreement between the website and a product provider. Comparison websites should disclose sponsorship. However, the sponsorship disclosure is not always noticed or interpreted by the consumer. Also, there is not one method to disclose sponsorship. Therefore this study compared four different sponsorship disclosures: a thumbs-up icon, an information icon, a paid position tag, and a highlighted tag. The sponsorship disclosures were shown on a mock comparison website for hotels. One of the hotels was sponsored, which was indicated by the sponsorship disclosure. After the participants used the comparison website to make a hotel preference, they were presented a survey. The survey was intended to examine the influence of different ways of sponsorship disclosure on (a) recognizing and understanding the sponsoring, (b) the feeling of being treated fairly, and (c) the purchase behavior and purchase intention. The results showed that textual sponsorship disclosures were better recognized and understood than the sponsorship disclosures by symbols, especially the highlighted paid position tag. Contrary to our expectations, the type of sponsorship disclosure did not influence the perceived fairness, purchase behavior, and purchase intention as we expected. Possible explanations and directions for future research are discussed, as well as practical implications for consumer organizations.Show less
Price comparison websites are a popular medium for consumers to make purchases online. Many of these websites feature sponsored content and they are required to declare the presence of sponsorship....Show morePrice comparison websites are a popular medium for consumers to make purchases online. Many of these websites feature sponsored content and they are required to declare the presence of sponsorship. The method of declaration is not standardised which may result in consumer deception. The present study aims to examine the effects of different sponsorship declarations on information comprehension, perceived fairness, purchasing reactions, and perceived information adequacy. In an online survey, 301 participants were presented with a mock hotel comparison website. The sponsorship declaration was provided using different symbols per condition which were a ‘thumbs-up’ and ‘i’ symbol, and ‘paid positioning’ and a highlighted ‘paid positioning’ caption. Participants were asked to evaluate the website, recall the symbol that they had seen, as well as interpret its meaning. Afterwards, participants were explicitly told the disclosure information and were asked to evaluate the website again. The results showed the captions were comprehended much better than the ‘thumbs-up’ and ‘i’ symbol. The different methods of sponsorship disclosure affected purchasing behaviour but not general purchasing intention, fairness, and information adequacy. Explicit explanation of disclosure method resulted in decreased fairness and purchasing intention but increased information adequacy for all conditions. The implications of differing symbol recognition for sponsorship are discussed.Show less
In this study, we studied the possible impact of shame on trust, in the context of situations of poverty. It is known that people living in poverty feel shame, but what the impact is on trust, for...Show moreIn this study, we studied the possible impact of shame on trust, in the context of situations of poverty. It is known that people living in poverty feel shame, but what the impact is on trust, for instance when seeking help, is not well studied. We tried to manipulate 120 female participants into feeling either public shame, private shame, and nothing in particular (baseline condition). This was done by letting the participant in the first two conditions do a very difficult math- and language test, next to a confederate who clearly outperformed them. After the manipulation, a Trust Game was done. We expected that feeling shame caused them to score lower on the trust game and thus have less trust in others. Significant differences were found between shame scores of the public shame and the baseline conditions and between the private shame group and the baseline condition. However, no significant differences were found between the trust scores of the three conditions. This is notable because other studies show that beliefs about how one is perceived by others affects trust. This study provides important information on what feelings of shame can be evoked by counselors, and on the impact on clients’ ability to trust others. Future studies could further explore the mechanism behind this relationship, improving the limitations that were encountered in the present study.Show less
