I Share,Therefore I Am: A U.S.−China Comparison of College Students' Motivations to Share Information About Climate Change

This study examines social cognitive factors that influence information sharing related to climate change. Survey data were collected in the United States and China. Social and epistemic motivations, negative emotion, and information seeking were significant predictors of information sharing in the U.S. sample. In the Chinese sample, however, social motivation and information seeking were the only significant predictors. These results suggest that psychological collectivism fosters information sharing. For theory development purposes, these findings suggest that besides information seeking and processing, the Risk Information Seeking and Processing model could account for information sharing as well, although evidence only surfaced in the U.S. sample. Practically, this study offers important pathways to improve information sharing related to climate change in the public sphere.     

Current Perspectives Regarding Institutional Conflict of Interest

Science and Engineering Ethics - Policies and processes dealing with institutional conflict of interest (iCOI) lag well behind those dealing with individual COI. To remediate this, academic...     

The co-ordination of codes in short-term retention

The present experiments explored ways in which information encoded along different dimensions might be co-ordinated to determine memory performance. First, can an acoustic similarity decrement be offset by additional semantic encoding? Experiment I offers evidence for this compensatory interaction of codes. Second, does trade-off occur such that more information held in one code means less in another code? Third, are codes additive? Experiment II offers no support for the notion of a trade-off between encoding systems. However, when two codes were made available in the second study, recall was increased over the level achieved by either code alone.     

Regulatory foci and organizational commitment

We use regulatory focus theory to derive specific predictions regarding the differential relationships between regulatory focus and commitment. We estimated a structural equation model using a sample of 520 private and public sector employees and found in line with our hypotheses that (a) promotion focus related more strongly to affective commitment than prevention focus, (b) prevention focus related more strongly to continuance commitment than promotion focus, (c) promotion and prevention focus had equally strong effects on normative commitment. Implications of these findings for the three-component model of commitment, especially the ‘dual nature’ of normative commitment, as well as implications for human resources management and leadership are discussed.