Publications Database

Welcome to the new Schulich Peer-Reviewed Publication Database!

The database is currently in beta-testing and will be updated with more features as time goes on. In the meantime, stakeholders are free to explore our faculty’s numerous works. The left-hand panel affords the ability to search by the following:

  • Faculty Member’s Name;
  • Area of Expertise;
  • Whether the Publication is Open-Access (free for public download);
  • Journal Name; and
  • Date Range.

At present, the database covers publications from 2012 to 2020, but will extend further back in the future. In addition to listing publications, the database includes two types of impact metrics: Altmetrics and Plum. The database will be updated annually with most recent publications from our faculty.

If you have any questions or input, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.


Search Results

Reynolds, T., Zhu, L., Aquino, K., and Strejcek, B. (2020). "Dual Pathways to Bias: Evaluators’ Ideology and Ressentiment Independently Predict Racial Discrimination in Hiring Contexts", Journal of Applied Psychology.

Open Access Download

Abstract Despite organizations’ professed commitment to fairness, thousands of employees file race-based discrimination claims every year. The current article examines how people deviate from impartiality when evaluating candidates in hiring decisions. Researchers have argued the ideological endorsement of elitism (i.e., scoring high in social dominance orientation) can lead to discrimination against racial minorities. We examined whether an opposing ideological commitment—egalitarianism—can also produce partiality, but in favor of minority applicants. Inspired by dual processing models and Nietzsche’s philosophical theorizing, we also forwarded and tested a novel, affective predictor of racial biases in evaluation: ressentiment toward the socially powerful. Across 4 studies, we found evaluators’ ideologies and ressentiment independently shaped evaluations of equally qualified candidates in hiring contexts. Participants who endorsed elitism showed a preference for White candidates, whereas those who endorsed egalitarianism evaluated Black candidates more favorably. Individuals who experienced stronger ressentiment toward the social elite also preferred Black over White applicants. Studies 3 and 4 tested and supported a novel intervention—inducing a calculative mindset—as a method for attenuating evaluators’ ideological and ressentiment driven impartiality.

Bradshaw, A. and Zwick, D. (2016). "Biopolitical Marketing and Social Media Brand Communities", Theory, Culture & Society, 33(5), 91-115.

Open Access Download

Abstract This article offers an analysis of marketing as an ideological set of practices that makes cultural interventions designed to infuse social relations with biopolitical injunctions. We examine a contemporary site of heightened attention within marketing: the rise of online communities and the attendant profession of social media marketing managers. We argue that social media marketers disavow a core problem; namely, that the object at stake, the customer community, barely exists. The community therefore functions ideologically. We describe the ideological gymnastics necessary for maintaining momentum behind a practice that barely exists and we ponder why such ideologies are necessary, and what they allow the marketer to do. Working with such concepts as ‘the wild’, ‘communicative capitalism’, and ‘biopolitical marketing’, we explore a genre of popular business literature that proselytizes for online customer communities and we reflect on the broader implications.

Zhu, L., Aquino, K., and Vadera, A.K. (2015). "What Makes Professor Appear Credible: The Effect of Demographic Characteristics and Ideological Beliefs", Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 862-880.

Open Access Download

Abstract Five studies are conducted to examine how ideology and perceptions regarding gender, race, caste, and affiliation status affect how individuals judge researchers’ credibility. Support is found for predictions that individuals judge researcher credibility according to their egalitarian or elitist ideologies and according to status cues including race, gender, caste, and university affiliation. Egalitarians evaluate low-status researchers as more credible than high-status researchers. Elitists show the opposite pattern. Credibility judgments affect whether individuals will interpret subsequent ambiguous events in accordance with the researcher’s findings. Effects of diffuse status cues and ideological beliefs may be mitigated when specific status cues are presented to override stereotypes.

Carrington, M., Neville, B. and Zwick, D. (2015). "The Ideology of the Ethical Consumption Gap", Marketing Theory, 16(1), 21-28.

Open Access Download

Abstract The growth of contemporary capitalism is producing a broad sweep of environmental and social ills, such as environmental degradation, exploitative labor conditions, social and economic inequity, and mental and physical illness. A growing awareness of these significant consequences by an “ethical” consumer segment has catalyzed a field of research dedicated to investigating ethical consumerism. Of particular academic and practitioner focus is the general failure of this ethical consumer segment to “walk their talk”—the ethical consumption attitude–behavior ‘gap’. In this article, we draw on Althusser and Žižek to critically analyze the ideological functioning of the ethical consumption gap. We argue that this focus inadvertently promotes erroneous notions of consumer sovereignty and responsibilization. We conclude with a call to reimagine the gap as a construct that paradoxically preserves—rather than undermines—dominant and destructive consumerist capitalism. We redirect research toward the underlying capitalist structures that predicate and benefit from the gap.

Zhu, L., Kay, A. C., and Eibach, R. (2013). "A Test of the Flexible Ideology Hypothesis: System Justification Motives Interact with Ideological Cueing to Predict Political Judgments", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 755-758.

View Paper

Abstract We hypothesize that the system justification motive increases individuals' susceptibility to ideological priming effects. We tested this hypothesis in a sample of 308 participants in which system justification, accessibility of meritocratic or egalitarian ideology, and judgment of a meritocratic or equal funding system were manipulated. As predicted, when the system justifying motive was activated, participants primed with meritocracy (egalitarianism) judged a meritocratic (equal) funding system as relatively more fair. The same pattern was not found when system justification motives were not activated. Theoretical implications are discussed.