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
Rachel E. Hochstein, Ela Veresiu, Colleen M. Harmeling (2025). "Moralizing Everyday Consumption: The Case of Self-Care", Journal of Consumer Research, 52(1), 219-242.
Abstract
Morality, appraisals of right and wrong, is central to consumers’ identities and decisions. Even everyday consumption choices can be subject to moral judgments and require moral justifications. When and how do consumers moralize formerly taken-for-granted consumption practices? Considering self-care consumption in the United States, which includes practices that range from bathing to dieting to meditating to vacationing, this article examines the moralization of everyday consumption practices. This research reveals that consumption is likely to be moralized when there are culturally contested meanings of its core constructs, like “self” and “care,” leading cultural authorities to prescribe alternative ways to pursue the same consumption goal (i.e., cultural scripts). Exposure to cultural scripts that clash with consumers’ moral intuitions about self-care consumption triggers moral introspection, an evaluation and re-calibration of those intuitions. Consumers then set moral boundaries of acceptable self-care consumption by (1) denouncing, such that they assume a position of moral righteousness; (2) positioning, to indicate moral inclusivity; (3) balancing, which implies moral licensing; or (4) ritualizing, in which case they express moral autonomy. This study advances consumer research by establishing that moral considerations intertwine with consumers’ identities and underlie the symbolic meanings of everyday consumption practices.Mead, Nicole L. and Lawrence E. Williams (2023). "The Pursuit of Meaning and the Preference for Less Expensive Options", Journal of Consumer Research, 49(6), 1160.
Abstract
Finding meaning in life is a fundamental human motivation. Along with pleasure, meaning is a pillar of happiness and well-being. Yet, despite the centrality of this motive, and despite firms’ attempts to appeal to this motive, scant research has investigated how the pursuit of meaning influences consumer choice, especially in comparison to the study of pleasure. While previous perspectives would suggest that the pursuit of meaning tilts consumers toward high-quality products, we predicted and found the opposite. As compared to a pleasure or (no goal) baseline condition, 6 studies demonstrate that the pursuit of meaning causes people to consider how they can otherwise use their money (opportunity costs) which in turn leads to a preference for less expensive goods. This effect is robust across multiple product categories and usage situations, including both experiential and material purchases, and is obtained even when the more expensive product is perceived to deliver greater meaning. For participants pursuing meaning, making opportunity costs salient has no effect on their choices, and encouraging opportunity cost neglect increases their willingness to pay for a more expensive item. This research thus provides an initial answer as to how the pursuit of meaning shapes consumer choice processes and preferences.Mead, Nicole L. and Lawrence E. Williams (2022). "Can’t Buy Me Meaning? Lay Theories Impede People from Deriving Meaning and Well-Being from Consumption", Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, 101332.
Abstract
People seek meaning in the marketplace, but can meaning be bought? We review emerging evidence and suggest that the typical association between meaning and well-being is weakened in consumption contexts. We outline two lay beliefs that help explain this gap: the belief that purchases are extrinsic pursuits whereas meaning should come from intrinsic pursuits, and the belief that purchases are impure sources of meaning because companies profit at the expense of people. This conceptual model suggests three paths to enhance meaning and well-being through consumption: reframe purchases as intrinsically rewarding, change (erroneous) lay theories that profit necessarily comes at the expense of the social good, or highlight the future, enduring benefits of consumption.Reynolds, T., *Howard, C., Sjåstad, H., Zhu, L., Okimoto, T.G., Baumeister, R.F., Aquino, K., and Kim, J. (2020). "Man up and take it: Gender bias in Moral Typecasting", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 120-141.
Abstract
Informed by moral typecasting theory, we predicted a gender bias in harm evaluation, such that women are more easily categorized as victims and men as perpetrators. Study 1 participants assumed a harmed target was female (versus male), but especially when labeled ‘victim’. Study 2 participants perceived animated shapes perpetuating harm as male and victimized shapes as female. Study 3 participants assumed a female employee claiming harassment was more of a victim than a male employee making identical claims. Female victims were expected to experience more pain from an ambiguous joke and male perpetrators were prescribed harsher punishments (Study 4). Managers were perceived as less moral when firing female (versus male) employees (Study 5). The possibility of gender discrimination intensified the cognitive link between women and victimhood (Study 6). Across six studies in four countries (N = 3,137), harm evaluations were systematically swayed by targets’ gender, suggesting a gender bias in moral typecasting.Bell, C., Crawshaw, J.R. and Cropanzano, R. (2013). "Organizational Justice: New Insights From Behavioural Ethics", Human Relations, 66(7), 1-20.
