The Good-on-Paper Effect: How the Decision Context Influences Virtuous Behavior

References

• Agerström J, Björklund F (2009) Temporal distance and moral concerns: Future morally questionable behavior is perceived as more wrong and evokes stronger prosocial intentions. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 31(1):49–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atasoy O, Morewedge CK (2018) Digital goods are valued less than physical goods. J. Consumer Res. 44(6):1343–1357.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Tice DM (2007) The strength model of self-control. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 16(6):351–355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bem DJ (1972) Self-perception theory. Berkowitz L, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6 (Academic Press, New York), 1–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bodner R, Prelec D (1996) The emergence of private rules in a self-signaling model. Internat. J. Psych. 31:3652–3653.Google Scholar
• Bostyn DH, Sevenhant S, Roets A (2018) Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment vs. real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psych. Sci. 29(7):1084–1093.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brasel SA, Gips J (2014) Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: How varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. J. Consumer Psych. 24(2):226–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown AL, Meer J, Williams JF (2019) Why do people volunteer? An experimental analysis of preferences for time donations. Management Sci. 65(4):1455–1468.Link, Google Scholar
• Bryan CJ, Walton GM, Rogers T, Dweck CS (2011) Motivating voter turnout by invoking the self. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(31):12653–12656.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi SY, Park HS, Oh JY (2012) Temporal distance and blood donation intention. J. Health Psych. 17(4):590–599.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clariana R, Wallace P (2002) Paper-based vs. computer-based assessment: Key factors associated with the test mode effect. British J. Ed. Tech. 33(5):593–602.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeAngelis SL (2000) Tuition, financial aid, debt, and dental student attrition. J. Stud. Financial Aid 30(2):7–21.Google Scholar
• Deleuze G (1988) Bergsonism (Zone Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Wertenbroch K (2012) Self-signaling and the costs and benefits of temptation in consumer choice. J. Marketing Res. 49(1):15–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diener E, Srull TK (1979) Self-awareness, psychological perspective, and self-reinforcement in relation to personal and social standards. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 37(3):413–423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dimoka A, Vo KD, Verkatraman V, Pavlou PA (2015) Understanding the effectiveness of physical mail communications through neuroscience. Report, Center for Neural Decision Making, Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Eyal T, Liberman N, Trope Y (2008) Judging near and distant virtue and vice. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 44(4):1204–1209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feijóo C, Gómez-Barroso JL, Voigt P (2014) Exploring the economic value of personal information from firms’ financial statements. Internat. J. Inform. Management 34(2):248–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• FeldmanHall O, Mobbs D, Evans D, Hiscox L, Navrady L, Dalgleish T (2012) What we say and what we do: The relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices. Cognition 123(3):434–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishbach A, Zhang Y (2008) Together or apart: When goals and temptations complement vs. compete. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 94(4):547–559.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flavián C, Ibáñez-Sánchez S, Orús C (2019) The impact of virtual, augmented and mixed reality technologies on the customer experience. J. Bus. Res. 100(July):547–560.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Francis KB, Howard C, Howard IS, Gummerum M, Ganis G, Anderson G, Terbeck S (2016) Virtual morality: Transitioning from moral judgement to moral action. PLoS One 11(10):e0164374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghose A, Goldfarb A, Han SP (2013) How is the mobile internet different? Search costs and local activities. Inform. Systems Res. 24(3):613–631.Link, Google Scholar
• Girvan C (2018) What is a virtual world? Definition and classification. Ed. Tech. Res. Dev. 66(5):1087–1100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy A, Gneezy U, Riener G, Nelson LD (2012) Pay-what-you-want, identity, and self-signaling in markets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(19):7236–7240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gollwitzer PM, Heckhausen H, Steller B (1990) Deliberative and implemental mind-sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 59(6):1119–1127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gomila R (2021) Logistic or linear? Estimating causal effects of experimental treatments on binary outcomes using regression analysis. J. Experiment. Psych. General 150(4):700–709.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayes AF (2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Imas A (2014) Working for the “warm glow”: On the benefits and limits of prosocial incentives. J. Public Econom. 114(6):14–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imas A (2016) The realization effect: Risk-taking after realized vs. paper losses. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(8):2086–2109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imas A, Loewenstein G (2018) Mental accounting: Is altruism sensitive to scope? The role of tangibility. AEA Papers Proc. 108(May):143–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ince BK, Cetecioglu Z, Ince O (2011) Pollution prevention in the pulp and paper industries. Broniewicz E, ed. Environmental Management in Practice (InTech, Rijeka, Croatia), 224–246.Google Scholar
• Judd CM, Kenny DA (1981) Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Rev. 5(5):602–619.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khan U, Dhar R (2007) Where there is a way, is there a will? The effect of future choices on self-control. J. Experiment Psych. General 136(2):277–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut T, Ritov I, Rubaltelli E, Liberman N (2018) How far is the suffering? The role of psychological distance and victims’ identifiability in donation decisions. Judgment Decision Making 13(5):458–466.Google Scholar
• Kray LJ (2000) Contingent weighting in self-other decision making. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 83(1):82–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kray L, Gonzalez R (1999) Differential weighting in choice vs. advice: I’ll do this, you do that. J. Behav. Decision Making 12(3):207–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krebs D (1975) Empathy and altruism. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 32(6):1134–1146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laran J (2010) Goal management in sequential choices: Consumer choices for others are more indulgent than personal choices. J. Consumer Res. 37(2):304–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine M, Cassidy C, Brazier G, Reicher S (2002) Self-categorization and bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 32(7):1452–1463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lu J, Liu Y, Fang Z (2016) Hedonic products for you, utilitarian products for me. Judgment Decision Making 11(4):332–341.Google Scholar
• MacAskill W (2015) Doing Good Better: Effective Altruism and How You Can Make a Difference (Penguin, London).Google Scholar
• Mangen A, Walgermo BR, Brønnick K (2013) Reading linear texts on paper vs. computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. Internat. J. Ed. Res. 58(2):61–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazzeo J, Druesne B, Raffeld P, Checketts KT, Muhlstein A (1991) Comparability of computer and paper-and-pencil scores for two CLEP general examinations. College Board Report 91-5, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
• Mehta R, Zhu R, Meyers-Levy J (2014) When does a higher construal level increase or decrease indulgence? Resolving the myopia vs. hyperopia puzzle. J. Consumer Res. 41(2):475–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Millward Brown and the Centre for Experimental Consumer Psychology at Bangor University (2009) Using neuroscience to understand the role of direct mail. Case study, Millward Brown, Warwick, UK/Centre for Experimental Consumer Psychology at Bangor University, Bangor, UK. Accessed July 11, 2021, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ee4bac414fb53d228c3532/t/5d30cff8e172f9000121e612/1563480057602/MillwardBrown_CaseStudy_Neuroscience.pdf.Google Scholar
• Mullen E, Monin B (2016) Consistency vs. licensing effects of past moral behavior. Annual Rev. Psych. 67:363–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Dea S (2021) Smartphone users worldwide 2016–2021. Statista (August 6), https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/.Google Scholar
• Oppenheimer DM, Meyvis T, Davidenko N (2009) Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 45(4):867–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Patil I, Cogoni C, Zangrando N, Chittaro L, Silani G (2014) Affective basis of judgment-behavior discrepancy in virtual experiences of moral dilemmas. Soc. Neurosci. 9(1):94–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D, Bodner R (2003) Self-signaling and self-control. Loewenstein G, Read D, Baumeister RF, eds. Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Intertemporal Choice (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), 277–298.Google Scholar
• Prelec D, Simester D (2001) Always leave home without it: A further investigation of the credit-card effect on willingness to pay. Marketing Lett. 12(1):5–12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raghubir P, Srivastava J (2008) Monopoly money: The effect of payment coupling and form on spending behavior. J. Experiment. Psych. Appl. 14(3):213–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Read D, Van Leeuwen B (1998) Predicting hunger: The effects of appetite and delay on choice. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 76(2):189–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Read D, Loewenstein G, Kalyanaraman S (1999) Mixing virtue and vice: Combining the immediacy effect and the diversification heuristic. J. Behav. Decision Making 12(4):257–273.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Savary J, Goldsmith K, Dhar R (2015) Giving against the odds: When tempting alternatives increase willingness to donate. J. Marketing Res. 52(1):27–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwartz PM (2004) Property, privacy, and personal data. Harvard Law Rev. 117(7):2056–2128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shah AM, Eisenkraft N, Bettman JR, Chartrand TL (2016) “Paper or plastic?”: How we pay influences post-transaction connection. J. Consumer Res. 42(5):688–708.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shen H, Zhang M, Krishna A (2016) Computer interfaces and the “direct-touch” effect: Can iPads increase the choice of hedonic food? J. Marketing Res. 53(5):745–758.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shields R (2003) The Virtual (Routledge, New York).Google Scholar
• Small DA (2010) Sympathy biases and sympathy appeals: Reducing social distance to boost charitable contributions. Oppenheimer DM, Olivola CY, eds. The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity (Taylor and Francis, New York), 149–160.Google Scholar
• Spencer SJ, Zanna MP, Fong GT (2005) Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 89(6):845–851.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thomas M, Desai KK, Seenivasan S (2011) How credit card payments increase unhealthy food purchases: Visceral regulation of vices. J. Consumer Res. 38(1):126–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Touré-Tillery M, Fishbach A (2017) Too far to help: The effect of perceived distance on the expected impact and likelihood of charitable action. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 112(6):860–876.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Touré-Tillery M, Kouchaki M (2021) You will not remember this: How memory efficacy influences virtuous behavior. J. Consumer Res. 47(5):737–754.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Touré-Tillery M, Light AE (2018) No self to spare: How the cognitive structure of the self influences moral behavior. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 147(July):48–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trope Y, Liberman N (2003) Temporal construal. Psych. Rev. 110(3):403–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trope Y, Liberman N (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psych. Rev. 117(2):440–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tully SM, Hershfield HE, Meyvis T (2015) Seeking lasting enjoyment with limited money: Financial constraints increase preference for material goods over experiences. J. Consumer Res. 42(1):59–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• United States Postal Service (2015) Enhancing the value of mail: The human response. Report RARC-WP-15-012, Office of the Inspector General, United States Postal Service, Washington, DC. https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2015/rarc-wp-15-012.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Vailshery LS (2021) Forecast number of tablet users worldwide 2013–2021. Statista (January 22), https://www.statista.com/statistics/377977/tablet-users-worldwide-forecast/.Google Scholar
• Watson B (2001) Key factors affecting conceptual gains from CAL materials. British J. Ed. Tech. 32(5):587–593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xu AJ, Rodas MA, Torelli CJ (2020) Generosity without borders: The interactive effect of spatial distance and donation goals on charitable giving. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 161(6):65–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yoh M-S (2001) The reality of virtual reality. Proc. 7th Internat. Conf. Virtual Systems Multimedia (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC), 666–674.Google Scholar
• Zavoleas Y (2006) Real space, digital perception: formation of spatial experience beyond materiality. Working paper, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Crete, Greece. http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/95d9.content.07608.pdf.Google Scholar