Examining double standards in layoff preferences and expectations for gender, age, and ethnicity when violating the social norm of vaccination.

Whether vaccination refusal is perceived as a social norm violation that affects layoff decisions has not been tested. Also unknown is whether ascribed low-status groups are subject to double standards when they violate norms, experiencing stronger sanctions in layoff preferences and expectations, and whether work performance attenuates such sanctioning. Therefore, we study layoff preferences and expectations using a discrete choice experiment within a large representative online survey in Germany (N = 12,136). Respondents chose between two employee profiles, each with information about ascribed characteristics signaling different status groups (gender, age, and ethnicity), work performance (work quality and quantity, and social skills), and whether the employees refused to vaccinate against COVID-19. We found that employees who refused vaccination were more likely to be preferred and expected to be laid off. Respondents also expected double standards regarding layoffs due to vaccination refusal, hence, harsher treatment of females and older employees. Nonetheless, their preferences did not reflect such double standards. We found little support that high work performance attenuates these sanctions and double standards, opening questions about the conditions under which social biases arise. Our results suggest detrimental consequences of vaccination refusal for individuals, the labor market, and acceptance of health policies.

An experimental test of Situational Action Theory of crime causation: Investigating the perception-choice process.

Criminal action, according to Situational Action Theory (SAT), is a two-stage process consisting of a perception and a choice process. This Germany-wide vignette study (N = 3,088, participants recruited offline) provides an explicit and extensive test of these processes. It experimentally varied the informal moral context, deterrence (sanctions and detection risk), and possible gains of selling prescription drugs illegally in a 2x2x2×2 between-subject design. Personal morality and self-control were measured. Double-hurdle models show that personal morality served as a filter for the perception of criminal alternatives. Law-conforming moral context information, high self-control, and deterrence lowered the crime willingness. Thereby, this study underlines the usefulness of an explicit modeling of the dual-process of criminal conduct, in which certain antecedents only play a role in a certain process. While several findings corroborate assumptions from SAT, an influence of the informal moral context was only found in the choice process, not in the perception process.

Preferences for work arrangements: A discrete choice experiment.

This study investigates individual preferences for work arrangements in a discrete choice experiment. Based on sociological and economic literature, we identified six essential job attributes-earnings, job security, training opportunities, scheduling flexibility, prestige of the company, and gender composition of the work team-and mapped these into hypothetical job offers. Out of three job offers, with different specifications in the respective job attributes, respondents had to choose the offer they considered as most attractive. In 2017, we implemented our choice experiment in two large-scale surveys conducted in two countries: Germany (N = 2,659) and the Netherlands (N = 2,678). Our analyses revealed that respondents considered all six job attributes in their decision process but had different priorities for each. Moreover, we found gendered preferences. Women preferred scheduling flexibility and a company with a good reputation, whereas men preferred jobs with high earnings and a permanent contract. Despite different national labor market regulations, different target populations, and different sampling strategies for the two surveys, job preferences for German and Dutch respondents were largely parallel.

Gender Bias in Justice Evaluations of Earnings: Evidence From Three Survey Experiments.

Previous studies in sociological justice research have found mixed results on the gender bias in justice evaluations of earnings. Some studies report a just gender pay gap favoring men; others do not find this gap. This study investigates the gender bias in justice evaluations by linking it to the inequality structure in which people are embedded. The empirical analyses are based on three factorial survey studies that consist of fictitious full-time employees with varying characteristics, including gender. One study was conducted with social sciences students, and two used population samples of German inhabitants. The results show that social sciences students revealed no gender bias in their evaluations. In the population surveys, both men and women showed a rating behavior favoring male employees. Respondents living in federal states with high actual gender pay gaps produced a larger bias favoring men. The findings indicate that actual inequalities between men and women influence the gender bias in justice evaluations.

The influence of patients' immigration background and residence permit status on treatment decisions in health care. Results of a factorial survey among general practitioners in Switzerland.

This study examines the influence of patients' immigration background and residence permit status on physicians' willingness to treat patients in due time. A factorial survey was conducted among 352 general practitioners with a background in internal medicine in a German-speaking region in Switzerland. Participants expressed their self-rating (SR) as well as the expected colleague-rating (CR) to provide immediate treatment to 12 fictive vignette patients. The effects of the vignette variables were analysed using random-effects models. The results show that SR as well as CR was not only influenced by the medical condition or the physicians' time pressure, but also by social factors such as the ethnicity and migration history, the residence permit status, and the economic condition of the patients. Our findings can be useful for the development of adequate, practically relevant teaching and training materials with the ultimate aim to reduce unjustified discrimination or social rationing in health care.

Evaluating the drivers of and obstacles to the willingness to use cognitive enhancement drugs: the influence of drug characteristics, social environment, and personal characteristics.

BACKGROUND: The use of cognitive enhancement (CE) by means of pharmaceutical agents has been the subject of intense debate both among scientists and in the media. This study investigates several drivers of and obstacles to the willingness to use prescription drugs non-medically for augmenting brain capacity. METHODS: We conducted a web-based study among 2,877 students from randomly selected disciplines at German universities. Using a factorial survey, respondents expressed their willingness to take various hypothetical CE-drugs; the drugs were described by five experimentally varied characteristics and the social environment by three varied characteristics. Personal characteristics and demographic controls were also measured. RESULTS: We found that 65.3% of the respondents staunchly refused to use CE-drugs. The results of a multivariate negative binomial regression indicated that respondents' willingness to use CE-drugs increased if the potential drugs promised a significant augmentation of mental capacity and a high probability of achieving this augmentation. Willingness decreased when there was a high probability of side effects and a high price. Prevalent CE-drug use among peers increased willingness, whereas a social environment that strongly disapproved of these drugs decreased it. Regarding the respondents' characteristics, pronounced academic procrastination, high cognitive test anxiety, low intrinsic motivation, low internalization of social norms against CE-drug use, and past experiences with CE-drugs increased willingness. The potential severity of side effects, social recommendations about using CE-drugs, risk preferences, and competencies had no measured effects upon willingness. CONCLUSIONS: These findings contribute to understanding factors that influence the willingness to use CE-drugs. They support the assumption of instrumental drug use and may contribute to the development of prevention, policy, and educational strategies.

Impact of contextual factors and substance characteristics on perspectives toward cognitive enhancement.

Enhancing cognitive performance with substances--especially prescription drugs--is a fiercely debated topic among scholars and in the media. The empirical basis for these discussions is limited, given that the actual nature of factors that influence the acceptability of and willingness to use cognitive enhancement substances remains unclear. In an online factorial survey, contextual and substance-specific characteristics of substances that improve academic performance were varied experimentally and presented to respondents. Students in four German universities rated their willingness to use and moral acceptance of different substances for cognitive enhancement. We found that the overall willingness to use performance enhancing substances is low. Most respondents considered the use of these substances as morally unacceptable. Situational influences such as peer pressure, policies concerning substance use, relative performance level of peers, but also characteristics of the substance, such as perceptions of substance safety, shape the willingness and acceptability of using a substance to enhance academic performance. Among the findings is evidence of a contagion effect meaning that the willingness was higher when the respondents have more CE drug users in their social network. We also found deterrence effects from strong side effects of using the substance, as well as from policy regulations and sanctions. Regulations might activate social norms against usage and sanctions can be seen as costly to users. Moreover, enhancement substances seem to be most tempting to low performers to catch up with others compared to high performers. By identifying contextual factors and substance characteristics influencing the willingness and acceptability of cognitive enhancers, policy approaches could consider these insights to better manage the use of such substances.

The rationale for consuming cognitive enhancement drugs in university students and teachers.

Cognitive enhancement (CE) is the pharmaceutical augmentation of mental abilities (e.g., learning or memory) without medical necessity. This topic has recently attracted widespread attention in scientific and social circles. However, knowledge regarding the mechanisms that underlie the decision to use CE medication is limited. To analyze these decisions, we used data from two online surveys of randomly sampled university teachers (N = 1,406) and students (N = 3,486). Each respondent evaluated one randomly selected vignette with regard to a hypothetical CE drug. We experimentally varied the characteristics of the drugs among vignettes and distributed them among respondents. In addition, the respondent's internalization of social norms with respect to CE drug use was measured. Our results revealed that students were more willing to enhance cognitive performance via drugs than university teachers, although the overall willingness was low. The probability of side effects and their strength reduced the willingness to use CE drugs among students and university teachers, whereas higher likelihoods and magnitudes of CE increased this propensity. In addition, the internalized norm against CE drug use influenced decision making: Higher internalization decreased the willingness to use such medications. Students' internalized norms more strongly affected CE abstinence compared with those of university teachers. Furthermore, internalized norms negatively interacted with the instrumental incentives for taking CE medication. This internalization limited the influence of and deliberation on instrumental incentives. This study is the first to provide empirical evidence regarding the importance of social norms and their influence on rational decision making with regard to CE. We identified previously undiscovered decision-making patterns concerning CE. Thus, this study provides insight into the motivators and inhibitors of CE drug use. These findings have implications for contending with CE behavior by highlighting the magnitude of potential side effects and by informing the debate regarding the ethics of CE use.

When decisions should be shared: a study of social norms in medical decision making using a factorial survey approach.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is often advocated as an ideal for making medical decisions. Until now, however, opinions regarding which treatment situations warrant SDM have not been systematically investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine social norms regarding medical decision making, using a factorial survey design. METHODS: The factorial survey applied in this study consisted of 7 situational factors (e.g., the reason for consultation), each with 2 to 3 levels (e.g., prevention and severe disease). These factors were turned into various descriptions of treatment situations. A total of 101 physicians, 115 patients, and 113 members of self-help groups participated in the study. Each participant assessed 10 vignettes using a 5-point scale to indicate who they thought should make the decision in each specific situation. RESULTS: Most assessments across the 3 groups called for a shared decision (39%). Ordered logistic regression analysis demonstrated that, according to study participants, all 7 situational factors (reason for consultation, time frame of negative outcomes, time pressure, number of therapeutic options, side effects, scientific evidence of efficacy, and desire to participate) significantly affected how decisions regarding treatment should be made. The strongest factor was the patient's desire to participate in decision making (odds ratio = 1.84; P ≤ 0.001), followed by the reason for consultation (odds ratio = 0.69; P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that there is a general desire for SDM in a variety of treatment situations. Furthermore, based on the responses of our participants, our findings also lay the framework in determining which treatment situations warrant SDM.