The Longitudinal Relationships Among Injunctive Norms and Hooking Up Attitudes and Behaviors in College Students

Limited research has explored the influence of perceived injunctive norms for distal (e.g., typical student) and proximal (e.g., close friend and parents) referents on hooking up. The current study examined the longitudinal relationships among perceived injunctive norms, personal approval, and hooking up behavior, and the moderating effects of gender in a sample of heavy-drinking college students. At Time 1, participants completed Web-based assessments of personal approval of hooking up and perceptions of close friend, parent, and typical student approval. Three months later, participants reported on whether they had hooked up. The results of a path analysis indicated that greater perceived friend and parent approval predicted greater personal approval. Further, greater perceived approval by close friends and parents indirectly contributed to hooking up behavior as mediated by participants’ own approval. Multigroup analyses indicated that close friend injunctive norms were a stronger predictor of student approval for men as compared to women. While previous research has often failed to find an association between perceived injunctive norms and hooking up, the current findings suggest that this may reflect the use of distal referents. The findings underscore that perceptions of close friend and family approval may be useful predictors of hooking up behavior.     

Towards Common Ground and Trading Zones in Management Research and Practice

The purpose and nature of management scholarship is contested, evidenced by debates about the ‘academic–practitioner divide’ and attendant remedies for addressing it, including mode 2 and mode 3 research, engaged scholarship, evidence‐based management and design science. In this paper the authors argue that, without a culture of dialogical encounter, management scholarship will never be able to emerge from its adolescence, and management will not develop into the profession that it should and can become. The central proposition is that the highly fragmented landscape of management (practice and scholarship) lacks sufficient capability for dialogue among the plurality of actors situated across that landscape. Developing the dialogical capability ultimately required to break this fundamental impasse demands, first, a shared sense of purpose and responsibility (akin to the Hippocratic Oath in medicine) and, second, institutional entrepreneurship to establish more and better ‘trading zones’. Drawing on the philosophy of pragmatism, the authors further this endeavour by identifying and proposing key elements of a statement of shared purpose and responsibility. Finally, they explore the nature and characteristics of successful trading zones, highlighting particular examples that have already been created in management studies.     

Avoiding Covid-19 risk information in the United States: The role of attitudes,norms, affect,social dominance orientations,and perceived trustworthiness of scientists

This study seeks guidance from the planned risk information avoidance model to explore drivers of risk information avoidance in the context of COVID-19. Data were collected early during the pandemic. Among our most notable results is that participants who are more oriented toward social dominance and are more skeptical of scientists’ credibility have (1) more supportive attitudes toward risk information avoidance and (2) feel social pressure to avoid risk information. The findings of this study highlight how the role of skepticism in science and intergroup ideologies, such as social dominance, can have important implications for how people learn about health-related information, even in times of heightened crisis.