Yilun Cheng

Overconsumption, which leads to considerable adverse effects on sustainability, is a significant concern in the tourism sector, especially under flat-rate pricing (e.g., buffets), where consumption is unlimited after consumers pay a fixed price. When charged with higher prices, will people consume more regardless of how much they need? Previous findings are mixed. To answer this question, by conducting three laboratory experiments and one field experiment, our research introduces an influential ideology and shows that this higher-price-driven overconsumption behavior only holds among people who believe in the Protestant Work Ethic, an influential concept used to explain the historical rise of capitalism. People who believe in the Protestant Work Ethic emphasize input-outcome correspondence and are therefore more likely to feel entitled to consume more as their expenditure increases. This belief leads them to overconsume under flat-rate pricing. In contrast, people who do not subscribe to the Protestant Work Ethic consume similar quantities regardless of their spending. Our findings extend the Protestant Work Ethic literature, revealing how this virtuous construct can lead to not-so-virtuous behavior like overconsumption. Marketers can leverage this to influence consumer overconsumption, enhancing profitability and sustainability.

Objectives: To study the attitudes of both medical and non-medical students towards the do-not-resuscitate decision in a university in Hong Kong, and the factors affecting their attitudes.Methods: A questionnaire-based survey conducted in the campus of a university in Hong Kong. Preferences and priorities of participants on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in various situations and case scenarios, experience of death and dying, prior knowledge of DNR and basic demographic data were evaluated.Results: A total of 766 students participated in the study. There were statistically significant differences in their DNR decisions in various situations between medical and non-medical students, clinical and preclinical students, and between students who had previously experienced death and dying and those who had not. A prior knowledge of DNR significantly affected DNR decision, although 66.4% of non-medical students and 18.7% of medical students had never heard of DNR. 74% of participants from both medical and non-medical fields considered the patient’s own wish as the most important factor that the healthcare team should consider when making DNR decisions. Family wishes might not be decisive on the choice of DNR.Conclusions: Students in medical and non-medical fields held different views on DNR. A majority of participants considered the patient’s own wish as most important in DNR decisions. Family wishes were considered less important than the patient’s own wishes.