Peer-Reviewed Journal Article

Question 1

A peer-reviewed journal article is an essential source of information for academic reports and projects. Intellectuals produce a journal article, and it’s a trustworthy source of knowledge on a particular topic or field.  For example, a peer-reviewed journal on ‘Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially’ (Ariely, Bracha & Meier, 2009) is a good example. To me, it’s an educative journal that has detailed information on why people are looking for a social endorsement from the community by doing what society defines as ‘good.’

Question 2

            This study presents a thorough description of what society defines as ‘good’ and how people try to obtain societal approval by doing what is defined as good by society. This study shows how people want to have a positive image in society.

Question 3

‘Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially’ peer-reviewed journal is a descriptive research design article that describes and explains the positive behavioral response of individuals to what society defines as ‘good.’

Question 4

            One strength of the specific measurement used to operationalize one of the critical variables in this journal article is that several researchers have acquired a wealth of knowledge on this topic, and thus the reference is credible. In addition, it is a dependable method of investigation. About the weaknesses, this peer-reviewed article journal has depth issues. In addition, the lack of flexibility of the data collection method is also a weakness of the precise measurement employed in the operationalization of one of the significant factors.

Question 5

            The article proposes behavioral claims based upon many features of the various incentives that drive prosocial behavior. In the primary research, dubbed “Click for Charity,” respondents may give to a nonprofit organization by pressing two buttons on a computer keyboard. Randomized participants were allocated to two treatments: making their donation selections public or keeping them secret. In addition to the gift made on their behalf, participants were randomly allocated to gain or not gain monetary rewards that belonged entirely to them. The results were that private financial benefits appear to interact poorly with image concerns, resulting in financial rewards being more successful in driving confidential prosocial actions than those made in public.

References

Ariely, D., Bracha, A., & Meier, S. (2009). Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially. American Economic Review, 99(1), 544-555. doi: 10.1257/aer.99.1.544