Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • mmae This does not mean that the choice processes between

    2018-10-24

    This does not mean that the choice processes between different periods of time are governed by a single assessment mechanism. Research using magnetic resonance imaging suggests that temporary choice is a combination of two processes: a hot, visceral, instinctive–affective process, and a cooler, cognitive process (McClure et al., 2004). In the final event, how the scale tips between these two processes may depend on a number of reasons. For example, in long-term decisions, patience is mediated by more cognitive neural activity but the person may also be affected by exposure to “hot stimuli”. Finally, note that this study was also subject to certain limitations. First, our results come from samples composed exclusively of university students and therefore cannot be used to make observations about the general population. Second, further replicas will be required to test the consistency of Hypothesis 2 and validate the results.
    Conflict of interests
    Introduction The extant literature on university stakeholders indicates that a wide range of individuals, organisations, and government-sponsored agencies are involved in higher education institutions (HEIs), generating conceptual confusion about who exactly the HEI stakeholders are (Mainardes, Raposo, & Alves, 2014). Thus, HEIs are oriented towards a variety of stakeholders (Bjørkquist, 2008; Ferrell, Gonzalez-Padron, Hult, & Maignan, 2010). Along these lines, Lovelock and Rothschild (1980) were pioneers highlighting the need for a broad concept of market orientation (MO) that takes into account more than one university stakeholder. In for-profit firms, MO is deemed a very suitable strategy for improving performance and is seen as a way to create value by generating loyalty and satisfaction in their customers (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990). However, in a recent definition of marketing, the American Marketing Association (2013) emphasises that an organisation should fulfil the expectations of society at large, instead of just satisfying its customers’ needs and wants. This alternative view has been called stakeholder orientation (SO), and it mmae is defined as a behaviour that consists of focusing the organisation towards the different stakeholders in society as a whole (Laczniak & Murphy, 2012; Maignan, Ferrell, & Ferrell, 2005; Parmar et al., 2010). On other words, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is better to think in a multi-orientational way regarding stakeholders, instead of thinking only in terms of customers, as the traditional MO view recommends (Ferrell et al., 2010). Several authors (Álvarez, Santos, & Vázquez, 2002; Flavián & Lozano, 2003; Greenley, Hooley, & Rudd, 2005; Modi & Mishra, 2010) support the idea that MO is not easily applicable to all kinds of organisations, especially in the context of non-profit organisations (NPOs). They suggest the need to extend the orientation of these organisations to more than one stakeholder, the customer, because the main mission of these organisations is to identify and satisfy the different needs of society (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008; Mainardes et al., 2014). Public universities are no longer an exception to the processes of change common to most other non-profit organisations NPOs (Caruana, Ramaseshan, & Ewing, 1998). Those changes have forced universities to assume responsibility towards society and both maintain and improve their leadership in the development and dissemination of knowledge, all while paying special attention to the aspirations and needs of their key stakeholders (Akonkwa, 2009; Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2010; Bjørkquist, 2008; Jongbloed, Enders, & Salerno, 2008). For instance, in the case of Spain, public universities, which in their early days operated in an equable and uncompetitive environment, are now being subjected to higher levels of competitiveness and strong social pressures, leading them into new environments to which they must adapt (Cervera, Schlesinger, Iniesta, & Sánchez, 2011; Mora, 2001; Peña, 2010). Thus, they are now required to improve their ability to transform their institution globally and to modernise their operations (Álvarez et al., 2002; Navarro & Gallardo, 2003). Hence, as a response to these challenges, universities are shifting their objective function from a traditionally oriented focus on teaching and research towards a more complex one (Berbegal-Mirabent, Lafuente, & Solé, 2013).