Determinants of Experience of Discrimination in Minorities in Germany

This study examines perceived ethnic discrimination (as opposed to “objective” discrimination). It includes a discussion of definitions of discrimination and attempts to measure it, and a review of findings on the distribution of discrimination experiences among minorities. The aim of the study is to determine the influence of factors that increase the risk of exposure to situations in which discrimination can take place (exposure hypothesis), and those that sensitize perceptions and give rise to different frequencies of subjective feelings of discrimination (sensitization hypothesis). A standardized questionnaire was administered to a random sample of German-born persons of Turkish and Greek origin and Aussiedler (ethnic Germans born in the former Soviet Union) (total N = 301). Minorities of non-German, especially of Turkish origin reported significantly more discrimination than Aussiedler in a set of nineteen everyday situations. A bivariate correlation was found between number of incidents reported and employment status with homemakers reporting the fewest incidents. However, multiple regression analysis yielded no significant effect, thus lending no clear support to the exposure hypothesis. Frequency of contacts with German friends has no effect and seems not to entail an increase in exposure opportunities, but may lead to a desensitization to discrimination due to the erosion of the relevance of ethnic categories. On the other hand, an influence through intra-ethnic contacts clearly occurs, as frequency of contact with co-ethnic friends exerts a strong positive effect on experienced discrimination. A similar effect was found for ethnic self-awareness. The latter finding confirms the sensitization hypothesis.

Determinants of Advertising Effectiveness: The Development of an International Advertising Elasticity Database and a Meta-Analysis

Increasing demand for marketing accountability requires an efficient allocation of marketing expenditures. Managers who know the elasticity of their marketing instruments can allocate their budgets optimally. Meta-analyses offer a basis for deriving benchmark elasticities for advertising. Although they provide a variety of valuable insights, a major shortcoming of prior meta-analyses is that they report only generalized results as the disaggregated raw data are not made available. This problem is highly relevant because coding of empirical studies, at least to a certain extent, involves subjective judgment. For this reason, meta-studies would be more valuable if researchers and practitioners had access to disaggregated data allowing them to conduct further analyses of individual, e.g., product-level-specific, interests. We are the first to address this gap by providing (1) an advertising elasticity database (AED) and (2) empirical generalizations about advertising elasticities and their determinants. Our findings indicate that the average current-period advertising elasticity is 0.09, which is substantially smaller than the value 0f 0.12 that was recently reported by Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch (2011). Furthermore, our meta-analysis reveals a wide range of significant determinants of advertising elasticity. For example, we find that advertising elasticities are higher (i) for hedonic and experience goods than for other goods; (ii) for new than for established goods; (iii) when advertising is measured in gross rating points (GRP) instead of absolute terms; and (iv) when the lagged dependent or lagged advertising variable is omitted.