Three studies showed that social dominance orientation could contribute to environmental inequality through its association with environmental and economic ideologies, pursuit of ingroup interest, and relative indifference toward groups with low economic standing. Study 1 showed that social dominance orientation is correlated with a lack of concern for the natural environment and with the endorsement of free‐market ideology. In Study 2, people higher in social dominance orientation endorsed a polluting industry that hurt a foreign population when the industry benefited their ingroup. Study 3 demonstrated that, given a choice of locations to site an environmentally problematic industry, people higher in social dominance orientation chose to direct the dangerous environmental footprint toward economically vulnerable foreign populations, and this was because of their relative lack of concern for human justice.

We examined the concepts and emotions people associate with their national flag, and how these associations are related to nationalism and patriotism across 11 countries. Factor analyses indicated that the structures of associations differed across countries in ways that reflect their idiosyncratic historical developments. Positive emotions and egalitarian concepts were associated with national flags across countries. However, notable differences between countries were found due to historical politics. In societies known for being peaceful and open-minded (e.g., Canada, Scotland), egalitarianism was separable from honor-related concepts and associated with the flag; in countries that were currently involved in struggles for independence (e.g., Scotland) and countries with an imperialist past (the United Kingdom), the flag was strongly associated with power-related concepts; in countries with a negative past (e.g., Germany), the primary association was sports; in countries with disruption due to separatist or extremist movements (e.g., Northern Ireland, Turkey), associations referring to aggression were not fully rejected; in collectivist societies (India, Singapore), obedience was linked to positive associations and strongly associated with the flag. In addition, the more strongly individuals endorsed nationalism and patriotism, the more they associated positive emotions and egalitarian concepts with their flag. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) based personalized medicine (PM) is increasingly utilized to guide treatment decisions for many drug-disease combinations. Notably, London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) has pioneered a PGx program that has become a staple for London-based specialists. While implementational studies have been conducted in other jurisdictions, the Canadian healthcare system is understudied. Herein, the multi-stakeholder perspectives on implementational drivers and barriers are elucidated. Using a mixed-method qualitative model, key stakeholders and patients from LHSC's PGx-based PM clinic were interviewed and surveyed respectively. Interview transcripts were thematically analyzed in a stepwise process of customer profiling, value mapping and business model canvasing. Value for LHSC located specialist users of PGx was driven by the quick turnaround time, independence of the PGx clinic, and the quality of information. Engagement of external specialists was only limited by access and awareness, while other healthcare non-users were limited by education and applicability. The major determinant of successful adoption at novel sites were institutional champions. Patients valued and approved of the service, expressed a general willingness to pay, but often traveled far to receive genotyping. This paper discusses the critical pillars of education, awareness, advocacy, and efficiency required to address implementation barriers to healthcare service innovation in Canada. Further adoption of PGx practices into Canadian hospitals is an important factor for advancing system-level changes in care delivery, patient experiences and outcomes. The findings in this paper can help inform efforts to advance clinical PGx practices, but also the potential adoption and implementation of other innovative healthcare service solutions.

The business model canvas is a popular tool used to develop value-driven business models. Specific emphasis is placed on understanding what customers value and providing users with steps on how to design and deliver value for their customers. In health care, creating and delivering value for patients is an often-discussed topic, with the provision of patient-centered care becoming a standard for many health care organizations. While patients play a key role in determining value, providers are the key to delivering value. Therefore, effective health care management relies on integrating multiple perspectives from key stakeholders. This process requires consideration of the key needs that must be addressed, the resources and capabilities necessary to meet these needs, and the interests and values specific to each set of stakeholders. The business model canvas lends itself well to health care service planning as it incorporates the factors described above into the business model’s conceptualization and subsequent realization. This article outlines how the business model canvas was applied to assess the needs of physician stakeholders to help guide the expansion of a pharmacogenomic-based precision medicine clinic that conducts genetic testing for patients at risk of experiencing adverse drug reactions. The article provides a detailed description of how the business model canvas was used and adapted to understand physician’s responsibilities and challenges related to drug prescription and dosing, and how the clinic could address physician needs and create value by mapping clinic services onto physician needs and wants. Interviews were conducted with physicians and the data were analyzed following the recommendations of the developers of the business model canvas. The article examines the strengths and limitations of the business model canvas and discusses its applicability to a health care setting.

We also critique the myopic focus on prejudice reduction, but we do not support the call for a reconceptualization of prejudice. Redefining key psychological constructs is unproductive. Also, we point to interpersonal dynamics in cross-group interaction as a key mechanism in the prejudice reduction/collective action paradox and point to solutions involving intrapersonal/interpersonal processes, as well as broader structural intergroup relations.