To help consumers deal with increasing amounts of information, many online retailers offer simple decision aids, such as the ability to sort products on a particular product attribute. Intuitively, such aids should help consumers but, in a recent article, Nicholas Lurie and a colleague at City University of Hong Kong show that simple decision aids can hurt consumers’ ability to make good decisions.
Whether decision aids help or hurt depends on the extent to which choices involve tradeoffs among attributes. For example, a consumer buying a laptop might want a large screen and lots of memory. If large screen laptops usually come with lots of memory then using a decision aid to sort on screen size will help the consumer choose the best laptop for her. However if, instead, the consumer wants a large screen and light weight laptop, and large screen laptops tend to be heavy, sorting on screen size will not enhance choice. The authors suggest that consumers use simple decision aids as substitutes for cognitive effort and find that the more consumers use such aids, the lower the quality of their decisions. Providing consumers with multiple decision aids, such as the ability to eliminate as well as sort products, is one way to overcome the negative aspects of such aids.
In many consumption settings (e.g., restaurants, casinos, theme parks), individuals consume products either alone or with their peers (e.g., friends and/or family members). In such settings, it is likely that through social influence, a consumer’s decision on what to purchase or how much to consume is influenced by the purchase or consumption decisions of their peers.
Marketing researchers have had much interest in measuring such social influence and were primarily focused in estimating how one’s behavior (e.g., how much to spend) is influenced by the behavior of the peer. However, a consumer could not only be affected by the peer’s behavior, but also by other events that influence the peer to change his/her behavior. For example, if the peer gets a promotion, but the focal consumer does not, the focal consumer might judge the differential treatment to be unfair and react negatively. Another mechanism by which social influence could operate could be when the peer is physically present, but does not engage in the behavior under question. In other words, the peer’s presence could directly affect the focal consumer’s consumption behavior as the lack of consumption by the peer may signal a subtle or transient change in preferences. In response to this, the focal consumer may modify her behavior.
The authors develop an empirical model that allows them to identify all three effects simultaneously and apply it to behavioral data from a casino setting. The data comprise detailed gambling activity for a panel of individuals at a single casino over a two-year period. The results show that all three types of peer effects exist. The results also indicate that accounting for these peer effects simultaneously and identifying them at an individual level could help marketing managers draw up better guidelines for promotion policies as well as policy makers implement a more informed regulatory regime for the casino industry.
Policy and Medicine – Stringent conflicts-of-interest policies keep many experts off of FDA advisory committees. A new study suggests that the fear of pro-industry bias underlying these policies may be misplaced, and also serves to keep highly qualified candidates off of these committees.
James C. Cooper, director of research and policy at the Law and Economics Center at George Mason Law School and Joseph Golec, professor of Finance of the University of Connecticut, who conducted the study, sought to compare conflicted members’ voting patterns with objective criteria. They found that decisions by advisory committees with conflicted members to recommend drugs were more likely to be consistent with both the ultimate FDA decision as well as stock market predictions than non-conflicted advisory committees and members.
KPMG LLP (KPMG) is seeking high-performing freshman and sophomore students who have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, a commitment to diversity and are interested in future opportunities at KPMG through participation in their exciting Future Diversity Leaders (FDL) program.
What is the Future Diversity Leaders program?
The FDL program begins with a three-day leadership conference, held in Hollywood, CA, focused on preparing high-potential students with the skills and perspective to be the business leaders of tomorrow.
Based on your performance and participation at the leadership conference, if you are recommended to participate in an office visit for a summer internship in KPMG’s Trainee Program, you will receive a $1,000 scholarship.
Upon successful completion of your first internship, you will receive another internship offer to continue in the Trainee program. Should you accept this offer, you will continue in the Trainee program and receive additional scholarship dollars. You will continue in this program until the summer before your graduation.
In your last summer, you will enter KPMG’s Practice Internship where you will gain actual hands-on experience through interactions with various clients in the line of business that you have chosen.
The application deadline is February 11th (extended from Feb. 6th).
On Campus Interviews: KPMG representatives will be on campus February 27th to conduct interviews for selected students.
Margaret (“Maggie’’) Luciano, a doctoral candidate at the UConn School of Business, has been awarded two scholarships in recent months recognizing her achievements in the field of organizational behavior.
The Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology’s (SIOP) Lee Hakel Graduate Student Scholarship recognizes achievement in a graduate career and is intended to assist doctoral students in the field of industrial and organizational psychology with the costs of carrying out their dissertation work. She received the award in January.
It is the second recognition for Luciano, who, late last year also received an award from the Society for Human Resources Management for her dissertation proposal. She was selected as one of four promising researchers.
Her dissertation research focuses on understanding and improving cross-unit coordination between hospital units, and the dynamics between such groups.
She has investigated patient “handoffs’’ as they move from surgery to a recovery room. During baseline assessments, upwards of 20 percent of these handoffs were found to be lacking in one or more important ways, jeopardizing patient care.
“Margaret’s dissertation is a stellar example of cutting-edge applied research,’’ said John Mathieu, professor of management and Luciano’s adviser. “Conceptually, Margaret tests theoretical questions concerning the integration of employees’ individual differences and how they combine to perform interdependent actions. Practically, she devised and implemented a work process improvement which essentially orchestrated how different parties should function during these handoffs.’’
“Her dissertation represented a serious organizational change for the hospital, involving everyone from top management to the nurses and doctors performing the handoffs. Her field experiment revealed that her intervention reduced the percentage of problematic handoffs to approximately 4 to 5 percent—a 75 percent decrease from baseline,’’ Mathieu said.
Both the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology (SIOP) awarded her competitive research grants on the basis of her proposed work. The criteria for both awards are that the work should advance both the science of human behavior in organizations, while also advancing practice and human welfare, Mathieu said.
Her research on these and related topics has appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology and other peer-reviewed journals.
Luciano will join the management faculty at Arizona State University after completing her doctoral program at UConn. She earned her bachelors degree in psychology in 2009 and her MBA in 2010, both from Clark University in Worcester, Mass.
MIT Sloan Management Review – Could your company use its legal environment to look for strategic opportunities? Consider bringing in a chief legal strategist, recommend Robert C. Bird, associate professor of business law and Northeast Utilities Chair in Business Ethics at the UConn School of Business and David Orozco, an associate professor of legal studies and MBA program director at the Florida State University College of Business.
In a recent research Kunter Gunasti and his-coauthor show that consumers prefer products labeled with brand names including round numbers (e.g., Centrum 100 multivitamins) to those including non-round numbers (e.g., Centrum 103). A systematic investigation of alphanumeric brand names used in numerous product categories indicates that round numbers such as 10, 50, 100, etc. are over-represented in the marketplace. Regardless of the product category, consumers have more favorable judgments and higher preferences of brand names including round numbers.Continue Reading
The multifaceted role of multinational corporations as quasi-regulators is of growing importance to international business. Corporations increasingly participate in two kinds of international rulemaking: (i) non-binding “soft” law standard setting; and (ii) self-regulation through private rules and standards. Soft law and private regulation often fill governance gaps left by incomplete and/or ineffective governmental regulation. One of the most prominent examples is sustainability rulemaking, in which corporations have become increasingly active due to their growing awareness of the directly-borne costs of environmental degradation and the potential strategic benefits of corporate social responsibility.Continue Reading
(11/12/2014) – A team of real estate students from the University of Connecticut School of Business earned third place in a prestigious international case competition on November 4 in New York City, sponsored by Cornell University.
The UConn team consisted of William Bartol, Drew Harney, Austin Smyth, Kristine Victor and Patrick Nista. Francesca Michel was the alternate.Continue Reading
CEOs, board members and executives are forced to navigate increased regulation, lawsuits, varying international legal regimes, and the greater prospect of liability due to stiffer legal penalties. Top executives recognize that legal capabilities are a necessary element of long-term corporate success. A Financial Times study found that 24 percent of U.S. companies had lawyer-directors in 2000, and in 2009 that amount notably increased to 43 percent. Corporations generate tangible returns, such as higher stock market valuations, when they employ attorneys who serve as board members, and when top corporate officers have legal knowledge.
Paradoxically, the processes through which corporate legal departments provide competitive advantage remain poorly understood. The law is all too often viewed as a constraint on managerial decisions and is often perceived by executives as a source of costs. This prevailing cost perspective towards the law, while valuable, does not explain how leading companies employ their legal departments to secure long-term competitive advantage for the firm.
Robert Bird and his co-authors explain how viewing the law narrowly as a cost or compliance issue inevitably leads to foregone strategic opportunities, and introduce an actionable framework, the Five Pathways of Corporate Legal Strategy: avoidance, compliance, prevention, value, and transformation. These pathways should enable managers to think about the law strategically and identify value-creating opportunities, thereby creating long-term and sustainable value. Legal rules are not just a checklists to complete, but an opportunity to advance firm goals in a competitive business environment.
