 |
|
|
|||||
Knowing the calorie content of foods does not help people understand which foods are healthier, according to a study I recently coauthored in the Journal of Retailing. When study participants considered calorie information, they rated unhealthy food as less unhealthy and healthy food as less healthy. They were also less sure in their judgments. In other words, calorie labeling didnt help participants judge foods more accurately. It made them second-guess themselves. Across nine experiments with more than 2,000 participants, my colleague and I tested how people use calorie information to evaluate food. For example, participants viewed food items that are generally deemed healthier, such as a salad, or ones that tend to be less healthy, such as a cheeseburger, and were asked to rate how healthy each item was. When people did not consider calorie information, participants correctly saw a big gap between the healthy and unhealthy foods. But when they considered calorie information, those judgments became more moderate. In another experiment in the study, we found that asking people to estimate the calorie content of food items reduced self-reported confidence in their ability to judge how healthy those foods wereand that drop in confidence is what led them to rate these food items more moderately. We observed this effect for calories but not for other nutrition metrics such as fat or carbohydrates, which consumers tend to view as less familiar. This pattern repeated across our experiments. Instead of helping people sharpen their evaluations, calorie information seemed to create what researchers call metacognitive uncertainty, or a feeling of I thought I understood this, but now Im not so sure. When people arent confident in their understanding, they tend to avoid extreme judgments. Because people see calorie information so often, they believe they know how to use it effectively. But these findings suggest that the very familiarity of calorie counts can backfire, creating a false sense of understanding that leads to more confusion, not less. My coauthor and I call this the illusion of calorie fluency. When people are asked to judge how healthy a food item is based on calorie data, that confidence quickly unravels and their healthiness judgments become less accurate. Why it matters These findings have important implications for public health and for the businesses that are investing in calorie transparency. Public health policies assume that providing calorie information will drive more informed choices. But our research suggests that visibility isnt enough, and that calorie information alone may not help. In some cases, it might even lead people to make less-healthy choices. This does not mean that calorie information should be removed. Rather, it needs to be supported with more context and clarity. One possible approach is pairing calorie numbers with decision aids such as a traffic light indicator or an overall nutrition score, which both exist in some European countries. Alternatively, calorie information about an item could be accompanied by clear reference points explaining how much of a persons recommended daily calories it contains (though this may be challenging because of how widely daily calorie needs vary). Our study highlights a broader issue in health communication: Just because information is available doesnt mean its useful. Realizing that calorie information can seem easier to understand than it actually is can help consumers make more informed, confident decisions about what they eat. What still isnt known In our studies, we found that calorie information is especially prone to creating an illusion of understanding. But key questions remain. For example, researchers dont yet know how this illusion interacts with the growing use of health and wellness apps, personalized nutrition tools, or AI-based food recommendations. Future research could look at whether these tools actually help people feel more sure of their choicesor just make them feel confident without truly understanding the information. Deidre Popovich is an associate professor of marketing at Texas Tech University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Category:
E-Commerce
Graduate students interested in an academic career after graduation day have often been told they need to be open to moving somewhere they may not want to live. This advice is because of how hard it is to get a tenure-track professor position. These days, this advice may be less relevant as graduate students are increasingly pursuing and ending up in careers outside of academia. Where graduate students want to settle post-graduation has potential consequences for communities and states across the country that depend more and more on a steady stream of skilled workers to power their economies. Locations seen as undesirable may struggle to attract and retain the next generation of scientists, engineers, professors, and other professions filled by todays graduate students. We are sociologists who are examining some of the factors that influence graduate students educational and career paths as part of a research project supported by the National Science Foundation. In March 2025 we distributed a survey to a sample of U.S.-based graduate students in five natural and social science disciplines: physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and sociology. As part of our survey, we asked students to identify states they would prefer to live in and places where they would be unwilling to go. To some extent, our findings match some past anecdotes and evidence about the varying number of applications received for academic positions across different states or regions. But little data has directly assessed students preferences, and our survey also provides some evidence that some states policies are having a negative impact on their ability to attract highly educated people. Most preferred, most unwilling For our study, we built our sample from the top 60 graduate programs for each of the five disciplines based on rankings from U.S. News & World Report. We received responses from nearly 2,000 students. Almost all of these students98%, specificallyare pursuing PhDs in their respective fields. As part of our survey, we asked students to identify locations where they would prefer to live and also those where they would be unwilling to live after finishing their graduate program. For each of these questions, we presented students with a list of all states along with the option of outside of the United States. Just looking at the overall percentages, California tops the list of preferred places, with 49% of all survey-takers stating a preference to live there, followed by New York at 45% and Massachusetts with 41%. On the other hand, Alabama was selected most often as a state students said theyd be unwilling to move to, with 58% declaring they wouldnt want to live there. This was followed by Mississippi and Arkansas, both with just above 50% saying theyd be unwilling to move to either state. Clusters of preference While the two lists in many respects appear like inversions of one another, there are some exceptions to that. Looking beyond the overall percentages for each survey question, we used statistical analysis to identify underlying groups or clusters of states that are more similar to each other across both the prefer and unwilling questions. One cluster, represented by California, New York, and Massachusetts, is characterized by a very high level of preference and a low level of unwillingness. About 35% to 50% of students expressed a preference for living in these places, while only 5% to 10% said they would be unwilling to live in them. The response of outside of the United States is also in this category, which is noteworthy given recent concerns about the current generation of PhD students looking to leave the country and efforts by other nations to recruit them. A second cluster represents states where the preference levels are a bit lower, 20% to 30%, and the unwillingness levels are a bit higher, 7% to 15%. Still, these are states for which graduate students hold generally favorable opinions about living in after finishing their programs. This cluster includes states such as Colorado, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey. A third group of states represents locations for which the rate of preference is similar to the rate of unwillingness, in the range of 10% to 20%. This cluster includes states such as Minnesota, Delaware, and Virginia. The fourth and fifth clusters consist of states where the rate of unwillingness exceeds the rate of preference, with the size of the gap distinguishing the two clusters. In the fourth cluster, at least some students5% to 10%express a preference for living in them, while around 30% to 40% say they are unwilling to live in them. This cluster includes Florida, Montana, South Carolina, and Utah. Almost no students express a preference for living in the states contained in the fifth cluster, while the highest percentages40% to 60%express an unwillingness to live in them. This cluster includes Alabama, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Signs of current politics Many factors influence our preferences for where we want to live, including family, weather, and how urban, rural, or suburban it is. The politics of a community can also influence our perceptions of a places desirability. Indeed, political factors may be of particular concern to graduate students. In recent years, some states have taken a more hostile stance toward specific academic disciplines, institutions of higher education in general, or professions that are of interest to graduate students. While states such as Florida and Texas have been leading such efforts, many others have followed. Interestingly, our statistical grouping of states finds that students unwillingness to live in states such as Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio is higher than we would expect given those states corresponding preference levels. For example, about 10% of students selected Texas as a place they would prefer to live in after graduation. Looking at other states with similar preference levels, we would expect bout 10% to 20% of students to say they are unwilling to live in Texas. Instead, this percentage is actually 37%. Similarly, 5% of students say they would prefer to live in Florida. Other states with this preference rate have an unwillingness rate of around 35%, but Floridas is 45%. Although our data does not tell us for sure, these gaps could be a function of these states own policies or alignment with federal policies seen as hostile to graduate students and their future employers. These findings suggest that communities and employers in some states might continue to face particularly steep hurdles in recruiting graduate students for employment once they finish their degrees. Christopher P. Scheitle is an associate professor of sociology at West Virginia University. Katie Corcoran is a professor of sociology at West Virginia University. Taylor Remsburg is a graduate research assistant in sociology at West Virginia University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
An often-overlooked competitive advantage in business isn’t your technology stack, market share, or even your talent pipelineit’s your leadership team’s customer obsession. As someone who recently merged marketing, customer success, and renewals under one umbrella, I’ve experienced how customer obsession can transform an organization. However, from the C-suite to entry-level roles, were all navigating complex responsibilities, deadlines and metrics. These competing priorities make it easy to lose sight of what truly matters to the business: the customers who make our work possible. By putting customers at the heart of every decision, regardless of the role, you establish a foundation that naturally delivers results. This is why it is so important for executive teams to champion this customer obsession perspectiveit empowers everyone else to do the same! Customer-focused leadership leads to customer-centric goals which leads to a truly customer-obsessed company culture. What customer-focused executive leadership teams do differently What does customer obsession look like in practice? The processes vary based on role as leaders address their own areas of focus, but here are a few examples to get the wheels turning. Customer-focused executive leaders: Spend significant time with customersnot just with friendly references or during sales calls, but with frustrated users and lost accounts Create direct feedback channels that bypass typical corporate filters Measure what matters to customers, not just what’s easy to track internally Reward employees who advocate for customer needs, even when those needs create short-term challenges These behaviors signal unmistakably to everyonefrom frontline employees to fellow executive leadersthat the customer experience isn’t just another corporate initiative, but the foundation of company culture. That all-important ripple effect When the entire executive leadership team models customer focus, it spreads throughout the organization. Marketing develops messaging that resonates with actual pain points versus staying laser-focused on internal product features. Product development prioritizes improvements that deliver meaningful value. Support teams receive the resources needed to resolve issues effectively. As I mentioned, I’ve experienced this transformation myself. After integrating customer success with marketing and renewals, we gained truly mind-blowing insight into the complete customer journey. This unified view enabled us to identify friction points that were all but invisible when these functions operated in silos. Organizations with customer-centric leadership consistently outperform peers in customer satisfaction, retention and lifetime value. Executive leaders who prioritize customer needs create an environment where employees feel empowered to advocate for those same needsthey set the tone for the entire company culture. Practical steps on the way to customer centricity Becoming truly customer-focused requires more than good intentions. Ill admit it, this is a big shift. It could even mean making serious changes in how the company gathers, analyzes and acts on customer feedback. So, yes, it can feel daunting but take it from me, its very doable and very worth it. Here are some practical steps to consider: Revise executive meeting agendas to start with customer insights Implement cross-functional customer journey mapping with executive participation Create direct feedback mechanisms between customers and leadership Redesign incentive structures to reward customer-centric behaviors In my experience, customer-focused companies take steps to ensure these practices are part of their leadership approach. They understand that competitive advantage flows from this orientationnot as a happy accident but as a direct consequence. The ultimate competitive moat Right now, products and services are undergoing rapid commoditization. Thats hard to keep up with, but I believe customer experience is the most defensible competitive advantage. An executive leadership team that understands this can make a massive difference in the companys competitive positioning. Again, this shift extends way beyond the executive team. When employees see that customer satisfaction genuinely matters to company leadership, their engagement and motivation increase dramatically. This alignment creates a (very rewarding!) cycle where employee experience and customer experience reinforce each other, building a competitive moat that rivals will struggle to cross. So, let your rivals keep focusing on internal metrics. That moat will keep getting wider as you build something stronger. Melissa Puls is the chief marketing officer and SVP of customer success and renewals at Ivanti.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||