Stigma by Association in Coupon Redemption: Looking Cheap because of Others [Journal of Consumer Research] (Photo: Getty)

From the Carnegie Mellon article:

The researchers influenced participants' perceptions of their relative wealth — or lack thereof — by having them complete a survey on their opinions of the city of Pittsburgh that included an item on annual income. The group made to feel poor was asked to provide its income on a scale that began at "less than $100,000" and went upward from there in $100,000 increments, ensuring that most respondents would be in the lowest income category. The group made to feel subjectively wealthier was asked to report income on a scale that began with "less than $10,000" and increased in $10,000 increments, leading most respondents to be in a middle or upper tier.

Participants, who were recruited at Pittsburgh's Greyhound Bus terminal, were paid $5 for completing the survey and given the opportunity to buy as many as five scratch-off lottery tickets. The experimental group purchased an average of 1.27 lottery tickets, compared with 0.67 tickets bought by the members of the control group.

A second experiment reported in the paper found that indirectly reminding participants that, while different income groups face unequal outcomes in education, jobs and housing, everyone has equal chances of winning the lottery induced an increase in the number of lottery tickets purchased. The group given this reminder purchased 1.31 tickets, compared with 0.54 for the group not given such a reminder.

In the study, the researchers note that lotteries set off a vicious cycle that not only exploits low-income individuals' desires to escape poverty but also directly prevents them from improving upon their financial situations. They recommend that state lottery administrators explore strategies that balance the economic burdens faced by low-income households with the need to maintain important funding streams for state governments.

Here's an idea, although the fact that we came up with it in 30 seconds probably means it's a terrible one: just mail a free lottery ticket to every household below the poverty line once a month.

"Why Play a Losing Game? Carnegie Mellon Study Uncovers Why Low-Income People Buy Lottery Tickets" [CMU via Very Short List]
(Photo: Kim Scarborough)

those with the largest amount of BPA in their urine had nearly three times the risk of heart disease and more than twice the risk of diabetes as those who had the lowest levels.

We already know there's concern about whether BPA harms babies, but frankly this author is a baby-free grown up, and I want to know whether BPA hurts me. This study may indicate a link but the co-author says it's not conclusive—the heightened BPA levels may be a reflection of the diets of those with heart disease and diabetes, and not a cause.

Still, there is some evidence from previous animal studies that BPA may interfere with insulin production:

"Even those with the highest BPA levels still had levels way below the currently established 'safe' level," says David Melzer, an epidemiologist at the University of Exeter in England and coauthor of the study. Other researchers say there's enough evidence from previous animal studies to suggest that BPA is harmful to adults. BPA levels that are slightly elevated but still just one-fifth the safe dose limit established by the Food and Drug Administration trigger an alarming release of insulin in the pancreatic cells of mice—and higher levels lead to pre-diabetes or insulin resistance, says Frederick vom Saal, a biologist at the University of Missouri. BPA also suppresses the release of a hormone from fat cells that normally protects against diabetes and heart disease.

"Heart Disease, Diabetes Linked to Chemical in Plastics" [U.S. News & World Report] (Thanks to Shaula!)
(Dramatization of BPA attack: Brymo)

Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine have linked [BPA] to problems with brain function and mood disorders in monkeys—the first time the chemical has been connected to health problems in primates.

Last month, the FDA declared BPA safe enough to keep using in manufacturing, but yesterday another federal group reignited the issue:

The National Toxicology Program, a federal interagency initiative, released a final report saying it has “some concern” that BPA is linked to health and developmental problems in humans. Of the NTP’s five categories of concern, “some” would rate a three, or the middle of the dial between the extremes of negligible and serious.

The report doesn't call for a ban, but suggests more research is needed. And here we go: this new study on monkeys seems to add more evidence to the argument that BPA may have negative consequences on humans.

The FDA will hold a public meeting on September 16th to discuss the matter some more, with academics and industry reps in attendance.

"Chemical in Plastic Is Connected to Health Problems in Monkeys"
(Photo: mape_s)

Is [it] a biologically driven disease of the brain, a learned habit run amok, an addiction in its own right or a symptom of the other dysfunctions—most notably depression—that so often accompany it?

While the professionals discuss the matter, Healy points out something that may have more practical benefit to you: a recent study showed sad test subjects were willing to spend four times as much on a nonessential item (a water bottle) than non-sad subjects.

A theory that sadness might spur excess spending was neatly demonstrated in an experiment conducted by researchers at Harvard, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh and published in the June issue of Psychological Science.

Thirty-three subjects were offered $10 to participate in a study and divided into two groups: one that listened to a sad story and wrote an introspective essay about it and another that listened to an emotionally neutral story, then detailed their day's activities.

Afterward, subjects in each group were offered the chance to buy a sporty insulated water bottle using some of their $10 payment and asked to state the price they would be willing to pay to buy it. The difference — by all appearances dictated solely by differing emotional states — was startling: Subjects in the sad-story group were prepared to pay almost four times as much to acquire the snappy water bottle as those who had entered the market in a neutral emotional state.

Maybe going shopping when you feel down is like going to the supermarket on an empty stomach—a really bad idea.

"Is compulsive buying a disorder?" [Seattle Times]
(Photo: Getty)

Now—right before California decides whether to ban BPA in children's products—the FDA has revisited its earlier studies and reaffirmed that "the trace amounts of bisphenol A that leach out of food containers are not a threat to infants or adults."

Critics are saying the FDA is cherry-picking what studies to consider in its decision:

"It's ironic FDA would choose to ignore dozens of studies funded by (the National Institutes of Health) — this country's best scientists — and instead rely on flawed studies from industry," said Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences.

Myers said the agency disregarded recent studies of bisphenol's effects included in the National Toxicology Program's April draft report.

That group's review of animal studies suggested low doses of bisphenol can cause changes in behavior and the brain, and that it may reduce survival and birth weight in fetuses. A final version of the group's findings is expected next month.

Commenting on those studies in its 105-page assessment, the FDA said they had "inconsistencies and inadequacies which limit the interpretations of the findings."

We're not sure what sort of effect this will have on the pending lawsuits or on California's potential ban, but the BPA debate should take on new energy next month, when the National Toxicology Program's final report is released and the FDA brings in outside "advisors" to debate its own findings.

"FDA says chemical found in plastic bottles is safe" [Associated Press]
(Photo: Oop)

From the survey:

• 77% of surveyed credit card issuers (17 of 22) answered “Yes” to the question “Can you increase my APR or change my terms ‘any time for any reason’?” This includes all Top Ten issuers – even Citibank which pledges not to change a customer’s terms before the card’s expiration date.
• Bank of America, Chase, Citi, American Express and Capital One all reserve the right to change rates without notifying consumer in advance.
• Representatives for Bank of America, Capital One and Citi cited “market conditions,” “the economy,” and ”business strategies” as factors that might cause an interest rate to increase.

• As consumers pay off large balances, creditors slash credit limits so that the balance is always close to the credit limit.
• Credit limits are reduced to levels lower than the current balance, triggering over limit fees and requiring a large “balloon” payment of the over-due amount. This practice also puts the consumer at risk of being hit with a penalty interest rate.
• Cards are declined at the point of purchase, and only then do cardholders find out that their limits have been reduced with no warning.

2008 Credit Card Survey [Consumer Action]
(Photo: Getty)

In general, says the study, Boomers are usually the "breadwinners in the household," and "make most or all of the family spending decisions."

The study tosses out the following labels, and we toss in our own thoughts about how this could influence advertising:

Promiscuous Purchasers

40-59 spend more than three times the amount of money per month on spouses ($514) than adults under 40 ($169). Additionally, they spend nearly twice as much per month on kids ($295 vs. $158) and three times the amount per month on teen children ($494 vs. $136). With so many purchase decisions to make for the household, these "Promiscuous Purchasers" are an important marketing sector even when they are not the prime target.

[Translation: Boomers are gatekeepers, so ads targeting youth need to also secretly target their parents, or train the primary target audience to advocate for the product in Boomer-friendly language.]

Free Agent Shoppers

40 and 50-somethings are more open to new brands and less brand loyal than people under 40. Twenty-six percent of Boomers said they are not at all brand loyal versus 21% of Gen X and Millennials. In fact, Gen Y are the most likely to say that once they have made a commitment to a brand, they will stick with it, no matter what. The willingness of 40 and 50 year-olds to buy new brands carries over across virtually every product category including electronics, personal care products, restaurants, automobiles and more. And when compared to the Generation who came before them these "Free Agent Shoppers" have very different spending habits. No longer will this age group buy the same products based on lifelong brand decisions and spend less as they age. This demo is redefining brand loyalty and determining purchase decisions based on the effectiveness of products. Today's 40 and 50-somethings stick with a product for as long as it's good and fulfills their complex needs. They are not afraid to change for something they feel will improve their lives.

[Translation: Boomers like to shop around, and they like to self-improve. Combine the two activities and you've got a compelling brand.]

Savvy Switchers

While Boomers are very open to new brands, they will not switch just because something is new. Ninety-one percent of people in their 40s and 50s want the brand to provide more value versus 83% of Gen X and Millennials. Boomers will consider new brands if that brand is a better alternative—the product or service must be more useful, functional and provide the most benefit/value. Unlike Millennials and Gen Xers they are less likely to be influenced by the notion that the brand is more prestigious or the latest style; instead, their purchase decisions are based on reliability and quality. The product/service needs to have the best features, not necessarily the most features.

[Translation: Ads that focus on movements, fashions, or trends don't work as well on Boomers—probably because they're not as relevant.]

The study also found that newborns, or "Generation Teat," will buy anything that's offered to them online, provided you place the cursor over the "buy it now" button and place the keyboard next to their feet. Now there's a demographic to go after.

"Breadwinning Boomers Responsible for Multi-Generational Brand Decisions, TV Land's 'Generation BUY' Study Finds"
(Photo: Getty)

Live Longer: The One Anti-Aging Trick That Works [Live Science] (Thanks to c-side!)
The Fast Supper [NYmag]

(Photo: Getty)

The Ponemon study indicates that most airport laptop losses occur at the security checkpoints or at the departure gates, where it's easy to leave things behind. More than 70 percent of business travelers say they feel rushed when trying to get on their flights, and 69 percent said they are usually carrying too many items while trying to catch their flights.

Los Angeles's LAX reported more laptop losses than any other airport, about 1,200 per week. Most of the airports said they generally keep the laptops for some period of times, then destroy them if they are unclaimed.

Sixty-five percent of the business travelers admit that they do not take steps to protect the confidential information contained on their laptops when traveling on business, according to the study. Forty-two percent say they don't back up their data before going on a trip. Fewer than 20 percent of respondents said they have whole disk encryption or file encryption on their machines.

Interestingly, only 1 percent of the respondents admitted personally losing a laptop computer. However, 84 percent say they know someone who has lost a laptop while traveling on business.

The UK's The Real Hustle shows how security checkpoints offer thieves an unrivaled opportunity to poach laptops from unsuspecting travelers:

Next time you travel, keep an eye and hand on your laptop. And don't be ashamed to admit if it's stolen. Clearly, you're not alone.

Laptop Losses Total 12,000 Per Week at US Airports [Dark Reading]
The Real Hustle - The Airport X-Ray Steal [YouTube]
(AP Photo/M. Spencer Green)

First, the controversy seems to center around whether sunblocks protect against UVA radiation, which the current labeling system doesn't take into account:

For the first time, manufacturers would have to test and label their products for protection against ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation, which does not cause sunburns but can damage collagen and cause wrinkles and sunspots. Research suggests that UVA is a cause of skin cancer.

The labeling upgrade was proposed by the FDA last August, but the changes have not been finalized.

The current sun protection factor (SPF) labeling system, which was implemented three decades ago, measures only protection from UVB rays - the ultraviolet rays that cause sunburns.

"You can buy a high SPF product and still have no assurance that you are being protected from UVA, as well as UVB rays," EWG research director Jane Houlihan tells WebMD.

The next issue concerns how long the protective ingredients last in sunblock. Here's where industry claims run up against the EWG's study, although the industry responses in this CBS News article are entirely devoid of factual arguments against the study's claims, which makes them sound an awful lot like spin.

The EWG analysis suggested that nearly half of the products contained ingredients known to become inactive in strong sunlight.

Finally, the EWG study raises the question of whether the chemicals used in many sunblocks are safe:

Many sunscreens contain nano-scale ingredients that raise potential concerns. Micronized and nano-scale zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in sunscreen provide strong UVA protection, and are contained in many of our top-rated products. Repeated studies have found that these ingredients do not penetrate healthy skin, indicating that consumers' exposures would be minimal. Powder and spray sunscreens with nano-scale ingredients raise greater concerns, since particles might absorb more easily through the lungs than the skin. Studies of other nano-scale materials have raised concerns about their unique, toxic properties. FDA has failed to approve effective UVA filters available in Europe that, if approved here, could replace nano-scale ingredients.

Some sunscreens absorb into the blood and raise safety concerns. Our review of the technical literature shows that some sunscreen ingredients absorb into the blood, and some are linked to toxic effects. Some release skin-damaging free radicals in sunlight, some could disrupt hormone systems, several are strongly linked to allergic reactions, and others may build up in the body or the environment. FDA has not established rigorous safety standards for sunscreen ingredients that fully examines these effects.

On a related note, and to make things more complicated, there was a widely circulated report earlier this year that certain chemicals used in some sunblock formulas may be killing off coral reefs, by waking dormant viruses within the symbiotic algae that lives within the coral. I know, crazy! Others, however, say this is an untested theory and that certain pertinent factors have been overlooked. At any rate, the possible reef-killing chemicals are:

• Butylparaben
• Methylparaben
• Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate
• Benzophenone-3
• 4-methylbenzylidene camphor

Bottom line: if you really want the maximum protection against ultraviolet radiation, go with a broad-spectrum sunblock—the products suggested by the EWG are a good place to start. If you're in the store and don't have the list with you, look for something that contains zinc oxide and doesn't contain oxybenzone. If you're a real worrier, stick with creams and lotions over inhalable sprays.

Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database [Environmental Working Group]
"Many Sunscreens Ineffective, Group Says" [CBS News]

RELATED
"Swimmers' Sunscreen Killing Off Coral" [National Geographic]
"Are Sunscreens Bad for the Environment?" [BeautyBrains]
(Photo: Getty)

Avid tech consumers were also likely to be low in modesty and may be perceived as conceited or arrogant by others.

Low levels of modesty also correlate with what Welch calls "badge-buying", or a tendency to buy luxury brands. "So there's an element of pride in being able to have the latest and greatest, not just in the realm of technology, but in all other areas."

The researcher behind the study said it could have implications for technology companies looking to attract new consumers. Coming soon: a gadget with the tagline, "You're better than everyone else. Now prove it."

"Gadget buyers more assertive, even arrogant" [Reuters via ZDNet]
(Photo: Getty)

Our favorite polling question takes aim at people who support mandatory binding arbitration, but don't quite know what they're supporting:

A majority of those who were initially supportive or unsure of binding arbitration disapprove of arbitration when important information is given about common provisions in consumer contracts. With added information, Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of binding arbitration.

Big shift among binding arbitration supporters. Those who said they approve of, or were not sure about binding arbitration were presented the three following facts:

1. The arbitrator who decides the outcome of the dispute will be selected by the company
2. The consumer may never take legal action against the company over the dispute
3. Binding arbitration applies even in cases where the consumer has been seriously injured by the product or service

When presented with this information, two in three (66%) disapprove of binding arbitration and only one in five (21%) approve. Among those who initially said they were unsure, disapproval is very high (64% disapprove, 6% approve). Disapproval is high even among those who initially approved of arbitration (67% disapprove, 28% approve).

After learning the specifics of contract provisions, Americans overwhelmingly are against binding arbitration. When initial and final disapproval ratings are combined, binding arbitration loses by more than eight to one (81% initial/final disapproval, 10% final approval).

Congress may be unable to do anything about our unpopular President, but 64% of us want them to get off their asses and pass the Arbitration Fairness Act. When they return tomorrow, rested from their holiday break, give 'em a call and tell them to channel our collective hatred of mandatory binding arbitration into action.

New Poll: Americans Say "No Thanks" To Binding Arbitration [Consumer Law & Policy Blog]
Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress

(Photo: Getty)

The new data applies to workplace arbitration, which is generally the same bucket of fail as consumer arbitration.

LeRoy examines a "snowballing futility for employees" who are forced into arbitration. If they manage to win, despite the built-in institutional bias, the employer can take it to state court and get the award overturned, forcing the employee to start over from scratch. On the other hand, if they lose, the courts are highly unlikely to disturb the decision.

From the study:

Remarkably, state appellate courts confirmed only 56.4 percent of employee wins in arbitration. But when the same courts ruled on employer victories, they confirmed 86.7 percent of awards.

The "Snowballing Futility" of Arbitration for Employees [Consumer Law & Policy Blog]
Write Your Senator Write Your Representative PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress (Photo: Getty)

Prof Wolfers said he and Prof Stevenson had reached their dissenting conclusion partly owing to improved international statistics, covering more countries - poor as well as rich - and a greater number of happiness surveys that had been conducted over the past three decades.

The paper will be discussed next week at the spring economic conference of Brookings, the think-tank, and is likely to provoke lively debate.

Prof Easterlin, who has seen a draft of the paper, said he believed that as far as he was concerned his paradox still stood.

While commending his younger critics for "serious research", he said they needed to focus more on what was happening within specific countries, rather than "throwing all of these countries together".

Money can buy you happiness, say researchers [Financial Times]
List of countries by GDP [Wikipedia]

Customer Satisfaction Falls Again; Retail, Financial Services Down; Wal-mart, Home Depot at All-Time Lows [ACSI]

The revelation raises several questions, including whether the tobacco company influenced the study, who knew the real source of the funding, and whether Weill Cornell Medical College—where Dr. Henschke is a faculty member—implicitly supported the foundation's creation to hide the source of the funding. Two Cornell officials who sat on the board of the foundation have denied any knowledge of Liggett's involvement.

Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and the author of a book about conflicts of interest, said he believed that Weill Cornell had created the foundation to hide its receipt of money from a cigarette company. "You have to ask yourself the question, 'Why did the tobacco company want to support her research?' " Dr. Kassirer said. "They want to show that lung cancer is not so bad as everybody thinks because screening can save people; and that's outrageous."

Other interesting findings from the study:

• Complaints rose by 40% from 2003 to 2006
• "Telemarketers generated the most, 178,079 out of 454,373 complaints.
• Billing rates for both wireline and wireless telephone providers were second, accounting for 117,875 complaints.

"Report Faults FCC on Complaint Tracking" [Associated Press]
(Photo: Getty)

Having identified the opportunities, senior managers needed a better understanding of the field technicians' daily routines. This extra visibility—and a more flexible and dynamic dispatch system—were the cornerstones of the cable company's transformational program to improve productivity in the field and address key quality issues, such as the punctuality of technicians, waiting times for customers, and getting jobs right the first time. Using improved routing software and making better use of mobile phones, the teams in a pilot study established command centers that provided real-time visibility into the schedules of the field workforce. They also implemented innovative staffing and routing techniques designed to meet customer demand more successfully. The command centers helped field force managers to learn where technicians were, when they began and finished assignments, and whether a test signal had been sent back through the cable network to confirm that an installation was successful or a problem had been fixed. In addition, managers learned (in real time rather than afterward) when employees were ignoring policies; as a result, the company could immediately take corrective action, such as telephoning customers.

The impact was dramatic: 18 months after the company launched the program, technicians were completing an average of 8 jobs a day, compared to 4.5 previously; the average waiting time for an appointment with a technician had dropped to 1.2 days, from 5; and labor costs had decreased by more than 30 percent, since less work had to be outsourced to external contractors.

Improving field service productivity [McKinsey] (Requires free registration or you can use bugmenot login: pjs@mailinator.net, password: 142) (Thanks to c-side!)

Human beings are rational creatures who subtract costs from benefits to make decisions, traditional behavioral economics tells us, and you would think that the demand for both items would increase by the same factor. After all, the cost for each was reduced by the same amount. But Ariley found something quite different. When the Hershey's were FREE and the Lindts were 14 cents, 42% chose Hersheys and 19% chose Lindts. Airley explains, saying, "when people are faced with a choice between two products, one of which is free, they overreact to the free product as if zero price meant not only a low cost of buying the product, but also its increased valuation."

Something to think about the next time you're deciding between getting the car with three years of free oil changes and the one with $1,000 cashback.

Kristina Shampanier, Nina Mazar and Dan Ariely (2007) "Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products". Marketing Science. Vol. 26, No. 6, 742 - 757. (PDF)

(Photo: Maulleigh)

Professor Loving's study found "25 different microorganisms" in all, and at the end of the video she says it's "not necessarily cause for alarm" but that "you might want to be aware that the lemon slices have the potential to make you sick."

Snopes has posted a page on the topic, saying that while the bacteria is real, the threat hasn't been conclusively determined:

However, this study in itself doesn't demonstrate that restaurant patrons are at high risk for contracting some serious illnesses due to food workers' not observing sufficiently rigorous sanitary standards. For one thing, the study did not determine the origins of the microbial contaminants. The study also did not determine the likelihood of customers' contracting infectious diseases from restaurant-served lemon wedges, nor did it cite any examples of such an occurrence. What the study uncovered, basically, is a potential problem that requires more study.

"Lemon With Your Drink? Restaurant Lemons Are Loaded With Germs" [HealthInspections.com via Wise Bread]

RELATED
"Lemon Aid" [Snopes]
"Scientific Study: Double Dipping Is As Gross As You Think It Is"
(Video capture: HealthInspections.com)
(Hypothetical image of Dr. Loving: Invader Zim)

Here are a couple of screen grabs from Google Earth—you can download and view the maps yourself if you want to explore them.

The authors speculate that this may be the sad after-effect of a political deal-with-the-devil a couple of decades ago—after all, Christianity has historically been against usury:

Peterson, who also holds an appointment at the University of Florida, Fredric G. Levin College of Law, said he believes part of the explanation for their findings lies in politics. "When the Christian Right allied itself with conservative Wall Street business interests in the 1980s and early '90s, consumer protection law was placed to the side as an inconvenient sticking point. The laws allowing an astonishing number of triple-digit-interest-rate lenders throughout most of the Christian South and Mormon West are a legacy of that political alliance.

"U of U Professor Coauthors Study Mapping Correlation Between Christian Right, Payday Lenders" [S.J. Quinney College of Law - University of Utah]

RELATED
Interactive data maps [California State University Northridge]
"Usury Law and the Christian Right: Faith Based Political Power and the Geography of the American Payday Loan Regulation" [SSRN]

Sensation Seeking, Overconfidence, and Trading Activity (PDF) [via NYT]
(Photo: Getty)

Proving how non-addictive tobacco is, only 25% of people were willing to give up cigarettes for a TV, and about the same number were willing to give up chocolate.

Maybe the men who answered six months were counting on loopholes—there's a lot of non-"sex" you can enjoy with a 50" plasma TV and some hi-def porn.

"Half of UK men would swap sex for 50 inch TV" [Reuters]
(Photo: Getty)

To look in more detail, the team carried out a 12-year study of 46,000 men aged 40 years and over with no history of gout, asking them regular questionnaires about their diet.

Over the period, 755 newly diagnosed cases of gout were reported.

The risk of developing the condition was significantly increased with an intake level of five to six servings of sugary soft drink per week.

This link was independent of other risk factors for gout such as body mass index, age, high blood pressure and alcohol intake.

Diet soft drinks did not increase the risk of gout but fruit juice and fructose rich fruits (apples and oranges) were associated with a higher risk, the researchers said.

"Gout surge blamed on sweet drinks" [BBC News]
(Photo: Getty)

However, the study focuses on winning bids of $14 and found that on these bids, buyers were on average willing to pay about $4 more to win. We wonder two things: does this scale to big-ticket purchases on eBay, where presumably shoppers have a greater incentive to seek out the best deal? ($14 is awfully close to an impulse or emotional purchase for a lot of eBay shoppers, we'd imagine.) And does this prove that eBay is a good deal, or that eBay shoppers tend to err on the side of willing to spend too much for the goods they're buying, especially at lower price points?

One of the authors suggests eBay make similar data more transparent to shoppers in order to "reignite its auctions business." EBay has said it's going to start shifting away from auctions in order to focus more on fixed-price goods, which already account for 40% of eBay's marketplace revenue.

"Tracking Consumer Savings on eBay" [NYT Bits blog]

RELATED
"New Research Finds Consumers Save More Than $7B by Shopping on eBay " [Robert H. Smith School of Business]
"EBay's New Leader Moves Swiftly on a Revamping" [New York Times]
(Photo: Getty)

For example, one experiment had participants consider a trip to Europe (the experiment was conducted one month before the end of summer). Some were asked to consider a last-minute summer vacation, while others were asked to consider a vacation over winter break, several months away. They were then presented with ads from a fictitious Web site, PriceAlerts.com. Some ads were framed positively: "Give yourself a memorable vacation!" and "Get the best deal!" Others were framed negatively: "Don't get stuck at home!" and "Don't get ripped off."

Consumers who were planning a last minute trip were willing to pay $178 more for a vacation, on average, when presented with a "negative" ad as opposed to a "positive" ad. Conversely, those who were planning a trip that was still a ways off responded to the positive ads and were willing to pay $165 more for a promotion-framed vacation than a prevention-framed vacation.

Faced with an imminent purchase, consumers are confronted with the possibility that they may not fulfill their purchasing goal. Prevention frames note this possibility of a negative outcome and offer the product as a means to avoid it. Thus, under a time constraint, consumers are more motivated to purchase a product that helps achieve the minimal goal of preventing a negative outcome than they are to purchase a product that helps achieve the maximal goal of promoting a positive outcome. When a purchase is temporally proximal, a product that is "not bad" might, therefore, appeal more than a product that is "good."

Valentine's Day: At the last minute we buy not for pleasure, but to avoid pain [SciGuy]
Time Will Tell: The Distant Appeal of Promotion and Imminent Appeal of Prevention [The Journal of Consumer Research via SSRN]
(Photo: Sister72)

Shopping momentum occurs when an initial purchase provides a psychological impulse whose momentum drives the purchase of a second, unrelated product... Momentum occurs because the initial purchase moves one from a deliberative to an implemental mindset, thus driving subsequent purchases.

Planning can derail mindless spending. Keep your money in separate places to create a pause between decision and purchase. Like with grocery shopping, make a list before hitting the mall to avoid extraneous purchases. If you want to browse, ask salespeople to hold items and come back the next day to re-evaluate your selections with a thrifty friend.

Buyer Beware: Shopping Can Lead to More ... Well ... Shopping [Stanford Graduate School of Business]
The Shopping Momentum Effect (PDF) [Journal of Marketing Research]
(Photo: enmanuel)

Dr. Turner said the selective reporting of favorable studies sets up patients for disappointment. "The bottom line for people considering an antidepressant, I think, is that they should be more circumspect about taking it," he said, "and not be so shocked if it doesn't work the first time and think something's wrong with them." For doctors, he said, "They end up asking, 'How come these drugs seem to work so well in all these studies, and I'm not getting that response?'"

"Antidepressant Studies Unpublished" [New York Times]
(Photo: Getty)

According to the press release:

The researchers began their investigation when two patients being seen by UT Southwestern doctors developed aggressive prostate cancer within months of starting daily consumption of the same dietary supplement. Both men purchased the same product, one to develop stronger muscles and enhance sexual performance, the other to gain muscle.

Dr. Roehrborn, Dr. Shahrokh Shariat, a resident in urology and the study's lead author, and their colleagues analyzed the supplement, which is not named in the study. They found that the product's label listed ingredients that were not present, misrepresented the concentrations of the ingredients present and failed to list all the steroid hormones contained in the product.

RELATED
"Hormonal dietary supplements might promote prostate cancer progression" [EurekAlert]
(Photo: Getty)

Lens wearers who bought from their doctor were, for example, more likely to have had an eye exam in the past year or to have their doctors make sure their prescription was filled accurately and that the lenses fit properly.

Of lens wearers in his study, 21 percent and 32 percent of online and store buyers, respectively, said they did not get an eye exam once a year — even though New York State, where the survey was done, allows lens prescriptions to be valid for only one year.

The study shatters the accepted myth that pharmaceutical companies spend more on research than on marketing. In reality, drug companies pour $57.5 billion into marketing, dwarfing the comparably paltry $31.5 billion devoted to research.

Billions of marketing dollars go toward television ads that implore us to "ask our doctor" about drugs we don't need to treat ailments cultured by public relations firms. Yet even more money is spent convincing doctors to prescribe costly medicine—an astounding $61,000 in "promotion per physician."

For the last 50 years, say the authors, there has been an ongoing debate as to which image of the drug industry is most accurate. The industry promotes a vision of itself, say the authors, as "research-driven, innovative, and life-saving," but the industry's critics contend that the drug industry is based on "market-driven profiteering."

The study confirms the more cynical view that drug companies are out to profit first, and save lives second. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Don't be ashamed to ask your doctor if a drug company recently paid for any meals or ski trips. Instead of mentioning the latest drug splashed across the screen, ask how they would use their expansive medical knowledge to treat your condition. Ask how they would treat their child.

Do drug companies do more marketing or research? [SciGuy]
The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States [PLoS Medicine]
(Photo: rabbit.marshall)

According to Reuters, "the study found the largest racial disparity in providing stronger medications was found among patients in the most pain and those aged 12 or younger."

"There is no evidence that nonwhites have less severe or different types of pain when they arrive in the emergency department," Pletcher said. "We think our data indicate that opioids are being underprescribed to minority emergency department patients, especially black and Hispanic patients."

A factor may be that white patients are more likely to expect and demand relief from pain and better convey their symptoms in comparison to minority patients, the report said. Whites — who are more likely to have health insurance — may also be overprescribed the drugs, it said.

The investigators acknowledge that it is conceivable that the disparity represents overprescribing to white patients, but they think it a more plausible explanation is true undertreatment of pain in minority patients. This may not be a result of physician bias but could reflect expectations and assertiveness of the patients.

The results were stunning. Within three months, the rate of bloodstream infections from these I.V. lines fell by two-thirds. The average I.C.U. cut its infection rate from 4 percent to zero. Over 18 months, the program saved more than 1,500 lives and nearly $200 million.

A large body of evidence gathered in recent years has revealed a profound failure by health-care professionals to follow basic steps proven to stop infection and other major complications. We now know that hundreds of thousands of Americans suffer serious complications or die as a result. It's not for lack of effort. People in health care work long, hard hours. They are struggling, however, to provide increasingly complex care in the absence of effective systematization.

Excellent clinical care is no longer possible without doctors and nurses routinely using checklists and other organizational strategies and studying their results. There need to be as few barriers to such efforts as possible. Instead, the endeavor itself is treated as the danger.

RELATED
"The Checklist" [The New Yorker]
(Photo: Getty)

Of 52 items the Globe tracked over the five-week holiday shopping season, only five items were cheapest on Black Friday. The vast majority of the products either stayed the same price or fluctuated above and below the Black Friday price from week to week. Seven items were actually cheaper the day before Christmas than on Black Friday.

"If you wait it out, you'll often do better," said Joseph Feldman of the New York retail consultancy Telsey Advisory Group.

The Globe tracked prices of items ranging from digital cameras to laptops by checking advertising circulars from stores such as Best Buy, Sears, and Circuit City each Sunday, starting the weekend before Black Friday. To be included in the survey, an item had to appear in the circulars for three of the five weekends before Christmas. Five of the items were cheapest on Black Friday, including a JVC 30GB hard drive camcorder at Best Buy that rose $70 by Dec. 2 to $399, before climbing another $100 the following Sunday. The last time the item was advertised was on Dec. 16 at $399.

The prices for 20 items stayed the same, including a Sony PlayStation 3 from Circuit City that held at $399. On 20 items, the price changed from week to week - meaning some weeks buyers paid more than the Black Friday price and some weeks they paid less.

And late sleepers and the last-minute procrastinators could beat the Black Friday prices on seven items. For example, Circuit City featured a $119.99 AIPTEK camcorder that includes an MP3 player, voice recorder, and webcam on Black Friday. By Dec. 16, it had dropped to $89.99 - a 25 percent savings. And Best Buy offered a Nikon Coolpix navy blue digital camera for $199.99 on Black Friday. It jumped to $229.99 and then $279.99 in the following weeks, only to fall back to $199.99 by Dec. 16. It wasn't advertised on Dec. 23, the Sunday before Christmas.

For shopping early birds... [Boston Globe]
(Photo: The Searcher)

Sadly, the real intent of the study was to measure how much of an impact "the media's relentless coverage of recalls" have had on customer trust, and not on topics like, oh say, whether mixing batches of meat is a sound business decision.

Although the majority of consumers remain confident in the overall safety of the U.S. meat supply, 34 percent said they are less confident than they were five years ago.

Only 35 percent of consumers surveyed agree that the U.S. government is doing everything it can to ensure meat product safety.

36 percent of consumers said they worry about serving fresh ground beef or hamburgers to their families due to concerns about E. coli contamination. The majority, however, indicated that such concern has yet to impact purchase habits or even intent.