Posts Tagged ‘Janet Schwartz’
Wednesday, August 5th, 2015
Daniel Mochon and Janet Schwartz’s paper “Gain without pain: The extended effects of a behavioral health intervention” has been accepted for publication in Management Science. Financial incentive programs are an attractive way to for firms to help customers improve health behaviors such as better nutrition, increased exercise, better medication adherence and smoking cessation. While research from behavioral economics shows that these programs can improve a specific health behavior while financial incentives are in place, less is known about how they influence people’s behavior in other areas or after the incentives stop. For firms hoping to leverage insights from behavioral economics on a large scale basis, these effects are crucial to understand. If a nutrition intervention gets people to eat healthier for some period of time, but also causes them to stop exercising then there may be little overall value in this approach. In the paper, Mochon and Schwartz examine these important questions. Their research, conducted in collaboration with Discovery Health, looked at the extended impact of imposing a financial penalty on customers who failed to improve their nutrition behavior. Those customers, whose households were receiving a generous 25 percent discount on healthy groceries, agreed to put their discount on the line by promising to increase their healthy food purchases. For each of the following six months, those who met the goal kept their discount; but those who did not had to repay it to the company. Although this precommitment was a somewhat painful and irrational approach, the intervention successfully helped households improve their healthy grocery shopping during the entire intervention. In fact, Mochon and Schwartz found that these households even continued their new healthy habits for six months after the penalty was removed. Buying more healthy food did not lead people to become lax in other areas of their health — those who agreed to the penalty exercised just as much as they had before. And, despite imposing a penalty on loyal customers, the results showed that overall customer engagement was not reduced. Taken together, the authors demonstrate how insights from behavioral economics can be implemented on a large scale basis, and can be done without compromising health in other domains or threatening customer loyalty. Mochon and Schwartz are assistant professors of marketing at the A. B. Freeman School of Business.
Thursday, May 21st, 2015
From Nola.com, May 21, 2015:
Loyal customers may return, but the recall is “incredibly damaging,” especially in areas where Blue Bell is still an unfamiliar name, said Janet Schwartz, an assistant professor of marketing at Tulane University’s A. B. Freeman School of Business.
Schwartz added it would take time for Blue Bell to win back the trust of ice cream sellers, especially after reports the company knew about listeria at an Oklahoma plant as far back as 2013.
Grocery stores, ice cream parlors and other distributors will need to see changes in how Blue Bell approaches food safety before they restock the brand, she said.
“People have emotional bonds to brands. Distributors don’t,” Schwartz said.
To read the article in its entirety, visit Nola.com:
Tuesday, October 14th, 2014
When it comes to business scandals, names like Madoff, Leman and Enron are top of mind. But why do people misbehave in the marketplace? That was the subject of a conference on Friday (Oct. 10) at the A. B. Freeman School of Business at Tulane University. With discussions from anthropologists, psychologists, philosophers and military scholars, the meeting of the Moral Research Lab was no ordinary business conference.
Janet Schwartz, left, and Peter McGraw were organizers of “Morality in the Marketplace,” an interdisciplinary research conference on morality and moral decision making.
“Morality and the Marketplace” was the first in-person meeting of the lab, a virtual group of interdisciplinary scholars who study morality and moral decision-making. Nine researchers affiliated with the lab — including scholars from business, economics, psychology, philosophy and anthropology as well as representatives from the military, the National Institutes of Health and even a corporate fraud examiner — presented research aimed at better understanding why people behave badly in the market.
“I think the thing that’s interesting is that it’s interdisciplinary,” says Janet Schwartz, assistant professor of marketing at the Freeman School and organizer of the conference. “The researchers came together from all over to present their ideas about how to make this research more relevant to the practice of ethics.”
Conference co-organizer Peter McGraw, associate professor of marketing at the University of Colorado–Boulder, said that while the conference’s purpose wasn’t to tell people how to behave in a marketplace, the research presented can be used by policymakers and executives to help create more ethical work environments.
“When people think about a business school, they often have a very narrow perception of what they do,” McGraw says. “Business schools can inform public policy, support entrepreneurs or help consumer advocates, so any time you can help understand the marketplace at some micro or macro level, the ability to prescribe expands greatly. Business schools have a much broader mission than most people assume, and I think a conference like this can help highlight that.”
“Morality in the Marketplace” was co-sponsored by the A. B. Freeman School of Business, the Murphy Institute, Duke University’s Center for Advanced Hindsight, and the D. W. Mitchell Lecture Fund as part of the Provost’s Faculty Seminars in Interdisciplinary Research.
Tuesday, June 18th, 2013
From Scientific American, June 17, 2013:
Janet Schwartz, assistant professor of marketing at the Freeman School and an expert on the intersection of marketing and public policy with regard to health care, co-authored a guest blog for Scientific American on the problem of current health insurance models.
Rather than tolerate increases in co-pay and deductible, shouldn’t we be able to pay less because we do not value particular options? Better yet, shouldn’t the options relate to the likelihood of benefit? Those of us who consider interventions with unlikely or small benefits of little value should not be asked to burden the cost of providing such for those who value such. We should be offered a “high efficacy option” at lower cost than an “any efficacy option” and no one should be offered an option that indemnifies for interventions that have been studied and cannot be shown to offer a clinically meaningful benefit.
To read the article in its entirety, visit scientificamerican.com.
Thursday, February 7th, 2013
From Fox Business, Feb. 7, 2013
What’s in a price? When it comes to medicines, the cost could affect your health and well-being, according to Janet Schwartz, assistant professor of marketing at the A. B. Freeman School of Business at Tulane University in New Orleans. A recent study found in the Journal of Consumer Research, “Goods: Changing the price of medicine influences perceived health risk,” by Schwartz and Adriana Samper of the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, found that the cost of a medication directly impacts how consumers view their risk of catching an illness associated with the medicine.
To read the entire article, visit FoxBusiness.com.
Friday, January 4th, 2013
When it comes to calculating their odds of getting the flu, consumers look to an unlikely gauge – the price of the flu shot – to measure their risk, according to a new study co-authored by a Freeman School researcher.
The study found that consumers make judgments about their risk of catching an illness based on the cost of its medication. The higher the price, the less they think they’re at risk, says co-author Janet Schwartz, assistant professor of marketing at the A. B. Freeman School of Business at Tulane.
“Your chance of winning at blackjack has nothing to do with how big the payout is and most people know that,” Schwartz says. “But when it comes to understanding what prices reflect for medicine, people look at the price and they do think that it somehow tells them something about their own risk of getting a disease. In reality, those two factors are completely independent.”
Researchers conducted several surveys to gauge consumers’ reactions to different medications based on cost and perceived risk. For example, they presented different health messages about getting a flu shot, emphasizing individual risk in one scenario and the larger public health risks in another. They told some that the vaccine cost $25 and others $125. Even though all were told the cost would be covered by insurance, those in the high-price group felt that they were at a lower risk of getting the flu.
Researchers found that consumers instinctively believed that important medication like flu vaccine should be affordably priced to be widely accessible. When priced high and perceivably out of reach for some, consumers inferred that the medicine must not be all that necessary and the risk of getting the illness must be lower. The results of the study, which is co-authored by Adriana Samper of the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, will be published in the April issue of the Journal of Consumer Research.
Monday, September 10th, 2012
Janet Schwartz’s paper “Price Inferences for Sacred vs. Secular Goods: Changing the Price of Medicine Influences Perceived Health Risk” has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Consumer Research. Schwartz, assistant professor of marketing at Tulane University’s A. B. Freeman School of Business, co-authored the paper with Adriana Samper, assistant professor of marketing at Arizona State University.
To see more Freeman School research, visit the Faculty Publications page.
Wednesday, February 8th, 2012
Studies have shown fast-food calorie postings do little to deter diners from overeating. A better approach may be for restaurants to simply ask consumers if they’d like smaller portions, according to new research by a Freeman School professor in this month’s Health Affairs.
A new study by the Freeman School's Janet Schwartz shows that "downsizing" is more effective than calorie labeling at getting consumers to make healthy choices.
The study, by Janet Schwartz, assistant professor of marketing, found that when servers asked customers whether they’d like to “downsize” starchy side dishes at a Chinese fast-food restaurant as many as a third gladly cut back – saving an average 200 calories each meal.
“Our goal was to test whether the invitation to downsize a meal component would be embraced by consumers and, importantly, whether the approach would be more effective than a purely information-based approach – in this case calorie labeling,” said Schwartz, the lead study author.
Schwartz and fellow researchers conducted several field experiments at a single Chinese fast-food restaurant. In each case, servers asked customers selecting side dishes, “Would you like to save 200 calories or more by taking a smaller portion?”
In one scenario, customers were offered a 25-cent discount if they took the downsizing offer. In another, menu calorie labels were prominently displayed in front of consumers as they selected their meals and in another calorie labels were removed. In all, anywhere from 14 percent to 33 percent of customers opted to downsize portions. Surprisingly, the 25-cent discount had little impact on downsizing choices and the calorie postings didn’t persuade much either. In fact, significantly more customers —21 percent versus 14 percent — accepted the downsizing offer when calorie information was absent.
Schwartz hopes the study helps restaurants understand that helping diners exercise portion control won’t alienate customers.
“I think the restaurant industry may find this counterintuitive, but it’s an interesting and easy strategy to implement that could help their customers make healthier choices,” Schwartz says.