Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Product Returns Represent Billion-Dollar Strategic Blind Spot for Major Retailers

“Product returns have never, to our knowledge, been explicitly included as a stage in a major customer journey model,” the authors note in their paper. “This exclusion represents a strategic blind-spot for marketers.” In December 2020, Linne Fulcher, vice president, customer strategy, science and journeys at Walmart U.S., published a blog post that outlined Walmart’s new return policy. Dubbed “Carrier Pickup by FedEx,” the service was just in time for the holidays, free, and “here to stay,” Fulcher wrote. She described the policy as “an incredibly convenient way to make that unwanted gift ‘magically’ disappear,” whether customers bought items in a store, online, or from a third party vendor. “We want the returns experience to be easy, safe and seamless,” she added. Returns are big business. According to the National Retail Federation (NRF), U.S. consumers returned an estimated $428 billion worth of merchandise last year—approximately 10.6 percent of total U.S. retail sales. The numbers for ecommerce are even more startling: online shopping accounted for roughly $565 billion of 2020 retail sales, of which $102 billion in merchandise—about 18 percent—was returned. However, retail advisory firm Optoro noted in 2019 that of 117 top retailers, not even a third of them quantify the full cost of returns. Even before the pandemic hit, Sandy Jap, Sarah Beth Brown professor in marketing, Ryan Hamilton, associate professor of marketing, and former Goizueta Business School dean, Tom Robertson, were perplexed at how little academic research existed regarding returns. “Instead of viewing returns as a nuisance and an added cost, they are an opportunity to engage with customers and build brand loyalty,” explains Robertson. “Returns are part and parcel of the new retail landscape. This has been exacerbated by the strong uptick in online.” To help retailers identify opportunities, Jap, Hamilton, and Robertson wrote “Many (Un)happy Returns? The Changing Nature of Retail Product Returns and Future Research Directions,” published in Journal of Retailing last year. The article is essentially a researcher’s road map for exploring this “strategically important area,” says Jap. Some retailers, such as Warby Parker and Stitch Fix, have built returns into their business models. Others, like Zappos and Nordstrom, have made consumer-generated returns easy, assuming that doing so engenders brand loyalty and repeat business. Yet most retailers seem “to lack a coherent philosophy” on returns and “appear not to have built return rates into their business models at all,” the trio state in their paper. “There are so many interesting and important questions to be answered around product returns,” says Hamilton. “Important as returns are, the academic marketing research has barely scratched the surface.” “Many (Un)happy Returns” highlights five specific areas where advancements in theory and practice would provide opportunity for greater understanding: 1. How product returns transform the customer journey 2. The “dark side” of returns—exploring the gray area between justified returns and outright fraud 3. The effects of returns on traditional retailer supply chains 4. Customer response to easy product returns and practices 5. The effect of retailers’ product return practices on their reputation “These questions represent a range of important directions for assembling a body of work on retailer-initiated and customer-initiated return behaviors and processes,” they write. “Ultimately, these might serve to improve the performance of return forecasting models, illuminate optimal go-to-market strategies and distribution processes in the evolving, technology-oriented marketplace that characterizes retailing today.” Each of the five points above are detailed in a piece recently published by Emory University. That article is attached here: If you are a journalist looking to cover this topic or if you are simply interested in learning more, then let us help. Ryan Hamilton, associate professor of marketing at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. Sandy Jap holds the Sarah Beth Brown Endowed Professorship of Marketing Chair at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. Both are available to speak with media, simply click on eithr expert's icon now – to book an interview today.

Learning online honestly. Is cheating becoming part of the ‘new normal’ in education?

The emergence of COVID-19 has seen almost every segment of society and traditional institution in America have to pivot drastically to sustain and carry on, especially the educational system. And as students across America had to log on and learn remotely in the last year, occurrences of cheating are trending upwards. It’s a phenomenon that is getting a lot of attention and University of Mary Washington Psychology Professor David Rettinger, an expert on academic integrity, is getting a lot of calls from media about it. Roughly a year after college campuses were evacuated due to the COVID-19 pandemic, academic integrity remains an issue for students and professors alike. With professors struggling to curb rampant cheating during online exams and students wrestling with the often confusing and stressful realities of online learning, the college classroom has never been more tense… Teen Vogue has spoken with academics and students to learn more about what kind of cheating is happening during remote learning, and what they think should be done about it. University battles with help sites have peaked during the COVID-19 crisis, but the root of the problem has been years in the making. “I call it a game of whack-a-mole,” says David Rettinger, president emeritus of the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) and director of academic integrity at the University of Mary Washington. New sites are constantly rising in popularity, he explains, making it harder for professors to prevent students from seeking answers online, especially now. March 04 – Teen Vogue And how even the most respected of institutions like West Point are handling these cases have also seen Rettinger’s expert perspective sought out to explain. “Expulsion flies in the face of everything we understand about the psychology of ethical and moral behavior,” Rettinger said. That’s partly because the section of the brain that makes you feel “icky” when you do something wrong isn’t fully developed until around age 23 to 26 — after college is over. Rettinger said rehabilitation seems in line with West Point’s mission — to instill the values of duty, honor and country. “That doesn't necessarily mean weeding people out who are imperfect, because we're all imperfect,” Rettinger said. “That means taking the best cadets we can and turning them into the best officers they can be, which means teaching them. And if there's no opportunity for redemption, what are we really teaching?” March 08 – NPR The concept of cheating and how schools are handling it is an emerging issue in America. And if you are a journalist looking to cover this subject, then let us help with your stories. Dr. David Rettinger is available to speak with media regarding this issue of cheating and academic integrity. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

How well do you know your sense of touch? UMW’s Sushma Subramanian explains it all in new book

The University of Mary Washington’s Sushma Subramanian’s latest book, How to Feel: The Science and Meaning of Touch, is now available on bookstore shelves and online retailers across America. The journalist, assistant professor and author was recently featured in Discover Magazine, where she shares her inspiration for the book and sits down to answer to serious questions about science and the need to touch. Several years ago, Sushma Subramanian was procrastinating on her work when she noticed her desk was a bit wobbly. It was a rather mundane moment, she recalls, and one that’s only a vague memory now. But as she began to fiddle with the shaky tabletop, the science journalist found herself noting how the experience felt: the grain of the wood against her fingers, the pinching of her skin and the sensation of her muscles straining to lift the desk. As Subramanian explains in her book, How to Feel: The Science and Meaning of Touch, it was a moment when she began to consider how little she knew about this multifaceted sense — “a capacity,” she writes, “that never shuts off.” The questions kept forming, eventually leading Subramanian, a professor of journalism at the University of Mary Washington, to write an article for Discover in 2015 about the development of tactile touch screens — which use haptic technology, such as vibrations in handheld devices. In her latest work, she dives deeper into that world, but also explores the limits of our sense of touch and what makes it so versatile. Discover caught up with Subramanian to talk about touch in the age of COVID-19, the future of tactile research and how we experience the sense differently across personal and cultural barriers. March 08 - Discover Magazine Her interview is also part of the attached article and is a very compelling read. If you are a journalist looking to speak with Sushma Subramanian about her latest book, then let us help. Simply click on Sushma’s icon now to arrange a time and interview.

Ask the Expert: Vaccine myths and scientific facts

Now that there are authorized and recommended COVID-19 vaccines, it is critical people receive accurate information. Peter Gulick, professor of medicine at the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine and infectious disease expert, reviews some myths about the vaccine and counters these with scientific facts. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccines were developed in a rush, so their effectiveness and safety can’t be trusted. Fact: Studies found that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are both about 95% effective compared to the influenza vaccine, which ranges from being 50% to 60% effective each year. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is 85% effective at curbing serious or moderate illness. The most important statistic is that all three were 100% effective in stopping hospitalizations and death. As of March 9, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 93.7 million people have been vaccinated and all safety data collected from these doses show no red flags. There have been about 5 cases of anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction, per 1 million but this is no different than allergic reactions from other vaccines. There are many reasons why the COVID-19 vaccines could be developed so quickly and here are a few: The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were created with a messenger RNA technology that has been in development for years, so the companies could start the vaccine development process early in the pandemic. China isolated and shared genetic information about COVID-19 promptly so scientists could start working on vaccines. The vaccine developers didn’t skip any testing steps but conducted some of the steps on an overlapping schedule to gather data faster. The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were created using messenger RNA, or mRNA, which allows a faster approach than the traditional way that vaccines are made. Because COVID-19 is so contagious and widespread, it did not take long to see if the vaccine worked for the vaccinated study volunteers. Companies began making vaccines early in the process — even before FDA authorization — so some supplies were ready when authorization occurred. They develop COVID-19 vaccines so quickly also due to years of previous research on the SARS COV-1, a related virus. Myth: The messenger RNA technology used to make the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is brand new. Fact: The messenger RNA technology behind these two vaccines has been studied and in development for almost two decades. Interest has grown in these vaccines because they can be developed in a laboratory using readily available materials, making vaccine development faster. mRNA vaccines have been studied before for flu, Zika and rabies. Myth: You only need one dose of J&J vaccine so it’s more effective. Fact: Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine uses a different strategy — a weakened cold virus that is reprogrammed to include the code for the spike protein. Once inside the body, the viral genes trigger a similar response against the virus. All three vaccines are considered overall effective and 100% effective in preventing hospitalizations and death. Myth: Vaccine efficacy and effectiveness mean the same thing. Fact: Efficacy and effectiveness do not mean the same thing. “Efficacy” refers to the results for how well a drug or vaccine works based on testing while “effectiveness” refers to how well these products work in the real world, in a much larger group of people. Most people, however, use them interchangeably even though they have different scientific meanings. Myth: The vaccines aren’t effective against new strains of the virus. Fact: Currently, we know both the U.K. strain as well as the South African variant have increased transmissibility of 30% to 50% over the natural strain. As far as an increase in causing more serious disease, it is not known yet. We have over 600 U.K. variants in Michigan and one case of the South African variant, and I just heard of 47 cases of the U.K. variant in Grand Ledge. We (Michigan) are second in the nation in variants, but that's likely because we test for them more. The most important information is that the vaccines, in general, are 100% effective in prevention of hospitalization and death. So, it is felt they all offer some protection against variants to prevent serious disease. As far as the Johnson & Johnson, it was used with variants and has efficacy overall of 72% in U.S., 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa (where the main strain is the South African variant). All companies are looking at modifying (their products) (the mRNA) to cover variants and either give a booster or a multivalent vaccine to cover all variants. Myth: There are severe side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Fact: The COVID-19 vaccine can have side effects, but the vast majority go away quickly and aren’t serious. The vaccine developers report that some people experience pain where they were injected; body aches; headaches or fever, lasting for a day or two. This is good and are signs that the vaccine is working to stimulate your immune system. If symptoms persist beyond two days, you should call your doctor. Myth: Getting the COVID-19 vaccine gives you COVID-19. Fact: The vaccine for COVID-19 cannot and will not give you COVID-19. The two authorized mRNA vaccines instruct your cells to reproduce a protein that is part of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which helps your body recognize and fight the virus, if it comes along. The COVID-19 vaccine does not contain the SARS-Co-2 virus, so you cannot get COVID-19 from the vaccine. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was developed using adenovirus vector technology and also will not give you COVID-19. It shows your immune system a weakened, common cold virus “disguised” as the coronavirus instead. Adenovirus vaccines have been around for about two decades, the same as mRNA vaccines. Johnson & Johnson developed a vaccine for Ebola using this technology. Myth: The vaccines are ineffective against the virus variants. Fact: More time is needed to study the vaccines’ effectiveness against the variants. Studies are now being conducted to determine if a booster dose is needed to protect against the variants or if modifications to the vaccines are needed. Myth: I already had COVID-19 and I have recovered, so I don't need to get the vaccine. Fact: There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long after getting COVID-19 someone is protected from getting it again. This is called natural immunity. Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this. The CDC recommends getting the COVID-19 vaccine, even if you’ve had COVID-19 previously. However, those that had COVID-19 should delay getting the vaccination until about 90 days from diagnosis. People should not get vaccinated if in quarantine after exposure or if they have COVID-19 symptoms. Myth: I won't need to wear a mask after I get the vaccine. Fact: It may take time for everyone who wants a COVID-19 vaccination to get one. Also, while the vaccine may prevent you from getting sick, more research is needed, but early indications show that while the vaccine is effective in reducing transmission, it is possible for a vaccinated person to spread the virus. Until more is understood about how well the vaccine works, continuing with precautions such as mask-wearing and physical distancing will be important. Myth: COVID-19 vaccines will alter my DNA. Fact: The COVID-19 vaccines will not alter any human genome and cannot make any changes to your DNA. The vaccines contain all the instructions necessary to teach your cells to make SARS-CoV-2's signature spike protein, release it out into the body, and your immune system gets a practice round at fighting off COVID-19. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine can affect women’s fertility Fact: There is currently no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problems with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta. In addition, there is no evidence suggesting that fertility problems are a side effect of any vaccine. People who are trying to become pregnant now or who plan to try in the future may receive the COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available to them but it’s always prudent to consult with your doctor. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine was developed to control the general population either through microchip tracking or "nanotransducers" in our brains. Fact: There is no vaccine microchip, and the vaccine cannot track people or gather personal information into a database. Myth: The vaccines were developed and produced using fetal tissue. Fact: The vaccines do not contain fetal cells nor were fetal cells used in the production the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Johnson & Johnson used human cell lines or also known as cell cultures to grow the harmless adenovirus but did not use fetal tissue. These same cell lines have been used for other vaccines including hepatitis, chickenpox and rabies and have been around for years. Peter Gulick is an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Dr. Gulick is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Peter Gulick is an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Dr. Gulick is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Villanova University Professor Breaks Down Wage Gaps as Equal Pay Day Approaches

March 24 marks Equal Pay Day, dedicated to public awareness of the difference in average earnings between men and women. This will be the 25th Equal Pay Day since it was created by the National Committee on Pay Equity. David Anderson, PhD, is an associate professor of analytics at the Villanova School of Business, whose academic research focuses on how companies can measure and address gender pay gaps. (Along with his doctoral advisor, Dr. Anderson also started PayAnalytics, which helps companies measure and close gender and racial pay gaps. They've worked with companies that have from 40 to 100,000 employees to help them close pay gaps.) He explains that there are two key numbers to consider regarding pay gaps: "The 'raw' or 'unadjusted' pay gap is the number when we say, 'women earn 77 cents on the dollar compared to men,'" said Dr. Anderson. "The second is the 'adjusted' pay gap, which is typically smaller, in the single digits of percentages. This is what equal pay for equal work laws usually target." Anderson notes that these divides are calculated differently: "The unadjusted pay gap is a society issue in terms of who has access to education and opportunity, who gets promoted and which types of work are paid more or less money. The adjusted pay gap is calculated within companies and measures how much less women are paid on average compared to men with similar qualifications doing similar work. These are driven by such things as access to overtime, but also this is where bias comes into play—both individual bias and systemic bias." The intersection of gender and sexuality poses additional influence on pay gaps (as well as other workplace discrepancies), and progress on addressing wage gaps is also changing due to our current world. "I think with COVID and the impact it has taken on women's careers, particularly on mothers, it is quite likely we are moving backwards right now," said Dr. Anderson. So how do we combat these gaps? Dr. Anderson believes one step is instituting company regulations. "There's a ton of work on the adjusted pay gap, but very little on the raw pay gap. This is understandable—no one company can fix the unadjusted pay gap by itself, but they can be expected to meet equal pay for equal work requirements. The adjusted pay gap is a company-level responsibility, so it is a really nice target for regulations, while the unadjusted pay gap requires broader social changes, e.g., more flexible parental leave and more access to managerial positions." For the future, Dr. Anderson predicts changes due to COVID: "I think on the domestic front the effects of COVID will definitely make things worse in the short-term. But I think equal pay is on the Biden administration's agenda, so there's probably going to be forward movement on that front on a national level as well as in states, such as California, Massachusetts and New York, that are passing and enforcing stricter laws which will start to have an impact as well," said Dr. Anderson.

What We Can Learn From Celebrating Irish-American Heritage Month

About two weeks ago, President Joseph Biden declared March 2021 Irish-American Heritage Month. In an official statement, the president said, "We owe a debt of gratitude to the Irish-American inventors and entrepreneurs who helped define America as the land of opportunity... The fabric of modern America is woven through with the green of the Emerald Isle." As the director of the Center for Irish Studies at Villanova University, an institution founded by Irish Augustinians to educate the children of Irish immigrants, Joseph Lennon, PhD, agrees. He hopes to use this presidential declaration as an opportunity to expand the conversation around what it means to be of Irish descent beyond wearing green and watching the annual St. Patrick's Day parade. The way Dr. Lennon sees it, "there is much more to Irish America than a parade and parties." With such a rich history of Irish immigrants and their descendants living in and contributing to the development of the United States, Dr. Lennon sees March 2021 as an important time to reflect on the "contributions and travails of this ethnicity" in a way that reaches beyond "silly slogans and marketing schemes." He reminds us, "there are over 30 million Irish Americans. The Irish contributed massively to the infrastructure of industrial America and later to the civil, education and business worlds—not to mention the Catholic Church." Dr. Lennon also hopes this month will help redefine the larger notion of what it looks like to be Irish and American. He notes that "38% of African Americans have Irish ancestry," but acknowledges that "this is a complicated issue," since in some cases this may stem from abuses suffered during the American practice of slavery. It is important conversations like these that Dr. Lennon wants to bring to light during Irish-American Heritage Month, and he stresses that "more research is needed into understanding this history—as well as the unions between Irish immigrants and northern-bound African Americans during the late nineteenth century." Per Dr. Lennon, these historical events are tied to our present day. He sees a need for "the level of recent racist attachments to Irishness... to be confronted with historical knowledge and anti-racist understandings." With such important issues in mind, Dr. Lennon wants to impart that "the Irish diaspora is global and diverse and Irish culture runs much more deeply and broadly in America than we might guess by just attending the St. Patrick's Day celebrations." He adds, "I'm curious to see if the conversation continues past St. Patrick's Day this year." Despite most St. Patrick’s Day events and programs being virtual in 2021, there are many opportunities to celebrate Irish-American heritage this year. At Villanova, the Center for Irish Studies is hosting a virtual St. Patrick's Day Celebration called "Links Across the Atlantic" on Wednesday, March 17, from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. This free celebration will include live entertainment segments, from an Irish breakfast tutorial with study abroad director Mary Madec to lunchtime laughs with actor Johnny Murphy, and will culminate with a streamed Irish music fèis (or festival) in partnership with Tune Supply, featuring We Banjo 3, the Friel Sisters and One for the Foxes! For more information or to register for this event, please click here.

Why online recommendations make it easier to hit “buy”

When it is time to buy something online, perhaps a coffee maker, you might head to Amazon and browse items for sale. One particular model might spark interest. The product page may contain recommendations for other goods: complementary products such as coffee filters; or recommendations for different, competitor coffee maker brands offering unique features and prices. E-commerce websites commonly use product recommendations — called co-purchase and co-view recommendations — to keep users locked into the sales funnel and increase customer retention. But what impact do these types of recommendations actually have on consumers? How do they influence one’s willingness to pay for the original product searched? In fact, the level of influence depends on how close a consumer is to making that purchase, says Jesse Bockstedt, associate professor of information systems & operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. In addition, what type of recommendation the consumer sees plays a role in purchasing as well. To shed empirical light on this, Bockstedt teamed with Mingyue Zhang from the Shanghai International Studies University. “We were curious. We knew that recommendation systems are integral to how consumers discover products online – a good 35 percent of Amazon sales can be attributed to recommendations, for instance,” Bockstedt says. “But we knew a lot less about how recommendations change consumer behavior in relation to a focal product.” Specifically, the researchers were interested in looking at the effect of complementary versus substitutable products, and what impact the price of these types of products had on consumer behavior. They also wanted to know whether these effects were more or less amplified depending on whether consumers were at the exploratory phase in the buying process or ready to go ahead and make the purchase. To unpack the dynamics at play, Bockstedt and Zhang ran two experiments that simulated the online purchasing experience. The researchers had volunteers go through the process of evaluating different products and then report back on how much they were willing to pay for each. “We asked volunteers to look at a product page for a computer mouse, and we randomly assigned different recommendations to that page – some that were for other mice, and others that were for goods and products that would complement the original mouse. Going through the experiment, we also manipulated the price that volunteers saw on different pages, both for the recommended substitute and complementary products,” he says. “Finally, we looked at the effect of timing and the sales funnel. In one case we had volunteers look for a highly specific mouse and recommended a particular product page to them. To simulate the more exploratory phase, we gave them many pages and asked them to click on the one they found most interesting.” In total, Bockstedt and Zhang put 200+ volunteers through the replica virtual purchasing experience and recorded their willingness to pay the advertised price for the focal product on scale of 0 to 100, depending on what they had seen and the point in the sales funnel they had seen the recommendations. If you are looking to learn more about this research and the results, Emory has a full article published for reading and review. If you are a journalist looking to cover this topic or if you are simply interested in learning more, then let us help. Jesse Bockstedt, associate professor of information systems and operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. He is available to speak with media, simply click on his icon now – to book an interview today.

Fewer cars, but more fatalities - What's happening on America's pandemic roadways

Fewer vehicles are traveling on America's roadways during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, but the number of fatal car crashes in 2020 increased exponentially compared to the same time period in 2019. UConn expert Eric Jackson, a research professor and director of the Connecticut Transportation Safety Research Center, and behavioral research assistant Marisa Auguste examined the increase in a recent essay published by The Conversation:  Curious about traffic crashes during the pandemic, we decided to use our skills as a social scientist and a research engineer who study vehicle crash data to see what we could learn about Connecticut’s traffic deaths when the stay-at-home orders first went into place last March. A partnership between the Department of Transportation, local hospitals and the University of Connecticut discovered what many people intuitively knew: Traffic volume and multivehicle crashes fell significantly during the stay-at-home order. Statewide, daily vehicle traffic fell by 43% during the stay-at-home order compared to earlier in the year, while mean daily counts of multivehicle crashes decreased from 209 before the stay-at-home order to 80 during lockdown. What was unexpected, however, was the significant increase in single-vehicle crashes, especially fatal ones. During the stay-at-home period, the incidence rate of fatal single-vehicle crashes increased 4.1 times, while the rate of total single-vehicle crashes was also up significantly. Data about all crash types in the state, whether single- or multivehicle, tell a similar story. Although preliminary, police reports have placed the 2020 year-end total for traffic deaths at 308, a 24% increase from 2019. While the researchers said that it's unclear why this counterintuitive increase in fatalities on the roads has occurred, their advice to drivers? "Check your speed" and "don't drive angry." If you are a journalist looking to know more about this topic, let us help. Simply click on Eric Jackson’s icon to arrange an interview today.

What’s next for Myanmar? Our expert can help if you are covering.

The troubled and fledgling democracy that existed in Myanmar has been overtaken by a military coup. The tiny South-Asian country is no stranger to military dictatorships and the uprisings occurring are the third time in recent history that the country has been in disarray. The reason for the interventions, as it’s being spun by the military, is to preserve the concepts of democracy with the promise of new elections on the horizon. “The Burmese military has long considered itself as the principle protector of the Myanmar nation, and they have treated internal critics and democratic reformers as enemies of the nation,” said Dr. Andrew Goss,” chair of the Department of History, Anthropology and Philosophy at Augusta University. “While the partial democratic reforms instigated by the military a decade ago gave many hope that Myanmar was changing, the election last year did not produce the results the military expected.” In his first televised address since the takeover, Min Aung Hlaing, a career military officer who is commander in chief of Myanmar's armed forces, repeated claims of fraud in November's election, and said the military will hold new elections and transfer power to the winner. He did not specify when those elections would take place, though the military had previously declared a year-long state of emergency. The military has imposed numerous restrictions on gatherings and activities in the country's largest cities of Yangon and Mandalay, effective Monday until further notice. Restrictions include an 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. curfew, as well as a ban on motorized processions and gatherings of more than five people. They are effective on a township-by-township basis. In his address, Min Aung Hlaing said an electoral commission did not properly investigate irregularities over voter lists or allow fair campaigning, according to the BBC, which notes that the commission did not find evidence to support claims of widespread fraud. He also promised that a reformed commission would oversee another election, and spoke of achieving a "true and disciplined democracy." But when those elections will happen and who will be able to seek office have yet to be explained. The situation has garnered international attention and condemnation – and if you are a journalist covering these ongoing developments in Myanmar, then let our experts help with your coverage. Dr. Andrew Goss is a renowned expert in Asian history and can speak to reporters covering the events taking place now. To arrange an interview with Dr. Goss, simply click on his name.

Online ratings systems shouldn’t just be a numbers game

When you’re browsing the internet for something to buy, watch, listen, or rent, chances are that you will scan online recommendations before you make your purchase. It makes sense. With an overabundance of options in front of you, it can be difficult to know exactly which movie or garment or holiday gift is the best fit. Personalized recommendation systems help users navigate the often-confusing labyrinth of online content. They take a lot of the legwork out of decision-making. And they are an increasingly commonplace function of our online behavior. All of which is in your best interest as a consumer, right? Yes and no, says Jesse Bockstedt, associate professor of information systems and operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. Bockstedt has produced a body of research in recent years that reveals a number of issues with recommendation systems that should be on the radar of organizations and users alike. While user ratings, often shown as stars on a five- or ten-point scale, can help you decide whether or not to go ahead and make a selection, online recommendations can also create a bias towards a product or experience that might have little or nothing to do with your actual preferences, Bockstedt says. Simply put, you’re more likely to watch, listen to, or buy something because it’s been recommended. And, when it comes to recommending the thing you’ve just watched, listened to, or bought yourself, your own rating might also be heavily influenced by the way it was recommended to you in the first place. “Our research has shown that when a consumer is presented with a product recommendation that has a predicted preference rating—for example, we think you’ll like this movie or it has four and a half out of five stars—this information creates a bias in their preferences,” Bockstedt says. “The user will report liking the item more after they consume it if the system’s initial recommendation was high, and they say they like it less post-consumption, if the system’s recommendation was low. This holds even if the system recommendations are completely made up and random. So the information presented to the user in the recommendation creates a bias in how they perceive the item even after they’ve actually consumed or used it.” This in turn creates a feedback loop which can reflect authentic preference, but this preference is very likely to be contaminated by bias. And that’s a problem, Bockstedt says. “Once you have error baked into your recommendation system via this biased feedback loop, it’s going to reproduce and reproduce so that as an organization you’re pushing your customers towards certain types of products or content and not others—albeit unintentionally,” Bockstedt explains. “And for users or consumers, it’s also problematic in the sense that you’re taking the recommendations at face value, trusting them to be accurate while in fact they may not be. So there’s a trust issue right there.” Online recommendation systems can also potentially open the door to less than scrupulous behaviors, Bockstedt adds. Because ratings can anchor user preferences and choices to one product over another, who’s to say organizations might not actually leverage the effect to promote more expensive options to their users? In other words, systems have the potential to be manipulated such that customers pay more—and pay more for something that they may not in fact have chosen in the first place. Addressing recommendation system-induced bias is imperative, Bockstedt says, because these systems are essentially here to stay. So how do you go about attenuating the effect? His latest paper sheds new and critical light on this. Together with Gediminas Adomavicius and Shawn P. Curley of the University of Minnesota and Indiana University’s Jingjing Zhang, Bockstedt ran a series of lab experiments to determine whether user bias could be eliminated or mitigated by showing users different types of recommendations or rating systems. Specifically they wanted to see if different formats or interface displays could diminish the bias effect on users. And what they found is highly significant. Emory has published a full article on this topic – and its available for reading here: If you are a journalist looking to cover this topic or if you are simply interested in learning more, then let us help. Jesse Bockstedt, associate professor of information systems and operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. He is available to speak with media, simply click on his icon now – to book an interview today.