Retailers traditionally use a number system to match a product or service to a customer, ensuring that the customer receives the right product (e.g., a specific hot drink). However, some retailers have started to match an order by using a customer's name. Six studies, including an incentive-compatible experiment and field study, examine whether, when, and why order identification by a customer's name can either benefit or harm retailers. In contrast to prior research suggesting a negative effect of using a customer's name in marketing communications (e.g., online ads), the current research demonstrates a positive effect of identifying an order by name, which we refer to as the “Starbucks effect.” This positive effect, however, is mitigated or even backfires under specific circumstances. The results suggest that managers can use customers’ names while avoiding the use of numbers to increase customer preference for stores and service satisfaction, but with caution, especially in situations where privacy concerns may arise, even when the customer is only asked for their first name and could provide a fake name.

Over the past decade, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have transformed numerous facets of our lives. In this article, we summarize key themes in emerging AI research in behavioral science. In doing so, we aim to unravel the multifaceted impacts of AI on people’s emotions, cognition, and behaviors, offering nuanced insights into this rapidly evolving landscape. This article concludes with proposing promising avenues for future research, outlining areas for further exploration and methodological approaches to consider.

For centuries, the preparation and eating of a meal has brought people together, making food consumption an inherently social process. Yet the way in which people connect over food is changing. Rising health concerns, due in part to the increase in food allergies and obesity, have shifted attention away from the social aspects of food to food's nutritional aspects. Recognizing the social context in which food consumption takes place, this article reviews research highlighting the interpersonal consequences of joint food consumption. We first examine research on how sharing food connects people together, both via the type of food consumed (e.g., incidental food similarity) and the manner in which people serve and eat food (e.g., from shared vs. separate plates). We then turn to research that addresses the opposite side of the coin, discussing how the inability to share in a meal can be isolating, as well as how people navigate conflicting preferences when making food decisions with others. We conclude with a discussion of promising future directions for research on joint food consumption.

Although companies increasingly are adopting algorithms for consumer-facing tasks (e.g., application evaluations), little research has compared consumers’ reactions to favorable decisions (e.g., acceptances) versus unfavorable decisions (e.g., rejections) about themselves that are made by an algorithm versus a human. Ten studies reveal that, in contrast to managers’ predictions, consumers react less positively when a favorable decision is made by an algorithmic (vs. a human) decision maker, whereas this difference is mitigated for an unfavorable decision. The effect is driven by distinct attribution processes: it is easier for consumers to internalize a favorable decision outcome that is rendered by a human than by an algorithm, but it is easy to externalize an unfavorable decision outcome regardless of the decision maker type. The authors conclude by advising managers on how to limit the likelihood of less positive reactions toward algorithmic (vs. human) acceptances.

Prior research suggests that self-production leads to greater food liking and in turn increases consumption. However, empirical evidence on how self-production of food affects consumption in natural settings remains limited and looks only at situations in which food not immediately consumed is lost. The present research examines how self-production affects food consumption over the course of a day. In a series of four experiments (n=798), participants either self-produced or received cookies, and reported the number of cookies eaten at the end of the day. Contrary to prior empirical investigations, we found no evidence that self-production increases consumption when participants can conserve their production. Overall, self-producers consumed 10% less throughout the day. This finding suggests that for unhealthy foods that can be conserved for several days and shared with others, such as cookies, self-production may help reduce food intake (vs. getting the same food ready-made).

The question of how to ensure the impartiality of multi-member bodies (particularly those that do not exercise judicial power) is the subject of limited academic attention and has yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Accordingly, this article assesses the current procedure for disqualification adopted by multi-member bodies and asks how these procedures might be improved. To do so, it examines the differing procedures utilised by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in circumstances where a member (or members) of a multi-member Tribunal is accused of bias and must decide whether to recuse himself or herself.

There are limits to what judicial orders can achieve. Compensation is an outcome of judicial proceedings on many occasions but only when the elements of a cause of action are made out. Furthermore, this is usually only the case in ‘private law’ causes of action – monetary compensation is not generally available in public law proceedings. This begs the question, what is the outcome where a person has suffered monetary loss as the result of the conduct of a public entity which nonetheless does not sound in damages, either in public or private law? The answer is in many ways inadequate: such a person might obtain compensation at the discretion of the public entity, but only as a remedy of last resort and with no right to challenge the decision to grant compensation or its amount. This article will examine the systems for such compensation in Australia and will assess their adequacy and possible reform.

This article explores the applicability of the rule against bias to administrative decisions made wholly by automated systems, questioning the ability of Australia's administrative law system to adapt to increasing digitalisation and automation of government processes. By examining the behaviour and characteristics of neural networks, this article demonstrates the ways in which bias may infuse the decisions of predictive automated systems. It subsequently reveals the difficulties courts will likely face in transposing the rule against bias to automated decision-makers, thus advocating the use of alternative grounds of judicial review to remedy defective decisions. Ultimately, the relevancy and reasonableness grounds; despite their similarly human focus, are identified as the most amenable to judicial modification.

This manuscript documents the research productivity over a 10-year period (2007–2016) of marketing faculty at 30 leading marketing departments. We find that median productivity in the top four marketing journals was 0.40 publications per year. We find no meaningful difference in productivity between “quant” and “behavioral” faculty. Furthermore, we find a slow decrease in productivity as faculty’s “academic age” increases, but we also find that the most productive members of our community are among the colleagues who received their PhDs 20 to 30 years ago and that academic age is not a good predictor when recent productivity is taken into account. In addition, we find that the departments differ strongly in terms of the concentration of publications among faculty, as measured by the Gini coefficient. Finally, and to our surprise, we find that the number of publications in top journals by the faculty at these 30 schools dropped quite precipitously from the 2007–2011 to the 2012–2016 period.

Previous work suggests that two key predictors of success across a variety of domains are self-control and emotional well-being (EWB). In the current project, we explore the relative contributions of these two factors to success in two domains: academic and professional achievement, and interpersonal relationships, Across five studies (N = 1130, 51.06% female), we find that although both are important to success, self-control is more predictive of success in achievement-related domains, while EWB is more predictive of success in relationship-related domains. This finding holds for college students (Studies 1 and 5), middle-school students (Study 2), East Asian adults (Study 3), and North American adults (Study 4), suggesting that it is cross-cultural and robust across age and measurement. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Although previous research suggests that there are hedonic and interpersonal benefits to gifting experiences, consumers often give material gifts rather than experiential gifts. Exploring this mismatch, the current research examines when and why consumers prefer to give material versus experiential gifts. The authors propose that gift givers are more likely to give experiential gifts to socially close recipients than socially distant recipients. Since experiences are perceived as more unique than material goods, givers perceive that choosing an experiential gift requires more specific knowledge of a recipient's preferences to avoid the greater social risk of giving a poorly matched gift. Eight studies provide converging evidence for the proposed effect of social distance on gift preference and demonstrate that this effect is driven by a giver's knowledge of a recipient's preferences. Further supporting the mechanism of preference knowledge, the effect of social distance is moderated by the social risk associated with experiential gifts. When experiences contain little social risk-and thus require less knowledge of a recipient-the effect of social distance is significantly mitigated. Together, these results provide answers for why consumers often prefer to give material gifts over experiences, despite the advantage of giving experiences.