Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jianna Jin, Assistant Professor of Marketing at Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame

When it comes to inquiring about – ahem – certain products, shoppers prefer the inhuman touch.

That is what we found in a study of consumer habits when it comes to products that traditionally have come with a degree of embarrassment – think acne cream, diarrhea medication, adult sex toys or personal lubricant.

While brands may assume consumers hate chatbots, our series of studies involving more than 6,000 participants found a clear pattern: When it comes to purchases that make people feel embarrassed, consumers prefer chatbots over human service reps.

In one experiment, we asked participants to imagine shopping for medications for diarrhea and hay fever. They were offered two online pharmacies, one with a human pharmacist and the other with a chatbot pharmacist.

The medications were packaged identically, with the only difference being their labels for “diarrhea” or “hay fever.” More than 80% of consumers looking for diarrhea treatment preferred a store with a clearly nonhuman chatbot. In caparison, just 9% of those shopping for hay fever medication preferred nonhuman chatbots.

This is because, participants told us, they did not think chatbots have “minds” – that is, the ability to judge or feel.

In fact, when it comes to selling embarrassing products, making chatbots look or sound human can actually backfire. In another study, we asked 1,500 people to imagine buying diarrhea pills online. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: an online drugstore with a human service rep, the same store with a humanlike chatbot with a profile photo and name, or the same store with a chatbot that was clearly botlike in both its name and icon.

We then asked participants how likely they would be to seek help from the service agent. The results were clear: Willingness to interact dropped as the agent seemed more human. Interest peaked with the clearly machinelike chatbot and hit its lowest point with the human service rep.

Why it matters

As a scholar of marketing and consumer behavior, I know Chatbots play an increasingly large part in e-retail. In fact, one report found 80% of retail and e-commerce business use AI chatbots or plan to use them in the near future.

When it comes to chatbots, companies want to answer two questions: When should they deploy chatbots? And how should the chatbots be designed?

Many companies may assume the best strategy is to make bots look and sound more human, intuiting that consumers don’t want to talk to machines.

But our findings show the opposite can be true. In moments when embarrassment looms large, humanlike chatbots can backfire.

The practical takeaway is that brands should not default to humanizing their chatbots. Sometimes the most effective bot is the one that looks and sounds like a machine.

What still isn’t known

So far, we’ve looked at everyday purchases where embarrassment is easy to imagine, such as hemorrhoid cream, anti-wrinkle cream, personal lubricant and adult toys.

However, we believe the insights extend more broadly. For example, women getting a quote for car repair may be more self-conscious, as this is a purchase context where women have been traditionally more stigmatized. Similarly, men shopping for cosmetic products may feel judged in a category that has traditionally been marketed to women.

In contexts like these, companies could deploy chatbots – especially ones that clearly sound machinelike – to reduce discomfort and provide a better service. But more work is needed to test that hypothesis.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Jianna Jin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Chatbots don’t judge! Customers prefer robots over humans when it comes to those ’um, you know’ purchases – https://theconversation.com/chatbots-dont-judge-customers-prefer-robots-over-humans-when-it-comes-to-those-um-you-know-purchases-266105

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Daniel Schneider, Professor of Social Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

American households have become dependent on Amazon.

The numbers say it all: In 2024, 83% of U.S. households received deliveries from Amazon, representing over 1 million packages delivered each day and 9 billion individual items delivered same-day or next-day every year. In remarkably short order, the company has transformed from an online bookseller into a juggernaut that has reshaped retailing. But its impact isn’t limited to how we shop.

Behind that endless stream of packages are more than a million people working in Amazon fulfillment centers and delivery vehicles. Through its growing dominance in retail, Amazon has eclipsed its two major competitors in the delivery business, UPS and FedEx, in terms of package volume.

What is life like for those workers? Between Amazon’s rosy public relations on the one hand and reporters’ and advocates’ troubling exposés on the other, it can be hard to tell. Part of the reason is that researchers like us don’t have much reliable data: Workers’ experiences at companies such as Amazon, UPS and FedEx can be a black box. Amazon’s arm’s-length relationship with the drivers it depends on for deliveries makes finding answers even harder.

But that didn’t stop us. Using unique data from the Shift Project, our new study, co-authored with Julie Su and Kevin Bruey, offers the first direct, large-scale comparison of working conditions for drivers and fulfillment employees at Amazon, UPS and FedEx based on survey responses by more than 9,000 workers.

What we found was deeply troubling – not only for Amazon drivers but also for the future of work in the delivery industry as a whole.

2 models, 2 realities

For nearly a century, driving delivery trucks has been a pathway to the middle class, as epitomized by unionized jobs at UPS. UPS drivers, who have been members of the Teamsters union for decades, are employees with legal protections and a collective-bargaining contract.

In contrast, Amazon has embraced a very different model. Most important is that Amazon does not directly employ nearly any of its delivery drivers.

Instead, its transportation division, Amazon Logistics, relies on two methods to deliver most of its shipments: Amazon Flex, a platform-like system that treats drivers like independent contractors, and Amazon DSP, a franchise-like system that uses subcontractors. DSP subcontractors are almost all nonunion, and the company has cut ties with DSP contractors whose drivers have attempted to unionize. These practices place downward pressure on the wages and working conditions of drivers throughout the industry.

The impact on workers is stark.

Delivery workers at Amazon receive significantly lower wages than at UPS and FedEx, we found. Wage gaps are especially large between the delivery workers at Amazon, who earn US$19 an hour on average, and the unionized drivers at UPS, who make $35.

We also found that unionized UPS drivers have a clear pathway to upward mobility, while Amazon drivers don’t. At UPS, wages increase sharply the longer a worker has been on the job. Pay starts at $21 an hour, reaching nearly $40 an hour for drivers who’ve been with the company for at least 10 years – which is more than half of them.

At Amazon, wages start at $17 an hour and don’t increase with tenure. Nearly half of workers have less than a year on the job.

Between lower wages, more unstable schedules, fewer benefits and limited protections from employment laws, Amazon drivers struggle to make ends meet. More than 1 in 4 told us they had gone hungry because they couldn’t afford enough to eat within the past month, and 33% said they couldn’t cover their utility bills. Compared to drivers at UPS and FedEx, Amazon drivers face significant financial instability.

On top of that, Amazon drivers face intense workplace surveillance and speed tracking – as do workers at the company’s fulfillment centers. Sixty percent of both types of Amazon workers received frequent feedback on the speed of their work from a technological device, and more than two-thirds said that Amazon monitors the quality of their work using technology. That degree of technological surveillance and tracking far outpaces what UPS and FedEx workers told us they were exposed to, representing an extreme case of worker monitoring and performance assessment.

Using nonemployee drivers contributed to the exponential growth of Amazon as a package delivery company. In 2023, Amazon for the first time delivered more packages than UPS, making it the second-largest parcel carrier in the country – surpassed only by the U.S. Postal Service.

By building an online retail empire with the capacity to deliver the majority of its own shipments, Amazon’s expansion continues. UPS, by contrast, has seen drops in its revenues, stock value and market capitalization. Amazon’s sheer size and giglike approach are therefore changing industry standards, putting downward pressure on wages, benefits and job stability across the delivery sector.

The contrast between Amazon and UPS drivers isn’t just about two companies using different models for package delivery – it represents two competing futures for work. As the second-largest retail company and now largest private delivery company in the U.S., Amazon exerts market power that impacts the working conditions of workers beyond its own delivery drivers. Recent reporting indicates that UPS has been experimenting with using gig deliveries, much to the consternation of the union that represents three-quarters of its workforce.

In the post-World War II era, increasing unionization led to better wages and conditions across much of the economy, including nonunionized sectors. The continuing expansion of Amazon’s business model could signal the unraveling of wages, benefits and protections for working people more generally.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The unraveling of workplace protections for delivery drivers: A tale of 2 workplace models – https://theconversation.com/the-unraveling-of-workplace-protections-for-delivery-drivers-a-tale-of-2-workplace-models-268164

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By R. Amanda Cooper, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Connecticut

Every three seconds, someone in the world develops dementia. There are over 6 million people living with dementia in the U.S. and 57 million globally.

These figures will only increase in the coming years, as rates of dementia are predicted to double by 2060. If you don’t know someone affected by dementia, you probably will at some point.

Dementia is incredibly difficult both for the person experiencing it and for their loved ones, not only because of the symptoms of the disease but also because of the social stigma associated with cognitive decline. Experiencing stigma makes it difficult for people with dementia to ask for help, increases anxiety and depression, and ultimately leads to social isolation.

Dementia-related stigma is perpetuated through media messages that portray people with dementia as mindless and incapable, as well as through daily interactions in which others dismiss and dehumanize the person living with dementia.

These forms of invalidation – usually unintentional – accelerate and intensify the loss of self-worth and identity that dementia patients are already experiencing.

Fortunately, educating and spreading awareness can help reduce behaviors that propagate stigma and dehumanizing treatment of people with dementia.

As a social scientist and researcher in interpersonal communication and family caregiving, I explore the social and relational side of dementia. Through my work with these patients and families, I’ve learned that reducing stigma and supporting self-worth for people who have dementia is often done through daily conversations.

How is dementia defined?

Dementia is an umbrella term that refers to a family of cognitive conditions involving memory loss, difficulty thinking or processing information, changes in ability to communicate and challenges with managing daily tasks.

The most common form of dementia is Alzheimer’s disease, but there are several other forms of dementia that can severely affect a person’s quality of life and that of their loved ones.

Most forms of dementia are progressive, meaning that the symptoms of the disease get steadily worse over time. A person with dementia can live with the disease for several years, and their symptoms will shift as the disease progresses.

People in the early stages of dementia, including mild cognitive impairment, continue to engage socially and participate in many of the activities they have always done. In the middle stage of the disease, people often need more help from others to complete daily tasks and may have more difficulty holding conversations. In the late stage, people with dementia are dependent on others and often lose the ability to communicate verbally.

Despite the cognitive declines that come with dementia, people living with dementia can maintain many of their former abilities as the disease progresses. Even in the late stages, research shows that people with dementia can understand tone of voice and nonverbal communication such as body language, facial expressions and gentle touch.

This makes it clear that people with dementia can continue having meaningful social connections and a sense of self-worth even as their disease progresses.

Focusing care around the person

In the 1990s, psychologist Tom Kitwood, who studied dementia patients in long-term care settings, introduced the notion of “personhood.” Personhood is a recognition of a person’s unique experiences and individual worth. He had observed that residents with dementia were sometimes treated as objects rather than people and were dismissed as being “no longer there” mentally. In response, Kitwood advocated for a new model of person-centered care.

In contrast to the medical model of care that was standard at the time, person-centered care aims to provide people with dementia comfort, attachment, inclusion, occupation and identity.

Comfort includes both physical and psychological comfort, ensuring that the person with dementia feels safe and is as pain-free as possible. Attachment and inclusion have to do with supporting a person with dementia’s closest relationships and making sure they feel included in social activities.

Occupation is about giving the person meaningful activities that are suited to their abilities, while identity is about preserving their unique sense of self. According to Kitwood, each of these elements of personhood can be upheld or threatened through a person’s interactions with others.

I find Kitwood’s work particularly important because it suggests that communication is at the heart of personhood.

Communicating to support personhood

So how can family members and friends communicate with their loved one with dementia to help preserve their sense of self?

Researchers have identified several evidence-based communication strategies that support person-centered care both in long-term care settings and within the family.

These include:

• Arranging the environment to support conversation. Have conversations in a quiet place with as few distractions as possible, sit at eye level and close to the person, make eye contact and use gestures to reinforce what you say.

• Acknowledging the person with dementia as a unique individual. Helping your loved one remember who they were before dementia is critical to supporting their sense of self-worth. In long-term care, this is done by greeting them, calling them by name and integrating their past experiences into conversations. In families, it is done by inviting the person to reminisce about their past or reminiscing together and by talking about their accomplishments and admirable qualities.

• Affirming and validating the person’s emotions. Even if you don’t understand what the person is thinking or feeling, avoid correcting them and instead acknowledge their underlying emotion.

• Seeking the person’s input about their care. This includes asking about their preferences for food or activities, usually using simple “yes” or “no” questions, and asking their permission before helping them with physical care such as bathing, moving or changing clothes.

• Using simple prompts to help the person successfully engage in conversation. This can be done through repeating or rephrasing questions, paraphrasing the person’s responses, pausing to give the person time to think, and providing simple prompts to help the person remember.

• Creating and maintaining connection. In families, this is done by giving a hug or kiss or saying “I love you”; doing activities together such as playing simple games, making art or playing music; and joking around and laughing together.

Communication shifts as the disease progresses

Supporting personhood requires adjusting to the communication abilities of the person with dementia. Some communication strategies are helpful in one stage of the disease but not in others.

In a recent study, my team and I found that asking the person with dementia to recall the past was affirming for those who were early in the disease and who could still recall the past. But for people who were in later stages of the disease, asking them “Do you remember?” was received more like a test of memory and led to frustration or confusion. Similarly, we found that suggesting words to prompt recall was helpful later in the disease but demeaning for people who were in earlier stages of the disease who could still find their words without help.

Providing more help in conversation than is needed can lead people with dementia to withdraw, whereas appropriately adjusting to a person’s communication abilities can empower them to continue to engage socially.

Ultimately, supporting a person with dementia’s sense of self and self-worth in conversations is about finding a communication sweet spot – in other words, matching your approach to their current capabilities.

Changing your default approach to conversations can be challenging, but making simple communication changes can make all the difference. Meaningful conversations are the key to helping your loved one live their days to the fullest, with a sense of personal worth and a feeling of meaningful connection with others.

R. Amanda Cooper is affiliated with the Alzheimer’s Association as a Community Educator.

– ref. How to keep dementia from robbing your loved ones of their sense of personhood – tips for caregivers – https://theconversation.com/how-to-keep-dementia-from-robbing-your-loved-ones-of-their-sense-of-personhood-tips-for-caregivers-265477

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Marisha Burden, Professor of Medicine–Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

We’ve all been there: You wait 45 minutes in the exam room when the doctor finally walks in.

They seem rushed. A few questions, a quick exam, a glance at the clock and then a rapid-fire plan with little time for discussion – and you leave feeling unheard, hurried and frustrated.

And what if you’re hospitalized? You may face a similar experience.

More than half of U.S. adults say their doctors have ignored or dismissed their concerns, or not taken their symptoms seriously, according to a December 2022 national poll.

It’s easy to blame the doctor. But the reality is, most doctors would like to sit down and have an in-depth conversation with patients and their families. Instead, your unpleasant visit may be the result of productivity pressures and administrative burdens, often shaped by health care systems, payment models and policy decisions that influence how care is delivered.

Patients are increasingly experiencing what’s known as administrative harm – those unintended but very real consequences arising from administrative decisions, made far upstream, that directly influence how doctors practice. Ultimately, these types of interactions affect the care patients receive and their outcomes.

As a doctor and researcher who specializes in business and health care delivery, I’ve studied how organizational decisions have ripple effects, shaping patients’ relationships with their doctor and the quality of care they receive. Patients may be unaware of these upstream administrative decisions, but they affect everything from time allotted for an appointment to the number of patients the doctor has to see and whether a visit is covered by insurance.

A look behind the scenes

Increasingly, health care organizations and physician groups face intense financial pressures. Many doctors can no longer sustain their private practice due to declining reimbursements, rising costs and increasing administrative burdens; instead, they’ve become employees of larger health care systems. In some cases, their practices have been acquired by private equity groups.

With this shift, doctors have less control over their workloads and the time they get with their patients. More and more, payment models fail to cover the true cost of care. The default solution is often for doctors to see more patients with less time for each, and to squeeze in additional work after hours.

But that approach comes with costs, among them the time needed to build meaningful connections with patients. That negative, impolite tone you may have experienced might be because the doctor has many patients waiting and a full evening ahead just to catch up on writing visit notes, reviewing medical records and completing other required documentation. During the work day, they’re often fielding over 100 messages and alerts daily, including referrals and coordinating care, all while trying to focus on the patient in front of them.

But the consequences go beyond their bedside manner. Research makes clear that doctors’ performance and the quality of care patients receive are affected by their workload. A similar pattern is true with nurses: Their higher workloads are associated with higher death rates among hospitalized patients.

Suppose you’re hospitalized for pneumonia, but because your doctor is caring for too many patients, your hospital stay is longer, which increases your risks of infection, muscle loss and other adverse outcomes. In the doctor’s office, a rushed visit can mean delayed or missed diagnoses and even prescription errors.

About half of U.S. doctors report feelings of burnout, and about one-third are considering leaving their current job, with 60% of those likely to leave clinical practice entirely.

Long work hours also brings higher risks of heart disease, stroke and other health problems for health care professionals. In the U.S., 40% of doctors work 55 hours per week or more, compared with less than 10% of workers in other fields.

A better way

The administrative harms stemming from upstream decisions are not inevitable. In large part, they are preventable. Overhauling the health care system may seem daunting, but patients and doctors are not powerless.

Patients and their families must advocate for themselves. Ask questions and be direct. This phrase: “I am still really worried about … ” will quickly get your doctor’s attention. If your visit seems rushed, share it with patient representatives or through patient surveys. These insights help administrative leaders recognize when systems are falling short.

Doctors and care teams should not normalize unsustainable work conditions. Health systems need structured, transparent mechanisms that make it easy and safe for doctors and care team members to report when workloads, staffing or administrative decisions may be harming patients.

Even more powerful is when patients and their doctors speak up together. Collective voices can drive meaningful change – such as lobbying for adequate time, staffing or policies to support high-quality, patient-centered care. It is also important for administrative leaders and policymakers to take responsibility for how decisions affect both patients and the care team.

More research is needed to define what safe, realistic work standards look like and how care teams should be structured. For example, when does it make sense for a doctor to provide care, or a physician assistant or nurse practitioner? At the same time, health systems have the opportunity to think creatively about new care models that address clinician shortages.

But research shows that the medical profession can’t afford to wait for perfect data to act on what’s already clear. Overworked and understaffed teams hurt both patients and their doctors.

Yet when doctors do have enough time, the interactions feel different – warmer, more patient and more attentive. And as research shows, patient outcomes improve as well.

Dr. Marisha Burden reports funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety, University of Colorado Innovations digiSPARK award, Med-IQ and the American Medical Association not related to this work. Dr. Burden contributed to the development of GrittyWork, a digital workforce application, and a registered trademark of the University of Colorado not related to this work. The author utilized the ChatGPT language model developed by OpenAI and Microsoft Co-pilot for editing of original author content to improve readability.

– ref. Why does your doctor seem so rushed and dismissive? That bedside manner may be the result of the health care system – https://theconversation.com/why-does-your-doctor-seem-so-rushed-and-dismissive-that-bedside-manner-may-be-the-result-of-the-health-care-system-261335

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Charles J. Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton

In recent years, litigation on certain types of religious freedom lawsuits have been practically run of the mill: prayer on school premises, for example, and government funding for students at faith-based schools.

A case scheduled for U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments on Nov. 10, 2025, however, is very different from most other high-profile cases at the moment. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections involves whether an inmate of a minority religious group, the Rastafarians, can sue for monetary damages after the warden violated his religious rights – specifically, the right to not cut his hair.

Landor v. Louisiana stands out because it underscores the complexity and far-reaching nature of religious freedom laws in the United States and the increasingly diverse faith traditions to which they apply. Christians now represent 62% of the American population, while 29% have no religious affiliation and 7% belong to other faith traditions.

Religious vow

Damon Landor, the petitioner, wore long dreadlocks for almost 20 years as an expression of his beliefs as a Rastafarian – part of a biblical practice known as the “Nazarite vow.” Many members of the movement, which first developed in Jamaica in the 1930s, do not cut their hair.

Landor was incarcerated in 2020 after being convicted for possessing methamphetamine, cocaine, amphetamine and marijuana. At first, officials respected his religious practice. Just three years before, in a case about another inmate in Louisiana, a federal appeals court had affirmed that Rastafarians must be allowed to keep their dreadlocks under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Toward the end of his sentence, Landor was transferred to a different correctional facility. There – with three weeks left for Landor to serve – the warden ignored the judicial order, directing guards to shackle Landor and forcibly shave his head.

Not surprisingly, on finishing his sentence, Landor filed suit for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The act forbids the government and its officials from imposing “substantial burden(s)” on incarcerated people’s religious free exercise rights.

Key question

In 2022, a federal trial court in Louisiana condemned Landor’s treatment but rejected his claim, concluding that money damages were not an appropriate remedy. The following year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed that decision, denying Landor’s claim.

His legal team then filed a petition for the case to be reheard “en banc.” In this uncommon procedure, parties seek further review from all of the judges in a circuit, or federal appellate court. The court denied his request, but 15 of the 17 active judges wrote that this was a question for the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal after more than 20 organizations submitted amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs in favor of Landor. The Trump administration also filed an amicus brief encouraging the Supreme Court to take the case.

The briefs include groups that often have diverging opinions. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for example, typically supports those wishing to keep religion out of public life. Conversely, the Becket Fund usually defends the rights of those seeking to increase faith’s role in public life.

They are of one mind in Landor because the case involves his right to express his beliefs freely by how he lives, in a very personal way: grooming and hair length.

Lower courts agree that Landor’s religious rights were violated. The key question is whether he can sue an individual official – here, the warden – for monetary damages.

Sister statutes

Weighing heavily in Landor’s favor is a previous Supreme Court order in Tanzin v. Tanvir. That 2020 case was brought by two Muslim men who sued FBI agents after their names were put on a “no-fly list.” The plaintiffs alleged that their names were added to the list in retaliation for refusing to spy on fellow Muslims.

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that the men could sue the agents as individuals, not just in their official capacity. Being sued as an individual means defendants must pay damages on their own, without the government helping to foot the bill – a potentially very expensive outcome.

There’s a key difference here in Landor’s case, though. In Tanzin, the plaintiffs sued for violations of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law enacted in 1993. Landor brought his case under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, enacted in 2000. The laws are similar; in fact, the key language in both statutes is identical. But the Religious Land Use Act has not yet been interpreted as providing money damages against government officials.

The earlier statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, became law in response to a pivotal Supreme Court case about religious freedom: Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. The justices upheld the dismissal of two drug counselors under state law for ingesting peyote, a natural hallucinogenic substance, during a Native American Church ceremony – even though most states and the federal government had decriminalized peyote’s use for religious purposes.

The act was essentially a rebuttal of 1990’s Smith ruling. It requires laws that restrict religious freedom to pass strict scrutiny, the highest form of constitutional analysis. If the government seeks to limit someone’s religious exercise, laws must be based on a “compelling governmental interest” and carried out by the “least restrictive means” possible. Under that standard, laws usually cannot withstand judicial review. In 1997, the Supreme Court narrowed the act’s reach in City of Boerne v. Flores, restricting its application to the federal government rather than states.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which Congress adopted by unanimous consent in 2000, is often referred to as a sister statute because of its similarities. Notably for Landor, it forbids governments, or their agents, from imposing unnecessary “substantial burden[s]” on the “religious exercise” rights of those who are incarcerated. The act also protects religious land uses from discrimination through zoning restrictions.

Bigger picture

At first glance, Landor appears to be little more than a procedural disagreement over whether parties can recover damages under two similar statutes protecting religious freedom. However, at a time when there are nearly 2 million people in prisons, jails and detention and correctional facilities, the inability to seek damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act limits accountability for violations of their rights to religious freedom.

What’s more, Landor’s case illustrates that minority religions have as much protection under the First Amendment as larger faiths. How the Supreme Court resolves it will say a great deal about the future of religious freedom on issues that the authors of the Constitution could not have anticipated.

Charles J. Russo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Supreme Court soon to hear a religious freedom case that’s united both sides of the church-state divide – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-soon-to-hear-a-religious-freedom-case-thats-united-both-sides-of-the-church-state-divide-268817

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Andrew Edelblum, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Dayton

“Sex sells” has been a mantra in marketing for decades. As researchers who study consumer behavior, we’ve seen plenty of evidence to support it: Attractive models and spokespeople have been shown to reliably grab attention, boost clicks and make products seem more desirable.

But our new research suggests that in a digital world full of influencers – trusted tastemakers with large online followings – being too attractive can actually backfire, particularly in the fitness space.

We call this the “beauty backfire effect,” and we put it to the test in a series of laboratory experiments.

We showed hundreds of study participants mock Instagram posts from fictitious fitness influencer accounts. The posts were identical in every way, except for one key difference: how attractive the influencer was. We judged this by asking independent raters to evaluate photos of real influencers ahead of time.

The results were striking: We found that extremely attractive fitness influencers – or “fitfluencers” – got fewer likes and follows than their moderately attractive peers.

Why? Because people viewed them as less relatable.

In fact, in one of our studies, people who saw an extremely attractive fitfluencer reported having lower self-esteem afterward. In contrast, seeing a moderately attractive fitfluencer gave some participants a small confidence boost, likely because the image felt more attainable.

Interestingly, the beauty backfire effect wasn’t as strong in other domains. When we ran the same experiment with finance influencers in the mix, appearance didn’t matter as much. That’s not entirely surprising, of course. For a financial coach, looks aren’t tied to credibility. Meanwhile, for a fitness coach, they’re central.

But the beauty backfire effect isn’t inevitable. In a final analysis, we explored whether self-presentation style could close the relatability gap.

When highly attractive influencers adopted a humble tone, sharing their struggles, training challenges or fitness plateaus, the engagement gap disappeared, we found. But when they adopted a prideful tone, boasting about their natural talent or exceptional dedication, the gap grew even larger.

This suggests that humility can be a powerful communication tool for influencers who might otherwise seem “out of reach.”

Why it matters

Fitfluencers depend on their appearance as a kind of credential. A sculpted physique signals expertise in health and wellness. But engagement isn’t just about how good someone looks on camera. It’s about whether followers feel they can connect with them.

This is where relatability comes in. Audiences connect with fitfluencers who feel like real, reachable versions of themselves. But extreme attractiveness does the opposite: It turns an attainable goal into an impossible ideal, and what should inspire instead alienates.

This effect aligns with classic social comparison theory. People judge themselves in relation to others. If the gap between self and fitfluencer seems too wide, comparisons become discouraging, not motivating. In other words, the more “perfect” the fitfluencer looks, the less followers believe they can realistically be like them – and the less likely they are to engage.

Social media platforms have been taking note. These days, TikTok, Snapchat and other outlets build their appeal on candid, authentic content over polished, airbrushed imagery. In this new landscape, perfection can be a liability.

Our research shows that extreme attractiveness might grab attention but can undermine connection, the true currency of the influencer economy. For brands and creators, the takeaway is clear: Success may depend less on looking flawless and more on sounding real.

What’s next

Our findings raise new questions about how beauty shapes influence online.

For instance, gender appears to matter. In a follow-up study, highly attractive female fitness influencers faced stronger backlash than equally attractive men, perhaps reflecting a broader social tendency to judge women’s looks more harshly. Future research could explore whether similar biases apply to other visible traits, such as race or disability.

The effect may also extend beyond fitness. Industries built around appearance – fashion, beauty or lifestyle content – could show the same pattern.

Finally, not all audiences respond alike. People new to fitness or younger users still forming their identities may be especially prone to negative comparisons with highly attractive fitfluencers. Understanding these differences could help creators and platforms foster healthier engagement online.

Justin Palmer contributed research for this article as an undergraduate.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The beauty backfire effect: Being too attractive can hurt fitness influencers, new research shows – https://theconversation.com/the-beauty-backfire-effect-being-too-attractive-can-hurt-fitness-influencers-new-research-shows-266722

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Vamsi Kanuri, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Notre Dame

When banks issue their defrauded customers refunds and successfully identify the perpetrators, fraud victims are 60% more likely to stick with their bank than customers that didn’t experience any fraud.

But if customers get their stolen money back but never learn who the perpetrators are, they are 40% more likely to take their accounts elsewhere than customers who weren’t defrauded.

That’s what my co-authors and I found by researching how customers respond when banks investigate fraud. I partnered for this study with Sriram Somanchi and Rahul Telang; I study marketing, and they’re information technology scholars.

We believe this pattern emerged because identifying fraudsters can signal competence and rebuild trust. But when no one is caught, even with a refund, customers are more likely to see the fraud incident as a lapse in capability and blame the bank itself.

We partnered with a major U.S. bank that shared five years of data covering 422,953 customers, including 22,953 who experienced a single instance of fraud.

These customers were victims of account-based fraud, meaning that perpetrators had surreptitiously siphoned away money from their accounts, often through various scams.

Every defrauded customer got a refund, but the perpetrators were identified only about 13% of the time. Our findings support what’s known as the “service recovery paradox”: When a business handles a problem well, its customers can become more loyal than if no problem had occurred.

Customers who had recently opened their bank accounts and those with few prior interactions with the banks were the most likely to leave if the perpetrators were never identified.

Customers in cases where perpetrators weren’t identified within the next three months – and who had opened their accounts years earlier and were more engaged with their banks – were more likely to stay put because they are more familiar with the bank’s technological capabilities and, therefore, are more likely to forgive the bank.

Our results suggest that when perpetrators are identified, customers can regain confidence in their bank’s ability to safeguard their accounts. When the fraudsters aren’t caught, they lose more trust instead.

Why it matters

Financial fraud is both costly and pervasive. More than one-third of U.S. consumers were targeted by attempted financial fraud in 2024, and nearly 40% of those attempts led to a financial loss. Total losses from defrauded consumers totaled more than US$12.5 billion in 2024.

Fraud can undermine confidence in banks and other financial service providers.

U.S. regulations generally require banks to issue customers full refunds whether or not the perpetrator of a fraud is caught. But when customers get refunds after being defrauded, it doesn’t automatically restore their trust in a bank or app.

What still isn’t known

We focused on fraud cases that the customers themselves reported. It’s unclear whether they would have responded the same way had their banks detected the fraud instead. Another open question is whether similar patterns hold for other debacles, such as data breaches that make customers’ personal information vulnerable to exploitation.

Vamsi Kanuri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Customers can become more loyal if their banks solve fraud cases, researchers find – https://theconversation.com/customers-can-become-more-loyal-if-their-banks-solve-fraud-cases-researchers-find-266185

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Nathan Fleshner, Associate Professor of Music Theory, University of Tennessee

In the opening scene of “It Might Get Loud,” a 2008 music documentary, musician Jack White appears surrounded by scrap wood and garbage. He hammers nails into a board, wraps wire around a glass Coca-Cola bottle as a makeshift guitar bridge, attaches a pickup, and plugs the contraption into a vintage Sears Silvertone amplifier – anything more modern or of better quality would never do.

White then uses his signature slide bar to play a distorted, electric riff on the rudimentary instrument. He declares, matter-of-factly, “Who says you need to buy a guitar?” and casually puffs a cigarette.

This scene of manufacturing innovation, crafting what is needed out of what is available, is a signature of The White Stripes, the influential rock band White co-founded in the late 1990s.

Drummer Meg White and guitarist/vocalist Jack White, originally Jack Gillis before taking Meg White’s name during their four-year marriage, make up The White Stripes. Hailing from Detroit, the band helped lead the garage rock revival, releasing six studio albums between 1999 and 2007.

Their recordings “Elephant,” “Get Behind Me Satan” and “Icky Thump” each won Grammys for Best Alternative Music Album. The White Stripes’ last televised performance together was “We’re Going to Be Friends” in 2009 on the final episode of “Late Night With Conan O’Brien.”

The band’s legacy of innovation has earned them a place in the Rock & Roll Hall Fame. They will be inducted in Los Angeles on Nov. 8, 2025, along with Outkast, Cyndi Lauper and Soundgarden.

As a professor who studies popular music as an expression of the human experience, I have written about a broad range of artists, from Townes Van Zandt and Maren Morris to Prince Paul and boygenius.

I find The White Stripes’ experiment in sonic complexity particularly impressive because it was created by just two performers. Their soundscape relied on instrumental and vocal manipulations of tone and timbre and on stylistic fusions of blues, folk music, garage rock and movements such as British punk and Dutch De Stijl art.

The White Stripes often expressed themes related to Detroit’s industrial struggle and innovation in their gritty, genre-bending sound and lyrical storytelling.

Battle between man and machine

Several songs directly reference Detroit icons. The jaunty 2001 single “Hotel Yorba,” which blends blues and folk while heavily featuring acoustic guitar, honors a Detroit hotel built in 1926. The music video was partially filmed outside the aging building, with indoor scenes filmed elsewhere.

Jack White said the band wanted to know more about the Hotel Yorba’s history but were chased out by an armed manager. In September 2025, the hotel was closed due to unsafe living conditions.

In contrast, the song “The Big Three Killed My Baby,” released in 1999, refers to Detroit’s major automakers at the time: Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. Infused with a punk style, the song discusses the conflict between gas and electric engines. With a tone of anguish, it serves as a biting critique of these companies’ lack of creativity and, as the song states, the use of “planned obsolescence,” which intentionally limits a product’s useful life cycle. The close of the song reveals that what has truly been killed is the consumer’s common sense.

The White Stripes relied heavily on timeless, vintage equipment, disavowing technological advancements and heavy-handed production techniques. But even their primitive instruments are seen as a foe in the struggle between man and machine.

“I always look at playing the guitar as an attack. … It can’t be this wimpy thing where you’re pushed around by the idea, the characters, or the song itself,” Jack White said in a 2010 interview. “It’s every player’s job to fight against all of that.”

Likewise, spontaneity, lack of set lists and real-time creativity were hallmarks of their performances.

A 2002 live performance of “Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground” begins with brief, chaotic, distorted guitar-wailing and a single, powerful strike of bass drum and cymbal. The performance features a blues-infused rock riff and sweet vocal melodies with high-pitched repetitions and steady cymbal beats punctuated by bass drum and tom hits. That’s the raw, unfiltered, unmitigated, underproduced, auto-tune-avoidant intensity and artistic sound for which The White Stripes strove.

A sound forged by punk and blues

The White Stripes had many influences, including the Flat Duo Jets, who shared their instrumentation of drum, guitar and vocals, and similarly fused styles such as ’50s rockabilly and blues-inspired punk. They were also heavily ensconced in the Detroit garage rock and punk scenes, which included bands such as The Detroit Cobras, The Dirtbombs, The Paybacks and Rocket 455. Each act was unique in how it deployed its creative foundations, mainly a primal, raw, electric sound with consistent, pounding rhythms and edgy vocal timbres.

This sonic layering and stylistic fusion is carried on by many of the artists of Jack White’s Third Man Records in Detroit. The label’s satellite locations in Tennessee and England also connect The White Stripes to the blues traditions of the Mississippi region and the punk scenes of London.

Acknowledged delta blues influences included Blind Willie McTell and Son House, whose “Grinnin’ in Your Face” – Jack White’s favorite song – maintains a powerful simplicity echoed throughout many White Stripes songs.

A folklike acoustic sound is mirrored in The White Stripes’ tracks “You’ve Got Her in Your Pocket” and “It’s True That We Love One Another.” Similar acoustic simplicity is heard in “Your Southern Can Is Mine,” “Apple Blossom” and “This Protector,” which use imperfections of intonation, melodic repetition, prescribed harmonic structures and soulful sounds.

The harder edges of punk and garage rock are equally present in the opening riffs of the songs “Icky Thump,” “Blue Orchid,” “Fell in Love With a Girl” and midway through “Seven Nation Army.”

Meg White’s tom and bass drum pulsations – as recognizable and definitive of The White Stripes’ sound as Jack White’s electrified blues riffs – are heard in the openings of the songs “Jimmy the Exploder,” “Little Cream Soda,” “The Hardest Button to Button,” “Astro” and even “Seven Nation Army,” which became a popular sports arena staple.

More than a mere look backward, The White Stripes served as a catalyst of progress, raising the stature of the underground Detroit sound to the world’s stage.

Read more of our stories about Detroit and Michigan.

Nathan Fleshner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The White Stripes join the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame − their primal sound reflects Detroit’s industrial roots – https://theconversation.com/the-white-stripes-join-the-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-their-primal-sound-reflects-detroits-industrial-roots-265469

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Robin Lin Miller, Professor of Psychology, Michigan State University

Protecting public health abroad benefits Americans.

In a globalized world, diseases and their social and economic impacts do not stay within national boundaries. Increased rates of untreated HIV in any part of the world increase the risk of transmission for U.S. citizens.

Changes made in the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term to address the global HIV epidemic, however, may not keep Americans safe.

In September 2025, the U.S. Department of State announced its America First Global Health Strategy, a plan that aims to make “America safer, stronger, and more prosperous” by encouraging other governments to take responsibility for their citizens’ health and to promote U.S. commercial and faith-based interests. It includes the commitment to purchase and distribute the breakthrough HIV preventive drug lenacapavir for up to 2 million people – principally pregnant and breastfeeding women – in 10 countries heavily affected by HIV.

However, the plan does not ensure the most vulnerable will be able to access HIV care. It comes on top of eliminating billions of dollars of U.S. financial support to global health programs. And it undermines one of the most effective foreign assistance programs in U.S. history, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

I have spent four decades evaluating HIV programs and have studied barriers to HIV prevention and care in the U.S. and in other countries. The Trump administration’s strategy not only reverses decades of progress toward international targets to end AIDS by 2030, I believe it also puts Americans at risk.

Disrupting PEPFAR caused global harm

In 2024, the U.S. supplied over 70% of donor government funding to end the HIV epidemic globally. Much of this aid was through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a suite of programs designed to expand access to prevention, testing and treatment.

Since President George Bush initiated the program in 2003, PEPFAR has saved an estimated 26 million lives. HIV deaths have declined by 70% since 2004, and new infections fell after the program’s inception. PEPFAR helped put the world on track to ending the HIV pandemic by promoting access to highly effective drugs, supporting community-led outreach and programs, and building health care infrastructure.

On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that paused funding for all foreign aid programs, including PEPFAR. It shuttered PEPFAR-supported clinics and outreach programs, halted medical and supply shipments, and prompted mass layoffs of the global HIV workforce. It also dissolved USAID, which provided essential infrastructure for PEPFAR to do its work.

The Trump administration’s foreign aid pause disrupted access to HIV treatment for more than 20 million people worldwide and access to prevention for millions more. These actions are projected to cause 4.1 million additional deaths and 7.5 million new HIV infections by 2030.

The full extent of the damage will become increasingly clear with time.

Destabilizing HIV prevention and care

Legal pushback in the months following the Trump administration’s dismantling of USAID allowed limited parts of PEPFAR to restart. However, access to HIV medication was explicitly limited to only pregnant and breastfeeding women. This strategy excludes prevention and care to the majority of people who are vulnerable to HIV infection.

The Trump administration’s new global HIV prevention strategy prioritizes preventing mother-to-child HIV transmission. About 120,000 children under the age of 5 were newly infected with HIV in 2024, or around 9% of the 1.3 million new infections that year.

However, 55% of new infections worldwide occur among “key populations,” a catchall term coined by UNAIDS and WHO. These include sex workers, people who use injectable drugs, men who have sex with men, transgender people, prisoners, and the sex partners of these individuals. These groups are considered “key” because of their heightened vulnerability to HIV infection and because ending the HIV pandemic cannot be achieved without their access to prevention, testing and treatment.

Stigma and discrimination, human rights abuses, criminalization and underfinancing of programs specific to these people’s needs are significant barriers to their care.

Loss of peer-to-peer support

In countries with legal and social environments that discourage vulnerable people from seeking HIV services, trusted and knowledgeable peers can be a lifeline.

PEPFAR used to fund services designed and implemented by the peers of vulnerable people. People from vulnerable communities were directly involved in ensuring their peers had access to appropriate HIV services and remained in care. They also directly shaped their countries’ national HIV plans.

The Trump administration’s new strategy favors pregnant and breastfeeding women and cuts out other vulnerable communities. It proposes funding government health care workers in lieu of peers without ensuring these workers will be adequately equipped to provide unprejudiced care. The plan withdraws support for community-led, nongovernmental organizations that bridge gaps in care and offer sensitivity training to providers.

Many people who are vulnerable to or living with HIV view government-run medical care with profound distrust and apprehension. Some participants in my own research have told me they would rather die than seek care in a government-run facility. They recount dehumanizing experiences in these facilities, including undergoing invasive procedures without consent and being openly humiliated. Health care workers have also violated patient confidentiality by disclosing patients’ sexuality and HIV status to family members, friends, neighbors, landlords or employers.

Fear of repercussions – arrest, violence, loss of housing and employment, and blackmail – further heighten fear of health care settings. Research has shown that many people living with HIV from vulnerable populations report encountering these forms of discrimination and stigma when seeking health care. Even more report being hesitant to seek care.

Faith-based organizations

The strategy shifts funds to faith-based institutions, citing potential financial support from tithes and donations as well as greater reach through faith leaders. However, research has shown that faith-based and government health care institutions evoke fear of stigmatization, mistreatment, arrest and denial of services among many who are most at-risk for HIV.

Conservative evangelical groups such as Family Watch International – a designated hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center – have authored some of the world’s most punitive anti-homosexuality laws in countries such as Uganda, where HIV remains inadequately controlled. They also advocate for the scientifically debunked practice of conversion therapy and are leading actors in global movements against LGBTQ+ human rights, comprehensive sexuality education and reproductive health services.

HIV requires a unique response

Effectively addressing HIV requires more than providing supplies or medical treatment. Although treatments to manage and prevent HIV infection are highly effective under ideal conditions, these are not the circumstances of many people living with and vulnerable to HIV. Treatment is lifelong and needs to be taken regularly. Additionally, the epidemic is often concentrated in networks of people who face societal discrimination, making care retention and engagement difficult.

The Trump administration’s new global health strategy requires community health care workers to consolidate their work across four distinct diseases: malaria, polio, tuberculosis and HIV. However, very different populations are vulnerable to these diseases, and each has unique social, psychological and medical concerns and needs.

For example, malaria and polio primarily affect children under 5, but the former requires strategies to reduce the mosquito bites that transmit disease, while the latter requires childhood immunization. Meanwhile, HIV primarily affects adolescents and adults and requires interventions addressing sexual health and harm reduction.

Research and lessons learned over decades of global health work suggest that carefully tailoring prevention and care strategies to each vulnerable population and addressing their unique social, behavioral, structural and medical needs improves their effectiveness.

A healthy world makes a safe and prosperous US

The 55 countries that most recently benefited from PEPFAR may seem far from U.S. soil. But in an interconnected world, their epidemic is an American epidemic.

The Trump administration’s reversal of decades of progress on ending the HIV pandemic – and weakening U.S. leadership and humanitarian effort in the fight against HIV – has already led to thousands of deaths. Every new HIV infection will incur global economic and societal costs by draining labor capacity in high-burden countries while increasing health care and caregiving costs. This global insecurity and economic instability has precedents in the initial HIV crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ensuring people living with HIV worldwide receive appropriate treatment and care advances U.S. national security, diplomatic and economic interests. Ensuring that citizens in other countries enjoy good health permits their economies to thrive and America’s in turn. I believe a healthy world is a more prosperous, peaceful and stable world, to everyone’s benefit.

Robin Lin Miller has previously received research and evaluation funding from the U.S. Department of State, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Drug Abuse, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, American Foundation for AIDS Research, Michigan Department of Community Health, Michigan AIDS Fund, AIDS Foundation of Chicago, and the Health Services Improvement Fund.

– ref. HIV knows no borders, and the Trump administration’s new strategy leave Americans vulnerable – an HIV-prevention expert explains – https://theconversation.com/hiv-knows-no-borders-and-the-trump-administrations-new-strategy-leave-americans-vulnerable-an-hiv-prevention-expert-explains-264871

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rohan Grover, Assistant Professor of AI and Media, American University

When the Trump administration gave Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to a massive database of information about Medicaid recipients in June 2025, privacy and medical justice advocates sounded the alarm. They warned that the move could trigger all kinds of public health and human rights harms.

But most people likely shrugged and moved on with their day. Why is that? It’s not that people don’t care. According to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, 81% of American adults said they were concerned about how companies use their data, and 71% said they were concerned about how the government uses their data.

At the same time, though, 61% expressed skepticism that anything they do makes much difference. This is because people have come to expect that their data will be captured, shared and misused by state and corporate entities alike. For example, many people are now accustomed to instinctively hitting “accept” on terms of service agreements, privacy policies and cookie banners regardless of what the policies actually say.

At the same time, data breaches have become a regular occurrence, and private digital conversations exposing everything from infidelity to military attacks have become the stuff of public scrutiny. The cumulative effect is that people are loath to change their behaviors to better protect their data − not because they don’t care, but because they’ve been conditioned to think that they can’t make a difference.

As scholars of data, technology and culture, we find that when people are made to feel as if data collection and abuse are inevitable, they are more likely to accept it – even if it jeopardizes their safety or basic rights.

Where regulation falls short

Policy reforms could help to change this perception, but they haven’t yet. In contrast to a growing number of countries that have comprehensive data protection or privacy laws, the United States offers only a patchwork of policies covering the issue.

At the federal level, the most comprehensive data privacy laws are nearly 40 years old. The Privacy Act of 1974, passed in the wake of federal wiretapping in the Watergate and the Counterintelligence Program scandals, limited how federal agencies collected and shared data. At the time government surveillance was unexpected and unpopular.

But it also left open a number of exceptions – including for law enforcement – and did not affect private companies. These gaps mean that data collected by private companies can end up in the hands of the government, and there is no good regulation protecting people from this loophole.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 extended protections against telephone wire tapping to include electronic communications, which included services such as email. But the law did not account for the possibility that most digital data would one day be stored on cloud servers.

Since 2018, 19 U.S. states have passed data privacy laws that limit companies’ data collection activities and enshrine new privacy rights for individuals. However, many of these laws also include exceptions for law enforcement access.

These laws predominantly take a consent-based approach – think of the pesky banner beckoning you to “accept all cookies” – that encourages you to give up your personal information even when it’s not necessary. These laws put the onus on individuals to protect their privacy, rather than simply barring companies from collecting certain kinds of information from their customers.

The privacy paradox

For years, studies have shown that people claim to care about privacy but do not take steps to actively protect it. Researchers call this the privacy paradox. It shows up when people use products that track them in invasive ways, or when they consent to data collection, even when they could opt out. The privacy paradox often elicits appeals to transparency: If only people knew that they had a choice, or how the data would be used, or how the technology works, they would opt out.

But this logic downplays the fact that options for limiting data collection are often intentionally designed to be convoluted, confusing and inconvenient, and they can leave users feeling discouraged about making these choices, as communication scholars Nora Draper and Joseph Turow have shown. This suggests that the discrepancy between users’ opinions on data privacy and their actions is hardly a contradiction at all. When people are conditioned to feel helpless, nudging them into different decisions isn’t likely to be as effective as tackling what makes them feel helpless in the first place.

Resisting data disaffection

The experience of feeling helpless in the face of data collection is a condition we call data disaffection. Disaffection is not the same as apathy. It is not a lack of feeling but rather an unfeeling – an intentional numbness. People manifest this numbness to sustain themselves in the face of seemingly inevitable datafication, the process of turning human behavior into data by monitoring and measuring it.

It is similar to how people choose to avoid the news, disengage from politics or ignore the effects of climate change. They turn away because data collection makes them feel overwhelmed and anxious – not because they don’t care.

Taking data disaffection into consideration, digital privacy is a cultural issue – not an individual responsibility – and one that cannot be addressed with personal choice and consent. To be clear, comprehensive data privacy law and changing behavior are both important. But storytelling can also play a powerful role in shaping how people think and feel about the world around them.

We believe that a change in popular narratives about privacy could go a long way toward changing people’s behavior around their data. Talk of “the end of privacy” helps create the world the phrase describes. Philosopher of language J.L. Austin called those sorts of expressions performative utterances. This kind of language confirms that data collection, surveillance and abuse are inevitable so that people feel like they have no choice

Cultural institutions have a role to play here, too. Narratives reinforcing the idea of data collection as being inevitable come not only from tech companies’ PR machines but also mass media and entertainment, including journalists. The regular cadence of stories about the federal government accessing personal data, with no mention of recourse or justice, contributes to the sense of helplessness.

Alternatively, it’s possible to tell stories that highlight the alarming growth of digital surveillance and frame data governance practices as controversial and political rather than innocuous and technocratic. The way stories are told affects people’s capacity to act on the information that the stories convey. It shapes people’s expectations and demands of the world around them.

The ICE-Medicaid data-sharing agreement is hardly the last threat to data privacy. But the way people talk and feel about it can make it easier – or more difficult – to ignore data abuses the next time around.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why people don’t demand data privacy – even as governments and corporations collect more personal information – https://theconversation.com/why-people-dont-demand-data-privacy-even-as-governments-and-corporations-collect-more-personal-information-262197