About

Tiffany White is a Professor of Business Administration at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and serves as the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Programs at the Gies College of Business. She holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration with a focus on Marketing from Duke University, along with a Master’s and Bachelor’s degree in Advertising from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research encompasses consumer trust, consumer behavior, and marketing strategies, with recent publications exploring topics such as racial stereotypes in transactions with anthropomorphic sales bots, trust in a post-truth world, and the effects of negative feedback on goal pursuit behaviors. White has contributed extensively to the academic community through articles published in reputable journals, book chapters, and conference proceedings. She also holds leadership roles including Academic Director of the Master of Science in Management Program and Faculty Athletics Representative at the university. Her work is characterized by a focus on understanding consumer responses, trust-building mechanisms, and the implications of marketing practices in contemporary contexts.

Research topics

• Sociology
• Political Science
• Law

Selected publications

• Elementary Special Education Teachers’ Roles in Supporting Diverse Students With Disabilities

  2025-01-01

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• The accessor effect: How (and for whom) renters’ lack of perceived brand commitment dilutes brand image

  Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · 2024-03-08 · 6 citations

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Marketing at Illinois

  Customer Needs and Solutions · 2024-08-30

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Consumer responses to rebranding to address racism

  PLoS ONE · 2023-02-08 · 8 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  In 2020, following the death of George Floyd and the renewed national focus on racism, many food brands with racist names and packages announced they would rebrand. Brands differed in their extent of rebranding (some only removed an image, whereas others also changed a brand name) and differed in the reasons they gave for the rebranding in PR statements and news interviews. At this point, little is known about how consumers responded to these branding changes. To address this, we conducted an online experiment using the case of Aunt Jemima pancake mix to evaluate how changes in the extent of rebranding and the reason for rebranding impact consumers’ likelihood of purchase, expected taste, brand liking, and brand trust. We find that removing the image of Aunt Jemima brought moderate reductions to likelihood of purchase and expected taste and no changes to brand liking or brand trust. When the brand name was also changed to Pearl Milling Company we find larger reductions to likelihood of purchase and expected taste and reductions to brand liking and brand trust. Additionally, we find that informing consumers the change was done to address racism partially mitigated losses in likelihood of purchase following renaming the brand but provided no protection when only the image was removed. The information also had no impact on expected taste, brand liking, or brand trust following either image removal or brand name change. Last, we find evidence of heterogeneity in consumer responses across political ideologies, with liberals reacting more positively to the rebranding and conservatives reacting more negatively.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• I’m Only Human? The Role of Racial Stereotypes, Humanness, and Satisfaction in Transactions with Anthropomorphic Sales Bots

  Journal of the Association for Consumer Research · 2022-09-27 · 24 citations

  articleSenior author

  This research examines whether consumers ascribe racial stereotypes to artificially intelligent (AI; nonhuman) agents and whether these stereotypes impact ratings of satisfaction, perceptions of competence and humanness, and outcomes of negotiated transactions. Drawing on the stereotype content model, expectation violation theory, and the humanness-value-loyalty framework, we investigate how consumers apply racial stereotype judgments in interactions with artificially intelligent agents in a controlled negotiation experiment. Results reveal that although Black people, in general, are more likely to be stereotyped as less competent than Asian or White people, the opposite is true for Black AI bots. Furthermore, perceptions of competence and humanness of Black AI bots supersede those of Asian and White AI bots, leading to increased ratings of overall satisfaction, and some evidence of more favorable negotiation behaviors. Implications for AI applications in marketing are discussed.

  PublisherDOI

• Stronger together: Developing research partnerships with social impact organizations

  Journal of Consumer Affairs · 2022-03-30 · 9 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Abstract A growing number of Transformative Consumer Research (TCR) academic community members are establishing research partnerships with Social Impact Organizations (SIOs) such as nonprofits, public policy entities, and other societally focused organizations and initiatives. These relational engagement partnerships with SIOs are vital for TCR researchers because SIOs have deep connections to people and communities where transformative change takes place. We leverage insights from TCR researchers and SIOs engaged in relational engagement partnerships to outline a framework for such partnerships that supports and sustains these collaborations, furthers knowledge creation, and lays the groundwork for social impact. Our goal is to offer a framework for relational engagement partnerships that can propagate within the TCR community, encouraging fruitful collaborations between TCR researchers and SIOs that have the potential to create positive social impact.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• When your favorites disappoint: Self-construal influences response to disappointing brand experiences

  Current Psychology · 2021-08-09 · 6 citations

  articleOpen access

  Abstract This research examined the effect of self-construal (independent vs. interdependent) on people’s responses to disappointing brand experiences. We propose that following a disappointing brand experience, independents are more likely than interdependents to express intentions for negative behavior. This effect is due to differences in the importance ascribed to various goals: independents are focused on their own personal goals and expectations, whereas interdependents are focused on maintaining pleasant and harmonious relationships. Consequently, when independents experience disappointment (i.e., their expectations are not met), they appraise the situation as less pleasant than do interdependents. Independents are thus more likely to experience negative emotions, which in turn lead to negative behavioral intentions. Three studies, in which self-construal was primed, supported this prediction. In experiment 1 participants imagined a sports event where their favorite team played carelessly and lost. Participants in the independent (vs. interdependent) prime condition were more likely to express intentions of negative behavior toward the sports team; negative emotions partially mediated this effect. Experiment 2 provides evidence for the mediating role of emotional appraisal in the extent to which the disappointing experience (sports event) is perceived as unpleasant. Experiment 3 replicates these findings in the context of service failure at a restaurant. It also provides evidence for the role of prior expectations in this effect, demonstrating that the effect occurs only when participants have prior expectations, and does not occur in their absence. This research sheds light on the effects of self-construal on emotional and behavioral responses to negative brand experiences, and highlights the processes underlying these effects.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Introduction to Special Issue: Trust in Doubt: Consuming in a Post-Truth World

  Journal of the Association for Consumer Research · 2020 · 23 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Sociology
  • Political Science
  • Law

  Previous articleNext article FreeTrust in Doubt: Consuming in a Post-Truth WorldIntroduction to Special Issue: Trust in Doubt: Consuming in a Post-Truth WorldRobert V. Kozinets, Andrew D. Gershoff, and Tiffany Barnett WhiteRobert V. Kozinets Search for more articles by this author , Andrew D. Gershoff Search for more articles by this author , and Tiffany Barnett White Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe Post-Truth EraThe American historian Daniel Boorstin may have had it right when he said that, in current times, truth has been displaced by believability (Boorstin 1962). We are living in a strange time of alternative facts and increasing tolerance for mistruths and misrepresentation—in politics, in the marketplace, in consumers’ everyday lives. These elements are even showing up in our own research backyard where scandals and concerns about replicability seem to regularly break like dirty tides on the shore of scientific integrity.The term post-truth was introduced by Steve Tesich in 1992 in an article for The Nation called “Government of Lies.” Tesich used post-truth to describe his sense that America has become a society where telling the truth is irrelevant in politics. Beginning with Watergate, through Iran-Contra, and continuing in the weapons of mass destruction justification for the Gulf Wars, Tesich contended that the American people actually preferred the world of comfortable falsehoods to the difficulties of confronting truths. The implications of this realization were deeply troubling to him. In scarily prescient words, Tesich wrote that “We are rapidly becoming prototypes of a people that totalitarian monsters could only drool about in their dreams. All the dictators up to now have had to work hard at suppressing the truth … [however, now] we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world” where we end up wandering aimlessly between confusion and quiescence (1992, 13).Sociologists and psychologists have been aware of this shifting attitude toward truth for decades. For example, Rodriguez and Ryave (1990) asked several hundred students to keep track of, and report on, instances in which they lied. They concluded that everyone lied, and that “lying was, generally, an easy and spontaneous activity” related to promoting acceptance, hiding rejection, and preferring social solidarity. They speculated that not only is lying “a possible action, but a preferred one” in many interactional circumstances. DePaulo, Kirkendol, Kashy, Wyer, and Epstein (1996) also investigated lying in everyday life using participants’ self-reports. They too found that lying is quite common in social interaction and that most people are comfortable doing so. Feldman, Forrest, and Happ (2002) gave study participants competency and liking-based goals and then filmed them in a 10-minute conversation with someone they had just met. Next, participants watched the recorded interactions and coded their own lies. Participants were surprised to detect an average of three lies in each conversation. Most of the lies were petty matters, and, in a debrief afterward, few of the students seemed concerned. In reaction to this, Ralph Keyes (2004, 13) asserted that we live in a “post-truth era” that “allows us to dissemble without considering ourselves dishonest,” where our ethical systems consider lying to be routine, acceptable, and not necessarily wrong or even dishonest.Almost two decades later, the amplification of this world of lies has become a greater concern. From politicians who cover up their wrongdoing with a barrage of lies, to misinformation-seeding bots and deep fake videos, to the intentional repetition of debunked and flawed science by anti-vaxxers and climate denialists, we are all living with the complex material and social ramifications of a system where truth, trust, and believability are perched on slippery slopes. The post-truth interventions of politicians and corporations have combined with the commonplace telling of lies in everyday life to create a post-trust society, one in which everyday lying has festered into a cultural miasma of mistrust, doubt, and skepticism.From Post-Truth to Post-TrustTrust happens any time we take on vulnerability based on expectations—whenever we place our reliance in the integrity or truthfulness of someone or something (Rousseau et al. 1998). The most recent Edelman Trust Barometer, a global survey that measures trust in the institutions of business, government, media, and NGOs, found that consumers trust none of them (Edelman 2020). When we originally wrote our introduction to this issue, delivered at the 2018 ACR Conference in Dallas, Texas, we asked if consumers could still do business with a company like Samsung, who produced and sold millions of phones that overheated due to a faulty battery management system. The answer, we now know, is yes. In January of 2020, people barely remember the exploding phones of 2016 and the commotion—including airline bans—that followed them. In fact, now that brands like Huawei have been actively discredited and accused by national governments of being untrustworthy, Samsung’s phones are arguably at a relative trust advantage.So, what explains consumers’ persistent willingness to share information with and engage with businesses in this environment of mistrust and uncertainty? Why, for example, do consumers continue to put themselves into vulnerable positions by trusting devices or systems like the Amazon Echo or Tesla’s self-driving function? Why do they continue to trust companies like Facebook or Equifax with their personal and sensitive financial data? Why do they rely on brands like Volkswagen-Porsche-Audi, which has a well-documented history of deceiving its customers through faulty product offerings? How do academics reconcile a growing replication crisis as behavioral research is called into question by falsified data scandals and postpublication statistical analysis?Despite one breach of faith after another, it seems that people still trust and want to trust. Many still want to have faith in pharmaceutical companies and the doctors who vaccinate our children and us. They want to rely on their government to act in good faith, to regulate and report the health of the environment, the safety of our food, water, and air. At the same time, we seem to be in the midst of a pivotal moment in history and culture when a belief in trust has been misplaced by trust in relative believability. Trust in companies, trust in government, trust in research, trust in brands: perhaps all of these forms of trust are slipping into irrelevance, cast into doubt by the general lack of interest in truth of our times. Indeed, the post-truth and post-trust world is a place where we all are presented with “limited, unimaginative, and uninspiring moral worlds” (Forstenzer 2018, 6), where morality and ethics are judged on sliding slides.In a post-truth era, trust is rarely complete or long-lasting. These are times when, often, the very concept of trust may not even matter as much as achieving some temporary or near-term utilitarian benefit or exchange. In this social environment, the tendency of politicians, companies, and consumers to lie to one another has become adopted as a cultural norm. It is institutionalized in social customs, behaviors, and assumptions about others’ intent to persuade, manipulate, or exploit (Friestad and Wright 1994).Consumer researchers have had much to say about this craven new world over the years. This special issue of the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research was an experiment. It developed, in journal format, the theme of the 2018 ACR conference that the three of us co-chaired. The articles herein were intended to extend these ideas, to give them space and room for expansion and more thorough development. We will thus begin this special issue by introducing the six important articles about post-truth and post-trust consumption that we feature in this issue, placing them in relation to current concerns and past research. Then, we will offer a fairly brief summary that, in places, will extend and synthesize some of what we consider to be the most important and relevant past research relating to these topics of post-truth and post-trust. We hope that this introduction to the special issue can also serve as a useful guide for how consumer research can help us gain a better understanding of the complex and controversial times in which we live.The Six Articles in This IssueAs we have outlined above, the post-truth and post-trust era affects almost every element of consumers’ lives today, from their interactions with companies and brands to their actions as citizens, including their everyday conversations with one another. The six articles in this special issue deal with several of the most important marketing and consumption-related topics that researchers consider in relation to these areas. First, we feature two articles that consider consumers’ trust in marketing communications. Then we have two articles that examine consumers’ willingness to trust marketers, brands, and products with personal information. We publish a final pair of articles that consider consumers’ responses to fake news and rumors.Investigating Post-Trust Marketing CommunicationsRegarding consumers’ trust or lack of mistrust in the variety of marketing communications, we must consider the various downstream reactions to perceptions of false information from firms and other organizations. For example, recent revelations of deceptive marketing by major American drug companies seem to have played a role in America’s opioid crisis. Many large pharmaceutical companies have paid millions of dollars in fines, and there have been criminal convictions for their misleading marketing practices. This zealous overpromotion of dangerous drugs led many physicians to overprescribe them (Enos 2019). Concurrently, and perhaps unsurprisingly, there have been precipitous drops in consumer trust in pharmaceutical companies (DTC Perspectives 2018). A number of researchers suspect that this rapidly growing mistrust in Big Pharma has helped spur the recent decrease in consumer decisions to vaccinate and the so-called anti-vaxxer movement (Lyman 2019). It seems clear that consumers not only are mistrusting and suspicious, but they also feel betrayed by marketers. As a consequence, consumer researchers have found it necessary to investigate “sugrophobia,” the trait motivated by consumers’ desire to avoid the adverse consequences of being “duped, scammed, and suckered” (see Madrigal, Wardley, and Soule 2014; Vohs, Baumeister, and Chin 2007).In this issue, Laura E. Wallace, Duane T. Wegener, and Richard E. Petty consider the relationship between marketers’ vested interests and consumers’ perceptions of trustworthiness. In their article “Consuming Information from Sources Perceived as Biased versus Untrustworthy: Parallel and Distinct Influences,” the authors point out that marketers are often perceived as having ulterior motives for making statements and claims. This perception leads consumers to react defensively or skeptically to marketers’ attempts to persuade them. The article reviews work on how vested interest may be due to dishonesty (lying) or simply bias (opinions or evaluations based on limited information). Adding the notion of vested interest, and helping to sort out whether consumers see it as bias or dishonesty, has important implications for marketers and researchers. For example, in a nod to the flexibility of the post-trust age, it seems that consumers will likely favor sources who are perceived as merely biased, rather than those who are outright dishonest. Consumer judgments of source bias thus become part of the contemporary consumers’ conceptual toolkit, helping them to assess how much truthiness (rather than actual truth) there is in particular marketing messages.Also, in this issue, Gustavo Schneider and Anastasiya Pocheptsova Ghosh consider the effects on consumer trust in the positioning of nutritional labels on packages. In their article “Should We Trust Front-of-Package Labels? How Food and Brand Categorization Influence Healthiness Perception and Preference,” they examine how health claims on the front of a package alter their perceived truthfulness. Their results indicate that, even in a post-trust age, consumer suspicions about the unhealthiness of food may be difficult to dislodge once they are established. Because consumers imply a certain agency and confidence when health information is displayed in the front of the label, this can increase consumer trust if the product or brand is already seen to be healthy. However, these effects do not seem to be the case if there are prior beliefs that the product or the brand is not healthy.Understanding Consumers’ Willingness to Trust Marketers, Brands, and Products/Objects with Personal InformationMassive new industries are now established based on the collection and exchange of consumers’ personal data. Facebook and Google, for instance, sell personal data to advertisers valued at over $100 billion annually (Mahida 2020). Likewise, the Internet of Things results in the collection of massive amounts of personal data through products that consumers willingly bring into their neighborhoods and homes. Zuboff (2019) refers to this collection and commodification of information about consumers as “surveillance capitalism,” a new form of business in which corporations unilaterally claim human experience as a type of free raw material for translation into behavioral data, prediction products, and shaping of human behavior at scale. Although this has the potential to offer benefits to consumers, because of many unexplained policies, terms, and conditions, this also presents a major cause of concern relating to the possibility of infringing upon consumers’ privacy and security (Bishop 2019). Breaches of confidential data such as those at Equifax, and outright deception such as that engaged in by Cambridge Analytica, are becoming commonplace matters. Recent surveys indicate that consumers feel that their personal information is out of their control, and 75% of them believe that companies fail to handle their sensitive personal data in a responsible manner (PWC 2017). Although Europe and California have recently introduced regulations to help protect the privacy of individuals’ data, these laws are arguably convoluted and only sporadically enforced. Yet these concerns are constantly shifting and seem paradoxical at heart. Although Phelps, D’Souza, and Nowak (2001) found that privacy concerns were an important driver of purchase decisions, more recent studies such as Johnson, Shriver, and Du (2020) find that very few American consumers (only 0.23% in their study) actually opt out of online behavioral advertising. In the strange new world of the post-trust era, consumers appear to yearn for privacy but easily acquiesce to its violation.Writing in this issue, James A. Mourey and Ari Ezra Waldman examine and develop our understanding of this privacy paradox. In their article “Past the Privacy Paradox: The Importance of Privacy Changes as a Function of Control and Complexity,” the authors use the results from three experimental studies to offer an intriguing variation on the well-established idea that we can think about the privacy paradox as a risk-benefit trade-off on the part of consumers. Instead, they develop the alternative and novel conception that consumers’ subjective impression of the importance of privacy depends on their perceptions of the ease of managing any shared information, and also who is in control of doing so (self vs. business). When privacy is difficult to manage, consumers find it more important for them to control it, rather than to entrust this function to a business. This is not a simple trade-off but a manifestation of the more nuanced perceptual gradations of consuming in the current post-trust age.Also in this issue, we learn how smart objects can and do inspire the trust of consumers. Authors Jonas Foehr and Claas Christian Germelmann conduct three qualitative research studies to investigate the development of consumer trust in, and interaction with, smart devices such as Google Home and Amazon Echo. In their article “Alexa, Can I Trust You? Exploring Consumer Paths to Trust in Smart Voice-Interaction Technologies,” they present findings that reveal four different paths to trusting smart technology. Consumers can place their trust in the device itself, in the voice interface, in the software, in the producing company, or in some combination of these reference points. Only one of these paths to trust relates to anthropomorphism and a trust of the perceived personality of the technology’s voice, and some of the paths are of the device This article develop our understanding about how consumers develop trust of important and the complex and paths that this trust development not only but the complex consumers in the post-trust era the of software, and even and Consumers’ to and Brand must decisions in a contemporary world that is in information, some or even much of which may be or from consumers’ responses to marketing and their willingness to trust marketers, brands, and objects with their personal and information, another important to marketing and consumer researchers is the to news and brand et al. fake news as information that news in form but not in or They find that news with other information such as or misleading and information that is to news about topics such as and the purchase and consumption of health and financial for Brand such as that certain brands of food are or that certain companies and rapidly online and are related to consumers’ for and information responses to fake news and are also by In this issue, and examine how consumers’ to fake news can product evaluations and also how consumers’ such Their of and presents the findings from three that how the to fake news leads to more mistrust in who rather than Because people to be more in fake news than those the use of fake news seems to a mistrust that leads to product evaluations and that to product evaluations in and examine consumers share and false information or with In their of and in Brand the authors find that is a common that people about Although trust and truth seem to have become more than consumers still a for social and being perceived as is one manner in which consumers The authors find that the social benefits that people gain from about brands can the to the of these even to them more In a post-truth this article that consumers’ social goals of and being take over and to the of the brands that end up in and other consumers who may end up the of these six articles our and final to a summary of some other important topics and relevant research relating to the topics of post-truth and of Post-Truth and Post-Trust articles in this issue offer into the topics of consumer trust in marketing claims and communications, consumer concern of personal information, and consumer responses to fake news and However, a of work in prior consumer research has a variety of topics that are also for researchers to consider as we to an understanding of post-truth and post-trust Many of these the same of and that we to the of in this we will describe of prior work in consumers’ trust in brands, by brands, trust of and by products, trust in use of information, trust in and trust and its and and hope is that with the topics in this issue, they will help point the to into related to consumers and an of a study that consumers’ trust in brands, and (2019) find that such trust has the world in recent decades. However, their study that the marketing that had the on consumers’ brand trust were in and new product development (see also and is also a and found that consumers often they have a with the brands that they trust and to which they feel When this is and the brand the consumers’ trust, more consumers more responses than consumers. As and one of the that contemporary consumers this with brands is by other consumers Consumers’ sense of to products as as Gershoff and found that consumers have a to avoid from products like and that are to protect and that this from an reaction when the product that could the such as the from an to an may the consumers trust firms to use their personal information and (2019) of information They found that consumers have beliefs about the that their information between by consumers’ concern for when in the of marketing that these was However, when the was information actually the of the and found that when firms use information about a online behavior data to a consumers react if it the has an about the consumers’ about These consumers are then more likely to that are with the articles in consumer research have also the of consumer trust in systems and institutions such as government, and For example, how consumers or develop mistrust, or doubt, of of various with trust in one was called into the of related and was also cast into a of In some and may the development of consumers’ For example, and the of to and consumers still flawed systems like that of and They found that when an a particular of cultural from and this helped to consumer trust in the researchers have also their toward understanding trust and how it affects and is by a variety of and to how two of consumer and acceptance, White found that consumers to help them decisions that were in perceived However, were more when difficult decisions had to be and found that beliefs about the general of the world can or even trust judgments in the of trust in the of and and (2019) found that financial to financial behavior that related to a of consumption-related In the of Gershoff, and find that behavior in the of or to trust the or people, generally, can to because the is as a of source In their study in an online and found social was in to social trust. In trust also relates to and the of and studies have found that a who merely a food that is to what the consumer is more likely to be than one who and of and have also been in consumer research and between two forms of and they found that consumers were more of companies when they to be the and a at work when consumers trust judgments in reaction to by the of trust and mistrust, and find that and are like two on a between trust and mistrust and that can be used certain to trust, just as it can also be used to increase these studies a for into the world of post-truth and post-trust consumption that us. Because our world is so there are many in our and for consumer research to investigate topics such as consumers’ trust in brands, by brands, trust of and by products, trust in use of information, trust in and trust and its and and We hope that this special issue on “Consuming in a Post-Truth and find it We also hope that it will inspire research on the many related to this important trust us. In the of the post-trust era, the issue and if believe V. Kozinets of for Marketing of of Andrew D. Gershoff Marketing in of of at Tiffany Barnett White of business and and of of Internet of for Consumer Privacy and in

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Trust in Doubt: Consuming in a Post-Truth World

  2020-04-01

  articleSenior author

• The Motivating and Demotivating Effects of Negative Feedback on Cross-Domain Goal Pursuit Behaviors

  Journal of the Association for Consumer Research · 2020-04-06 · 4 citations

  articleSenior author

  This research shows that domain-specific negative feedback motivates consumers to pursue proving goals and demotivates people to pursue enjoyment goals in subsequent, unrelated situations. These motivational consequences not only influence peoples’ subsequent goal pursuit behaviors when a single goal (either a proving goal or an enjoyment goal) is activated (experiment 1), but they also affect consumers’ choice between a proving goal and an enjoyment goal (experiments 2, 3, and 4). Moreover, although receiving negative feedback may give rise to negative affect, negative affect per se did not drive the motivational consequences of negative feedback (experiment 2). Instead, motivation to boost one’s self-view mediates the motivational influence of negative feedback on goal pursuit behaviors in other unrelated domains (experiment 3). In addition, repeated (vs. single) negative feedback reduces its motivational consequences on pursuing proving goals over enjoyment goals (experiment 4).

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Robert V. Kozinets

  11 shared

• Andrew D. Gershoff

  10 shared

• Shirley Y. Y. Cheng

  Hong Kong Baptist University

  6 shared

• Lan Nguyen Chaplin

  4 shared

• Katherine N. Lemon

  Boston College

  4 shared

• Russell S. Winer

  New York University

  3 shared

• Shannon M. Suldo

  University of South Florida

  3 shared

• Aaron J. Barnes

  3 shared

Awards & honors

• Gies Scholar Program
• James Scholar Program
• Emerging Business Leaders Program