If you install a solar array today, your neighbor is more likely to do the same soon. So say researchers at Yale and NYU, according to Earth Techling.
They said that for each installation in a zip code, the chance of another installation going in increased by 0.78 percent. Word of mouth and the visibility of the panels did the trick, the researchers said, and that’s something marketers might be able to cash in on as they try to bring down the cost of customer acquisition.
“Our finding of an increasing effect of new installations in a zip code suggests that targeting marketing efforts in areas that already have some installations is a promising strategy,” the researchers wrote.
Other tendencies popped up in the study as well: “Higher adoption rates are also associated with the percentage of the population who are male, white, have over a 30-minute commute, and have home repairs,” according to the study.
Photo credit: Overearth/iStock via Getty Images Plus – About 82% of Americans said in response to a survey that they give to charity or to people in need.
The nation’s political, social and economic divides might only strengthen that impression. But my recent research suggests that this belief would be misguided.
I’m a professor who teaches and conducts research about nonprofits and philanthropy. To understand the diversity of American generosity, I teamed up with Paige Rice and Veronica Selzler, two philanthropy consultants who contributed to the Generosity Commission’s report on U.S. generosity called “How and Why We Give.”
The Generosity Commission is a nonpartisan group of leaders from across the charitable sector. Its 2023 report shared the results of a national survey of 2,569 U.S. adults.
Drawing on data from that study, we sought to understand how different kinds of people may be motivated to act generously for different reasons and, as a result, express their generosity differently.
The study defined generosity broadly in terms of efforts or gifts made to support people in need, charitable causes or philanthropic organizations through actions like giving and volunteering. Our study was published in March 2026 in Nonprofit Management & Leadership, a peer-reviewed academic journal.
The overall propensity to give was about 82% based on responses to this question in the Generosity Commission’s survey: “On average, how much money do you donate each year to people in need, charitable causes, or philanthropic organizations?”
The survey also asked Americans about how they express their generosity.
We found that Americans’ generosity varies according to their aspirations, motivations and demographic characteristics. In other words, different kinds of Americans are generous in different ways.
Using a statistical modeling technique called latent profile analysis, which can find hidden groups of people based on observed data, we identified five segments of American society. They come from the general population, not just existing donors or volunteers.
Change-minded hopefuls, about 42% of the total, are mostly women and people with low incomes. They genuinely want to help people but are held back mainly by not having enough money.
Flexible moderates, roughly 35% of the survey’s respondents, are a middle-of-the-road group without strong political or religious motivations. They are open to helping out in a wide variety of ways when given the opportunity.
Values-driven skeptics, around 11% of those surveyed, are mostly older, conservative, religious and male. They are willing to give money but are worried that charities might not make good use of it.
Status seekers, approximately 9% of the participants in the survey, are the most generous group. Affluent, educated and religious, they are highly active in giving and volunteering and are motivated by social recognition and personal benefits.
Frustrated activists, only about 4% of the total, are passionate, liberal and financially strapped. They are often women and people of color. They care deeply about causes and prefer to take direct action rather than giving money.
Why it matters
Each of these groups is relatively generous. For example, the percentage of people in each one donating to people in need, charitable causes or philanthropic organizations ranged from a low of 77% – the frustrated activists – to a high of 93% among the status seekers. This shows that Americans with different mindsets exhibit a willingness to help others, even if their aspirations, motivations and demographic characteristics differ.
For nonprofits looking to attract more donors and volunteers, it may help to understand that different groups of people may have different motivations and concerns. By appealing to each group’s distinct qualities, nonprofits may be able to garner more support for their causes.
Photo credit: Garrett Aitken/iStock/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images –
A ‘triangle test’ involves mixing up two of the original products with one of the new reformulation – or vice versa – to see whether taste testers notice the difference.
Springtime in Pennsylvania is peanut butter egg season. This year some consumers may taste the eggs a bit more critically and scrutinize the ingredients and label more carefully.
Reese’s, a Hershey brand, is known for combining chocolate and peanut butter in delicious and iconic ways. Reese’s products come in a variety of formats, called “line extensions.” These include everything from peanut butter chips for baking and chocolate peanut butter popcorn for snacking to limited-time offers for holidays – such as the popular Reese’s Peanut Butter Eggs for Easter.
Hershey responded in a statement: “As we’ve grown and expanded the Reese’s product line, we make product recipe adjustments that allow us to make new shapes, sizes and innovations that Reese’s fans have come to love and ask for, while always protecting the essence of what makes Reese’s unique and special: the perfect combination of chocolate and peanut butter.”
I am a certified research chef and food and hospitality professor in Philadelphia, where I founded the Drexel Food Lab, a culinary innovation and food product development lab. I am also a huge fan of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups. When my older daughter was a toddler, learning her colors and shapes, I trained her to organize her trick-or-treat loot by separating the orange squares for dad.
As someone with decades of experience in product formulation, I am not surprised that the ingredients for some Reese’s products have changed over the years. One of my first jobs as an intern in corporate R&D was formulating cost reductions for existing products and later developing cost-effective line extensions building on the brand equity of the original product. What Hershey is doing with the Reese’s brand is Consumer Packaged Goods Marketing 101.
Reese’s recently introduced some variations of its classic peanut butter cups that use ‘chocolate candy’ compound coatings and ‘peanut butter creme’ instead of real chocolate and peanut butter. AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar
How food manufacturers deal with rising costs
Much has changed in the marketplace since Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups were developed by H.B. Reese in 1928 in Hershey, Pennsylvania, about two hours northwest of Philadelphia.
Inflation, tariffs, labor costs, fuel costs, employee benefits, competition and the vulnerability of climate-threatened crops, such as cacao, vanillaand sugar – none of which are produced anywhere near Pennsylvania – have made the confectionery business increasingly challenging.
When faced with rising costs, food manufacturers have three options:
1. Shrink the product. Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups have gradually shrunk from 0.9 ounce in the 1980s to 0.75 ounce today. That’s a 17% reduction. This phenomenon has been dubbed “shrinkflation.”
2. Raise prices. There is certainly a market for premium peanut butter cups, but how much will a consumer pay for the Reese’s brand? $5? $10? I suspect most consumers expect a single serving to be a couple of bucks at most.
3. Lower costs. While the company can improve operational efficiencies, changing the formula to reduce or eliminate high-cost ingredients is a standard industry practice to keep prices consistent for consumers in the midst of a dynamic supply chain. This phenomenon has been dubbed “skimpflation” and is Brad Reese’s main complaint.
Sensory and food science tools that we teach in our Drexel culinary and food science programs help ensure little market disruption and a consumer mostly unaware of the changes.
For example, a consumer discrimination test that food product developers love is a called the triangle test. Two samples from the original formula and one sample from the new formula – or vice versa – are presented to the consumer. If the consumer can identify the different one, the product developer did a poor job in preserving the beloved brand through the reformulation. But if consumers can’t tell the difference, the reformulation may be able to move forward.
In 1998, Frito-Lay reformulated some of its signature products using a synthetic fat called olestra – with the brand name Olean – that could cause unpleasant side effects, including anal oil leakage. John T. Barr/Hulton Archive via Getty Images
Sometimes product developers get it wrong in introducing a new formulation. Some of us are old enough to remember Crystal Pepsi, the McLean Deluxe burger or Doritos made with olestra. These products failed, respectively, due to lack of defined consumer benefit, misalignment with the brand, and bad press due to digestive side effects.
But most reformulations go unnoticed – the good work of food technologists who strive to keep food safe, affordable and delicious for consumers.
So, are these new Reese’s products inferior to the original? Maybe. Like with taste in art or wine, if it tastes good to you, it’s good. If not, vote with your wallet, or send the company a note like Brad Reese did.
Some doctors now believe you should be spending even LESS time in the shower than previously thought. Admittedly, I was already shocked when I found out a while back that the average shower should take only eight minutes. But upon reflection, it made sense. While hot showers can feel relaxing, we obviously need to be conscious of our resources, no matter where we live in the world.
But a recent piece by Pang-Chieh Ho called “You Could Be Showering Too Long,” published in Consumer Reports, claims that showers should really only be around five minutes, seven at the most. Just shaving off a couple of minutes can help tremendously with conservation. “For people in the U.S., the average shower lasts about 8 minutes, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That’s 20 gallons for every average shower, given that the standard showerhead uses around 2.5 gallons of water per minute.”
Experts say your shower might be too long
A woman washing her hair in the shower. Photo credit: Canva
And it’s not just because of the environment. Our skin can dry out more quickly than some might think. Dermatologist Lisa Akintilo, MD, is cited as saying, “It’s true that long, hot showers may feel restorative, but they can dry and irritate the skin.”
An article in Time magazine, “How Much Do You Actually Need to Shower?” by Angela Haupt, reveals that some doctors say you can skip even the five-minute daily shower, though they admit, “there’s no one-size-fits-all equation.” Dermatologist at NYU Langone Health, Dr. Mary Stevenson, suggested, “Ideally, I think people should shower at least every other day. Most people, by day two or day three, are not clean. But it’s a little bit personal.” She later added, “In general, you really only need soap in your armpits, your groin, and your feet.”
“You probably don’t need to be in the shower as long as you are. You’re no cleaner—it’s just for your psychological health or for your routine.”
– Philadelphia dermatologist Dr. Jules Lipoff
Some people on Reddit disagree. In a thread called “On average, how long do you take to shower?” many admitted that long showers are a guilty pleasure. A few people answered 45 minutes to an hour. One even claimed they showered for “light years,” though someone quickly pointed out that “light year” was a measurement of distance, not time.
One noted that there are variables in play. “Depends on how many shower beers.”
Another measures the length of time in music. “Two Spotify songs,” they insisted.
People online still love their long showers
A bearded man singing in his shower with a microphone. Photo credit: Canva
One Reddit user got vulnerable about the mental benefits of a hot shower. “The mean and the median probably differ quite a lot for me. The vast majority of my showers do not exceed 20 minutes, but I’ve had some depression showers or anxiety showers or whatever you wanna call them where I stayed in for over an hour.” Another commenter put it less delicately: “Until I can no longer feel the pain of life.”
And lastly, this person didn’t mince words but mentioned the temperature variable. “If it’s a hot shower, no less than 30 minutes. If it’s a cold shower, I scrubba dubba the F out of there in less than three.”
This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.
