Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
With America less than two weeks away from one of its most unique and divisive elections in the country’s history – and as the polls tighten and the outcome seems to be coming a little more clear from the fog of a long campaign, some might be getting a little worried. The November 3rd outcome is far from determined, especially if anyone wants to think back four years when President Trump was a candidate that was expected to be routed by Hillary Clinton. But as Joe Biden’s campaign is showing strength in traditional Republican strongholds, the idea of voting down the ballot and the ripple effects of voter change has representatives from both the Senate and House of Representatives concerned. If the presidency is to be lost, holding power and keeping a strong presence in both houses is still a priority. Getting re-elected and staying employed is also an important factor for members of Congress and sitting Senators. The following few days may be a crucial time for a lot of candidates seeking election in traditional ‘red’ states to start thinking for themselves and even distancing their platforms and profiles away from the campaign for the White House. It’s not as easy as it may seem. And that’s where a political expert can assist when examining a few of the important angles: What consequences and risks are there for candidates who abandon the party line? Where is it happening now and who is most vulnerable? Is down-the-ballot voting really an issue or just more of a myth made up for media covering an already long election? If you are a journalist looking to cover this election trend or any other topic leading up to Election Day – then let our experts help. Dr. Rosalyn Cooperman, associate professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington and member of Gender Watch 2018, is an expert on women in politics. She is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
More than just money – what corporate America needs to do to motivate today’s workforce
In a modern workplace no longer characterized by rigid hierarchies and where power is more diffused, traditional methods of motivation may no longer be enough. We have come to understand the value of providing people with ‘intrinsic motivation’ – a sense of purpose, the importance of creative, interesting work, and maintaining work-life balance. We have naturally moved away from a sole dependence on monetary incentives. However, in a New York Times opinion piece, management author Alfie Kohn asserts that “science has confirmed” that monetary rewards amount to “bribes” that don’t work. Somehow this doesn’t ring true. Has science really confirmed this? Would businesses continue to incentivize performance with monetary rewards if they did not work? And aren’t we all, at least to some extent, motivated by money? To understand if Kohn is right, or if there is a more nuanced answer, Karen Sedatole, Professor of Accounting at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School says we need to look at patterns of human behavior. The classical economic theory, which gave us ‘homo economicus,’ assumes people always behave in a rational way and, as with Gordon Gekko in the ‘Wall Street’ movies, selfishness predominates. Findings from psychology and particularly behavioral economics have started to show this to be incorrect. In fact, people tend to make illogical choices contrary to self-interest. Our capacity to think – via a mix of deep reflective thinking and rapid automatic thinking – can lead us to what economists might consider to be irrational behaviors – albeit with the cognitive biases behind our thinking staying mostly predictable. Do monetary incentives work? We all value money, but our perception of its value is influenced by the importance that we also place on reciprocity and fairness, social norms, trust, and trustworthiness. When it comes to monetary rewards for performance the results will also greatly depend on the quality of the performance measures, along with the type of task being rewarded, and the type of reward. Contrary to Kohn’s assertion, Sedatole points out there are many real-world examples that show monetary incentives can deliver big performance and productivity improvements. In fact, if uncontrolled, bonus incentives can be too powerful a motivator, causing damage – as the UK’s PPI and the Wells Fargo mis-selling scandals both firmly attest. There is also strong academic evidence that monetary rewards can have a positive effect, and equally strong evidence that, when over-used, they can elicit bad behavior. Based on relevant academic research in this area, Sedatole identifies four core principles for the use of monetary incentives: Payment for performance can certainly lead to people making a greater effort than when they are rewarded by salary alone, but only if these core principles are followed: 1. Performance targets – Performance targets should be difficult to hit but not too difficult. 2. Performance metrics – The way performance is measured should be sensitive to the employees’ perceptions and sense of control. Employees should believe that their increased effort improves performance, improved performance leads to greater reward, and reward is valued. Metrics must be precise and not prejudiced by external factors. And, from the organization’s perspective, metrics should be set to meet its objectives. 3. Fairness and social norms – Monetary rewards must be seen to be fair and to comply across organizations. They should also conform to social norms. 4. Characteristics of the task – The efficacy of monetary incentives can depend on the nature of the task and to what extent the task provides intrinsic incentives. Here Alfie Kohn has a point; in some cases, monetary rewards tend to undermine intrinsic incentives. ‘Boring’ tasks have little or no intrinsic motivation, whereas creative tasks – the work of a physician, designer, scientist, etc. – are intrinsically motivating. Where there is intrinsic motivation money can be less relevant and in extreme cases can be seen to devalue the intrinsic factors. Professor Sedatole’s recent webinar: ‘Irrational but Predictable! When to Use Monetary Incentives to Motivate Employees’ explains her findings in further details: simply visit it to view and watch for here: If you are journalist covering this topic – Professor Sedatole is available to speak with reporters – simply click on her icon today to arrange an interview.
Tonight’s face-to-face U.S. presidential debate between Democratic nominee Joe Biden and U.S. President Donald Trump has had all the lead up and electricity of a prize fight. This election, like this year – will be like no other. With traditional campaign festivities for the most part curbed due to COVID-19, this U.S. presidential debate, along with the next two, will serve as the only opportunity for the two candidates to be together in the same place to duke it out live before millions of viewers watching around the globe. There is a lot at stake, and if you are a reporter covering the U.S. presidential debates, Florida Atlantic University’s renowned political science expert, Kevin Wagner, Ph.D., is here to answer all of your questions and is available for interviews. Wagner's research and teaching interests include presidential and judicial politics, political behavior, and legislative behavior. He is also a research fellow of the FAU Business and Economics Polling Initiative (BEPI). Wagner is readily available to speak with media about the debates and the ongoing election – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
Paper ballots, risk-limiting audits can help defend elections and democracy, IU study finds
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- With just over two months before the 2020 election, three professors at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business offer a comprehensive review of how other nations are seeking to protect their democratic institutions and presents how a multifaceted, targeted approach is needed to achieve that goal in the U.S., where intelligence officials have warned that Russia and other rivals are again attempting to undermine our democracy. But these concerns over election security are not isolated to the United States and extend far beyond safeguarding insecure voting machines and questions about voting by mail. Based on an analysis of election reforms by Australia and European Union nations, they outline steps to address election infrastructure security -- such as requiring paper ballots and risk-limiting audits -- as well as deeper structural interventions to limit the spread of misinformation and combat digital repression. "In the United States, despite post-2016 funding, still more than two-thirds of U.S. counties report insufficient funding to replace outdated, vulnerable paperless voting machines; further help is needed," said Scott Shackelford, associate professor of business law and ethics in the Kelley School, executive director of the Ostrom Workshop and chair of IU's Cybersecurity Program. "No nation, however powerful, or tech firm, regardless of its ambitions, is able to safeguard democracies against the full range of threats they face in 2020 and beyond. Only a multifaceted, polycentric approach that makes necessary changes up and down the stack will be up to the task." For example, Australia -- which has faced threats from China -- has taken a distinct approach to protect its democratic institutions, including reclassifying its political parties as "critical infrastructure." This is a step that the U.S. government has yet to take despite repeated breaches at both the Democratic and Republican national committees. Based on an analysis of election reforms by Australia and European Union nations, they outline steps to address election infrastructure security -- such as requiring paper ballots and risk-limiting audits -- as well as deeper structural interventions to limit the spread of misinformation and combat digital repression. "In the United States, despite post-2016 funding, still more than two-thirds of U.S. counties report insufficient funding to replace outdated, vulnerable paperless voting machines; further help is needed," said Scott Shackelford, associate professor of business law and ethics in the Kelley School, executive director of the Ostrom Workshop and chair of IU's Cybersecurity Program. "No nation, however powerful, or tech firm, regardless of its ambitions, is able to safeguard democracies against the full range of threats they face in 2020 and beyond. Only a multifaceted, polycentric approach that makes necessary changes up and down the stack will be up to the task." For example, Australia -- which has faced threats from China -- has taken a distinct approach to protect its democratic institutions, including reclassifying its political parties as "critical infrastructure." This is a step that the U.S. government has yet to take despite repeated breaches at both the Democratic and Republican national committees. The article, "Defending Democracy: Taking Stock of the Global Fight Against Digital Repression, Disinformation and Election Insecurity," has been accepted by Washington and Lee Law Review. Other authors are Anjanette "Angie" Raymond, associate professor of business law and ethics, and Abbey Stemler, assistant professor of business law and ethics, both at Kelley; and Cyanne Loyle, associate professor of political science at Pennsylvania State University and a global fellow at the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Aside from appropriating sufficient funds to replace outdated voting machines and tabulation systems, the researchers said that Congress should encourage states to refuse to fund voting machines with paperless ballots. The researchers also suggest requiring risk-limiting audits, which use statistical samples of paper ballots to verify official election results. Other suggested steps include: Congress requiring the National Institute of Standards and Technology to update their voting machine standards, which state and county election officials rely on when deciding which machines to purchase. Australia undertook such a measure. Creating a National Cybersecurity Safety Board to investigate cyberattacks on U.S. election infrastructure and issue post-elections reports to ensure that vulnerabilities are addressed. Working with universities to develop training for election officials nationwide to prepare them for an array of possible scenarios, and creating a cybersecurity guidebook for use by newly elected and appointed election officials. "With regards to disinformation in particular, the U.S. government could work with the EU to globalize the self-regulatory Code of Practice on Disinformation for social media firms and thus avoiding thorny First Amendment concerns," Raymond said. "It could also work to create new forums for international information sharing and more effective rapid alert and joint sanctions regimes. "The international community has the tools to act and hold accountable those actors that would threaten democratic institutions," added Stemler, who also is a faculty associate at Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. "Failing the political will to act, pressure from consumer groups and civil society will continue to mount on tech firms, in particular Facebook, which may be sufficient for them to voluntarily expand their efforts in the EU globally, the same way that more firms are beginning to comply with its General Data Protection Regulation globally, as opposed to designing new information systems for each jurisdiction."
Georgia Southern University saw a significant increase in grant and contract funding awarded to its faculty for research in the 2020 fiscal year. Georgia Southern faculty and staff received 144 awards totaling $10.7 million, which represents nearly a 67% increase over the previous year. The University received $6.4 million in FY2019 and $5.6 million in FY2018. This year marks the first time that faculty-led research at Georgia Southern broke the $10 million threshold. Vice Provost for Research Christopher Curtis, Ph.D., praised the faculty for their achievements. “These are highly competitive awards from the state, the federal government and private enterprises,” he said. “To grow our research portfolio in a national environment of diminishing funding is truly remarkable and a testament to the intellectual firepower and creativity of our professors. Georgia Southern is a Public Impact Research university, which means that the success of these researchers will be felt well beyond the confines of the University and will extend across the region.” Faculty engage in research that contributes significantly to the University’s $1.4 billion economic impact on the coastal region and that makes Georgia Southern a leading Public Impact Research university in the Southeast. The Allen E. Paulson College of Engineering and Computing, the College of Science and Mathematics and the Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health each received over $2 million in sponsored awards in FY2020. If you have any questions about the faculty research being conducted at Georgia Southern University, or if you are a journalist looking to cover this topic - let us help. Christopher Curtis is the Vice Provost for Research at Georgia Southern University. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
A new program being offered by the Waters College of Health Professions at Georgia Southern University is helping soldiers with the 3rd Infantry Division (ID) rank up their readiness by offering a new Tactical Athlete Certificate (TAC) program. This program is designed to help soldiers improve their performance, avoid musculoskeletal injuries in physical training, receive college credits and points toward promotions. The program comprises three courses including a basic course, trainer course and programming course. “The Tactical Athlete Certificate is a beneficial program for both the military as a whole and the individual soldier,” said Nancy Henderson, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences. “The military gains more knowledgeable soldiers who can develop science-based and comprehensive physical training plans, and the individual soldier benefits by receiving college credits, which can help them as they advance in their military careers.” Each course is a three-week hybrid course with two weeks online and one week of face-to-face instruction and could be completed in one semester. Institutional fees are waived for active-duty military, and the admissions process does not require a minimum GPA or SAT/ACT score. If you are a journalist and are looking to cover this topic or learn more about how Georgia Southern University is working with the armed forces, the let us help with your stories. Dr. Nancy Henderson is an assistant professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences at Georgia Southern University. She is an expert in injury prevention, running form and assessing meaningful change of interventions. Nancy is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
As a Black wildlife conservationist and field biologist devoted to the study of birds, Corina Newsome, a graduate student at Georgia Southern University, has long been confronted with the lack of diversity in the natural sciences. However, earlier this year, social media became a powerful interface for Newsome and a group of fellow Black scientists around the country, who discovered one another online and quickly formed a camaraderie. “We all met on Twitter,” Newsome explained. “I happened upon a tweet or post and I’m like, ‘Is that a Black person?’ Turns out they’re a Black scientist in herpetology or ornithology or whatever, so I immediately connected with them and said, ‘Hey, can we just know each other?’” Soon after, a video of a racially motivated confrontation in Central Park recorded by science editor and avid birder Christian Cooper went viral, and the network of 30 scientists banded to launch Black Birders Week on May 31. The group of virtual events, coordinated with hashtags like #BlackInNature, #AskABlackBirder and #BirdingWhileBlack, celebrated Black birders and naturalists from around the globe while pushing for inclusion and safe spaces in the outdoors. “For far too long, Black people in the United States have been shown that outdoor exploration activities, such as birding, are not for us,” Newsome stated in a video posted on social media to announce the weeklong initiative’s kickoff. “Well, we’ve decided to change that narrative. A group of Black birders, explorers and scientists got together to start the first-ever Black Birders Week. Help us to show the world, especially the next generation of young, Black birders and nature enthusiasts, that we exist, that they are welcome and that this space belongs to them, too.” The response was monumental as a multitude of Black scientists and naturalists shared their favorite birds, nature shots and professional settings online. “Black Birders Week showed us we are not actually alone,” said Newsome. “It created a community of Black people around the world. Just being on my phone and seeing a Black family outside or a Black professor somewhere teaching ornithology, people doing the thing that I do, encourages me. That makes me feel like it is possible to do well.” Newsome quickly became one of the recognizable faces of Black Birders Week and was featured in The New Yorker, Washington Post, National Geographic and NPR, among other media outlets. She also participated in a virtual roundtable discussion hosted by the National Audubon Society and included Cooper and fellow Georgia Southern student Alex Troutman. Online responses from the organization’s 1.4 million Facebook followers were largely optimistic, however there was some backlash. “We got comments from people saying we are creating division by talking about this,” Newsome said. “The division was already there. Now you know about it, and you’re uncomfortable. But we’ve been uncomfortable.” Such candor has especially captured the attention of students. “The most overwhelming, positive responses have been from young, Black people in college or pre-college who are interested in the sciences, messaging me or emailing me and saying, ‘It’s meant so much to see you doing your work,’” she said. Newsome noted that multiple wildlife and government agencies have also reached out, demonstrating that they are in the process of making structural changes within their organizations to expand diversity efforts. “Seeing these things actually materialize has been mind-blowing, and again, that’s because of the work of the group, the collective work of this movement,” she said. “I think that the one really encouraging element of that has been them choosing to use their platform to amplify our voices at the expense of losing some of their constituents.” While Newsome’s passion, “the thing that lights a fire under me constantly,” can be found at the intersection of wildlife conservation and human rights, birds continue to be her feathered muses. “They weigh sometimes a fraction of an ounce,” she said. “They are so physically fragile, yet they make some of the most physically intense migrations on the globe, from the tip of North America to the tip of South America. Birds as tiny as a hummingbird that weigh a tenth of an ounce fly over the Gulf of Mexico nonstop for over 18 hours. Just think of how much they’re accomplishing, even though they are easily one of the most fragile creatures on the planet. It feels oxymoronic, but it’s real. “Birds remind me that things that seem impossible happen.” If you are journalist and would like to know more about this particular story simply reach out to Georgia Southern Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
Airing commercials after political ads actually helps sell nonpolitical products
About $7 billion reportedly will be spent this fall on television and digital commercials from political campaigns and political action committees, filling the airwaves with political ads many viewers dislike. Companies running ads immediately afterward have been concerned about the potential of a negative spillover effect on how they and their products and services are perceived. But new research from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business finds that the opposite is true. Contrary to mainstream thought, political ads instead yield positive spillover effects for nonpolitical advertisers. And this happens regardless of whether the political ad is an attack ad or not, who the ad supports, and whether it's sponsored by a candidate, political party or PAC. Political advertising accounts for nearly 10 percent of all U.S. television ad revenue. The findings are in the article "Impact of Political Television Advertisements on Viewers' Response to Subsequent Advertisements" -- accepted for publication in Marketing Science -- by Beth Fossen, assistant professor of marketing; Girish Mallapragada, associate professor of marketing and Weimer Faculty Fellow; and doctoral candidate Anwesha De, all from the Kelley School of Business. "Our investigations provide insights into the previously unexplored ad-to-ad spillover effects and, more broadly, provides insights into how political messages influence consumers," Fossen said. "Nonpolitical ads that follow political ads benefit through a reduction in audience decline and an increase in positive post-ad chatter." Using data for 849 national prime-time ads during the 2016 U.S. general election, the researchers found that ads airing after a political commercial saw an 89 percent reduction in audience decline and a 3 percent increase in post-ad chatter online. Their findings remained consistent when examining the effect by TV network and political party affiliation. "It seems reasonable to assume that Fox News viewers are more likely to be positively stimulated by pro-Republican ads than viewers of other channels," researchers wrote. "However, evidence from our data suggests that the positive spillover from pro-Republican ads is not higher and is nearly lower on Fox News viewership decline than when pro-Republican ads air on other channels." They found a similar trend when it came to advertising on MSNBC, whose viewers frequently identify with the Democratic Party and progressive causes. Mallapragada said the findings show that television networks and stations can leverage the positive spillover effects on subsequent ads by implementing differential pricing and systematic ad sequencing. Prevailing belief in the business industry has suggested that political ads on television hurt the effectiveness of subsequent ads. To illustrate this concern, during the 2020 Super Bowl, game broadcaster Fox isolated political ads from other paying advertisers in their own ad breaks, a decision that cost the network millions in ad revenue, because it ran nonpaid show promos alongside the political ads instead of commercials from paying advertisers. "The insights from this research enable advertisers to advocate for the inclusion of ad positioning in ad buys and, specifically, negotiate that their ads follow political ads," he said. "Our results may also encourage advertisers outside of the television context to experiment with advertising next to political content, an experimentation that may be especially beneficial for online advertisers given that they commonly blacklist political topics to avoid having their ads appear near political content." Editors: Contact George Vlahakis at vlahakis@iu.edu for a copy of the paper.
Let Your Brain Rest: Boredom Can Be Good For Your Health
The human brain is a powerful tool. Always on, the brain is thinking and dealing with decisions and stressors and subconscious activities. But as much as the human brain function has a large capacity, it also has limits. Alicia Walf, a neuroscientist and a senior lecturer in the Department of Cognitive Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, says it is critical for brain health to let yourself be bored from time to time. Being bored can improve social connections. When neuroscientists do studies looking at brain activity they often compare what areas are “on” when people do a specific cognitive task and when they are told to do nothing. Remarkably, there is extensive activity in the do nothing part of the experiment. This has led social neuroscientists to discover that we have what is called a default mode network, many brain regions that are on by default, or when we are not doing other things. It also turns out that when we are not busy with other thoughts and activities, we focus inward as well as on social interactions. Being bored can help foster creativity. Many scientists and artists have reported being inspired or solving a complex problem when they have actually stopped thinking about it. This eureka moment is called insight. Neuroscientists have shown different patterns of brain activity when people solve problems compared to by working through them step-by-step. Even the ancient Greek Archimedes is known to come up with his major finding relating to displacement of water while taking a bath. Additionally, being bored can improve overall brain health. During exciting times, the brain releases a chemical called dopamine which is associated with feeling good. When the brain has fallen into a predictable, monotonous pattern, many people feel bored, even depressed. This might be because we have lower levels of dopamine. One approach is to retrain the brain to actually enjoy these less exciting, and perhaps boring, times. Especially when we are young, our brains are able to adapt to new ways to think and behave. “Give boredom a try and see what your brain comes up with,” says Walf.
A record number of female candidates are running in 2020
It’s been a full century since the 19th Amendment was passed in the United States, giving women the right to vote. This year, women are not only casting their ballots - they're appearing on them in record numbers. A record number of women are running for Congress this year, boosted in part by a surge of Republican women seeking office in a party struggling to regain lost ground with female voters. The influx adds to the advances female candidates — mostly Democrats — made in the 2018 midterm election that helped reshape the makeup of Congress. It also has echoes in the presidential race, based on voting patterns from two years ago and Democrat Joe Biden’s lead in polls over President Donald Trump among female voters. Biden has vowed to pick a woman as running mate. As of July 1, 574 women had filed to run in primaries for U.S. House seats, topping the record 476 from two years ago, according to data compiled by the center. Another 58 women filed to run for the Senate, compared with 53 in 2018. In all, that’s a 20% increase in women making congressional bids. July 13 – Providence Journal It is an impressive number and one every American should be proud of. But there are a few questions that still need to be asked. With close to 220 GOP women vying for a seat in Congress – has the party that traditionally does not have the support of women voters finally changed its course? Are female candidates motivated by the need to change when it comes to key issues like health care, the environment, and the economy? If you are a journalist looking to cover the increased number of females running for elected office this November – then let our experts help. Dr. Rosalyn Cooperman, associate professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington and member of Gender Watch 2018, is an expert on women in politics. She is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
