Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Slow traffic, fast food: The effects of highway congestion on fast-food consumption

Sitting in your car at 5:15 p.m. on a Tuesday, vehicles line the highway as far as the eye can see. The GPS estimates you still have 30 minutes left in traffic, and a vision of your empty fridge passes through your mind as your stomach grumbles. You are faced with a decision: stop at the grocery store to buy ingredients to make dinner or follow one of the many fast-food beacons illuminated beyond the exit sign. According to new research from Panka Bencsik, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Health, and Society, Vanderbilt University, on days when highways are more congested, particularly during weekday afternoon rush hour, people are more likely to choose the fast-food option. Bencsik worked in collaboration with researchers at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign to analyze the causal effect of time lost on food choice in Los Angeles County. The team analyzed smartphone GPS data from 2017 to 2019 to track foot traffic to restaurants and grocery stores during periods of heavy traffic congestion. “These results are concerning from a public health standpoint,” Bencsik said. “Fast food tends to be higher in fat, sodium, and energy density, and lower in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and nutrients than food consumed at home. The time commuters spend in congested traffic has substantial implications for eating habits and potentially caloric intake.” Prior research estimates that people consume about 134 more calories per meal when they eat elsewhere versus eating at home. Bencsik said looking at that combined with the results of this study, which also suggests a decrease in visiting supermarkets, likely leads to unhealthier eating habits as a result of traffic congestion. Bencsik said the results of the study also do not suggest that people are swapping their planned “take out day” for the day with more traffic, but they are instead choosing to visit fast-food restaurants more in total. “Increased consumption of fast food due to traffic congestion during peak travel times potentially plays a role in the rise in obesity, heart failure, and diabetes among Americans, given that fast food is typically less healthy than other options,” Bencsik said. “Our results suggest that policies aimed at reducing time spent commuting by car could help battle unhealthy eating habits. For example, improving infrastructure to mitigate traffic congestion, or expanding and speeding up public transport, could reduce fast-food dependency. Increasing work-from-home opportunities and reducing the number of days workers go into work could also have a meaningful impact.” The full paper, "Slow traffic, fast food: The effects of time lost on food store choice," is published in the Journal of Urban Economics.

Canada’s RRSP Program Has Too Many Jobs

Summary: Since its inception in 1957, the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) has been a cornerstone of Canada’s retirement system. However, the RRSP has taken on roles far beyond its original mandate, notably through the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP) and the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP). Although these programs provide short-term benefits, they significantly damage the long-term health of Canadians' retirement savings. This article explores how these additional roles are sabotaging retirement savings, highlights statistics about the state of RRSPs today, and discusses the disastrous impact these trends will have on future retirees. While listening to a recent economic presentation by Don Drummond, TD Bank's Chief Economist at the Mortgage Professionals Canada conference, the following stat stood out to me: "Median RRSP savings are $146K (RRSPs have been in existence for 6 decades)" I was stunned by how low this value was. Even with a government pension, in today's economic climate, to achieve a successful retirement, we need more than $146K saved. This prompted me to explore how the average value of RRSPs in Canada could be so low after some of us have had as much as 60 years to save. The average senior aged 65 in Canada receives $18,197 per year from OAS and CPP. If qualified for GIS, they would receive another $15,186 annually, for a total of $33,338 annually. This isn't much income, especially for homeowners who must pay for property taxes, utilities, upkeep, and maintenance. How it All Began At inception, the RRSP was called a Registered Retirement Annuity and was created in 1957. At the time, Canadians could contribute up to 10% of their income to a maximum of $2,500 annually. The goal was to give all Canadians the same tax benefits as members of registered employer-sponsored pension plans. Benefits of the RRSP Plan 1. Tax-Deferral: Contributions to an RRSP are tax-deductible, which can reduce your tax bill. 2. Tax-Free Growth: Your savings grow tax-free while the money is in the plan. 3. Retroactive: You can carry forward any unused contribution room to future years. The Multitasking Disaster Studies show that people are dreadful at multitasking; the same is true of government programs. Here is where the program went wrong. In 1992, the Home Buyer’s Plan (HBP) was made more flexible, which allowed first-time homebuyers to withdraw RRSP funds to buy a house. Then, in 1999, the Lifelong Learning Plan (LPP) was introduced, which permitted withdrawals to pay for education. The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) was not introduced in 1957 alongside the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) creation. Instead, the HBP was introduced in 1992 as a federal initiative to help Canadians buy their first homes by allowing them to withdraw funds from their RRSPs without tax penalties as long as they met specific conditions. Here's a timeline of crucial HBP withdrawal limits since its inception: Timeline of HBP and LLP Withdrawal Limits: 1992 - Introduction of the HBP • Maximum Withdrawal Limit: $20,000 per individual. • Purpose: To help first-time homebuyers purchase or build a home. 1999 – Introduction of Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) • The annual withdrawal limit is $10,000 per individual • The lifetime withdrawal maximum is $20,000 per individual 2009 - First HBP increase • New Limit: $25,000 per individual. • The increase was introduced as part of federal budget changes to reflect rising housing costs. 2019 - Second HBP Increase • New Limit: $35,000 per individual. • Announced in the 2019 federal budget to support affordability for first-time homebuyers. 2019 -HBP Enhancement for Life Events • The HBP was expanded to allow individuals experiencing a marriage or common-law partnership breakdown to participate, even if they were not first-time homebuyers. 2024 - Recent increase • New Limit: $60,000 per individual. • The increase was introduced as part of federal budget changes to reflect rising costs. A Flawed Strategy The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) and Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) were introduced in Canada as tools to make housing and education more accessible. While well-intentioned, these programs effectively allow individuals to borrow from their future retirement savings—a strategy that can have significant negative consequences. Ask any high school economics student, and they will tell you that compromising two of the three main elements (principle and time) in investing growth will lead to a disappointing return. Here is the formula: principle X interest + time = compounded return. Are We Borrowing From the Future to Pay for Today? The Problem with the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP): Addressing Housing Affordability at the Expense of Retirement The HBP permits individuals to withdraw up to $60,000 from their RRSP to buy a first home. In an environment of rising house prices, this measure may help buyers cobble together a down payment, but it drains retirement funds. The funds are unavailable to grow tax-free over decades, diminishing the compounding returns essential for retirement security. The Problem with the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP): Financing Education by Sacrificing Retirement The LLP allows up to $20,000 in RRSP withdrawals to fund education, which can help individuals upskill. However, education often doesn’t yield immediate returns, and the withdrawn funds lose their growth potential, including the compounded returns. Why This Harms Future Retirees Issue #1: Loss of Compounding Growth Withdrawals disrupt the power of compounding, which is vital for retirement savings. For example, $35,000 left in an RRSP for 25 years at a 6% annual return could grow to over $150,000. If that same $35,000 were withdrawn 15 years ago and repaid over the same period as required by the HBP program, it would be worth $54,311, a loss of $95,689 Issue #2: Repayment Struggles While repayments are required, life’s expenses (mortgage, childcare, loans) often make it hard to repay on schedule. Failure to repay means the amount withdrawn is added to taxable income, further reducing the effectiveness of the programs. Issue #3: Insufficient Savings Most Canadians are already under-saving for retirement. Encouraging them to dip into their RRSPs exacerbates this shortfall. Two Different Problems.  One Harmful Solution Housing Affordability Rising house prices are driven by supply-demand imbalances, speculation, and policy failures—not a lack of down payments. Increasing the HBP withdrawal limit does nothing to address the root causes of affordability, but it may drive prices higher by giving buyers more purchasing power. Retirement Security Retirement savings should be preserved and grown to ensure financial stability in later years. Programs like HBP and LLP blur the line between short-term needs and long-term planning. Why Would our Government Do This? Political Expediency Housing affordability and access to education are politically sensitive issues. Allowing individuals to tap into their RRSPs is a cost-neutral policy for the government (unlike direct subsidies or programs). Policies like these help politicians get elected or stay in office. And in proper political form, these policies only tell half the story. Vote for us because we will help you buy your first home, which is a great campaign strategy. Vote for us because we will make it look like we help you buy your first home when, in fact, we will set up a program that will allow you to borrow from yourself at the cost of your retirement, which is political suicide. Short-Sighted Economic Policies Policymakers may believe that homeowners and educated individuals are more financially secure, even if their retirement savings are compromised. The logic might be that owning a home or having better job prospects could mitigate future hardship. Assuming Home Equity is a Safety Net The government might assume that homeownership ensures financial stability in retirement. However, this overlooks that rising housing costs often mean seniors have high debt levels or are "house rich but cash poor." The Bigger Problem with the HBP and LLP Programs: No Warnings or Education Given to Canadians Neither the HBP nor the LLP adequately informs individuals of the long-term consequences of their decisions. To make matters worse, the participants of these programs will likely realize the impact once it is too late to take action. People considering retirement are often in their late 50s to early 60s, past their prime saving years. Borrowing from retirement accounts may seem like “borrowing from yourself,” but this lost growth can never be recouped. Many Canadians are not well enough informed to assess these trade-offs, leading to decisions that harm their financial future. In Case You’re Thinking, These Seniors Have Inadequate Savings - But at They At Least their Homes. The HBP and LLP programs may reflect a government view that seniors would be better off owning a home than relying solely on inadequate savings. But this is flawed for a number of reasons: A home is not a liquid asset—it cannot pay for groceries or healthcare. Also,  Seniors with insufficient retirement savings often need help with financial distress despite owning property. They sometimes need reverse mortgages or sell their homes out of desperation. An Unfortunate Misguided Solution Rather than “quick fixes” that appear to solve immediate challenges while creating long-term problems, the Federal government should instead focus on longer-term, systemic solutions For housing: Governments need to curb speculative investments and provide targeted assistance for first-time buyers. Plus they need to focus on programs that increase housing supply, such as income tax incentives for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These units could be rented out or used for caregivers. Or adopt a policy allowing first-time home buyers to not pay tax on their first $250,000 of income. First-time home buyers could use the tax savings as a down payment. For Education: Governments need to expand grant programs and low-interest loans to prevent reliance on retirement funds.  This will not only help us increase the number of skilled workers to fill critical gaps in vital sectors such as technology, healthcare engineering and the trades.  It will also contribute to a higher GDP and build a more sustainable tax base for future generations. Encouraging Canadians to steal from their future is not a sustainable strategy. Retirement savings should be viewed as sacred - not a piggy bank for solving unrelated issues. Don’t Retire … Re-Wire! Sue

Annual Healthy Georgia Report looks at public health in the Peach State

The fourth edition of the “Healthy Georgia: Our State of Public Health” report has been released by the Institute of Public and Preventive Health in Augusta University’s School of Public Health. Within the 64 pages of the report is a snapshot of how healthy Georgians are compared to citizens across the 12 states that make up the Southeastern Region (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia) and the entire United States. The 2025 edition addresses 31 health topics and has been expanded this year to include multimorbidity; long COVID-19; HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis infection rates; opioid and methamphetamine drug use; suicides; and vaping. Biplab Datta, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Health Management, Economics, and Policy in SPH, heads up the team of IPPH faculty and staff who create the report each year. Datta credits Jen Jaremski, research associate, and Kit Wooten, public health analyst, with handling much of the work of bringing the report to life. Together, Jaremski and Wooten collected and organized all of the needed assets and organized the 64-page document, preparing it for print and the web. “Every year we strive to present data in a way that policymakers may find helpful in making policy choices,” Datta said. “There are several new topics that were added to this year’s report and some of those are concerning for the state of Georgia, particularly the communicable diseases like HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. High prevalence rates of these conditions in Georgia, compared to the rest of the U.S. and the Southeastern Region, warrant attention of the public health community.” Georgia has the second-highest rate of HIV infections in the U.S., fourth-highest rates of gonorrhea, sixth-highest for chlamydia and 13th for syphilis. Something that is also new in this year’s report is a comparison of numbers from 2019, or before the COVID-19 pandemic began, compared to after the pandemic for certain conditions. Also coming out of the pandemic, the report looks at how long COVID has affected Georgians, with the state ranking 24th in the nation for rates of long COVID. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long COVID is defined as a chronic condition that occurs after COVID-19 infection and is present for at least three months. On top of looking at comparisons between Georgia and the Southeast and the nation, Datta noted a clearer picture is starting to emerge concerning the difference in urban and rural areas within the state. “For several chronic conditions, like hypertension, diabetes and multimorbidity, we clearly see a striking difference between rural and urban residents of Georgia,” Datta said. Hypertension affects 44.1% of adults in rural Georgia compared to 35% in urban areas, while diabetes affects 17.5% of adults in rural Georgia compared to 12.3% of those in urban areas. Hypertension and diabetes are major risk factors for cardiovascular disease, which affects 12.2% of adults in rural areas compared to 8.3% of adults in urban areas of Georgia. “Hypertension and diabetes are the major risk factors for heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the U.S. and worldwide, so these are some concerning numbers to see,” Datta said. Multimorbidity, which is when a person has multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, kidney disease, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, cancer, skin cancer and arthritis, affects 57.4% of adults in rural Georgia compared to 49% of adults in urban areas of the state. These rates are significantly lower than the rest of the Southeast but on par with the rest of the country. When comparing Georgia to the U.S. national average, adults in Georgia have lower rates of cancer and methamphetamine use but higher rates of childhood asthma and adult obesity. At the same time, rates of adult asthma and adult obesity among Georgians were comparable to the averages seen in the Southeast. Interestingly, while adult health insurance coverage was significantly lower than the U.S. national and Southeast Regional averages, the child health insurance coverage in Georgia was comparable to both national and regional averages. The Healthy Georgia Report is the only report of its kind in the state Looking to know more or connect with Biplab Datta, PhD? Then let us help. Dr. Datta is available to speak with media regarding this important topic. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Peer-To-Peer Borrowing Surged During Pandemic, Research Finds

New research by Florida Tech assistant professor of business Alina Malkova, Ph.D explores how small businesses sought financing amid the COVID-19 pandemic’s unstable economic environment. Her paper, “Beyond banks: Navigating the shift to peer-to-peer lending for small enterprises,” published in the journal Research in Economics, developed a model to find whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected small-business owners’ demand for peer-to-peer (P2P) lending. Malkova found that more small business owners turned to P2P platforms during this time, primarily because they were more accessible and flexible than traditional banks. Borrowers could access P2P platforms online for convenient use, and the platforms’ advanced algorithms gave lenders more information about borrowers, such as neighborhood demographics, leading to a better understanding of their financial situation. “If you are an owner or borrower and you have short-term financial problems, it may help you,” Malkova says. “It helps you signal your situation.” Ultimately, Malkova says P2P platforms played critical role in overcoming financial barriers that inhibited small businesses in times of limited access to traditional funding. If you're interested in learning more or a reporter looking to speak with  Alina Malkova - simply contact Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.

Trump, Trade and Tariffs  What to Expect, Will They Work and Who Benefits?

The threat of 25 % tariffs on Canada and Mexico had newsrooms buzzing, politicians scrambling and economists calculating who wins and who loses when trade wars break out among usually amicable neighbors. Factor in Greenland and China - and the story went global. It was a topic that headlined the news as many have watched and waited since the election for President Trump's first days in office to see what the country can expect with incoming policy changes. President Donald Trump said in an Oval Office signing ceremony Monday evening that his administration will impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada on February 1, an extraordinary change in North American trade policy that could raise prices for American consumers. Trump still outlined his broader trade policy for his second term in an executive action Monday. But that action — described by sources as a “placeholder” — doesn’t institute new global tariffs that Trump promised on Day One. As a candidate, Trump proposed sweeping and across-the-board tariffs: up to 20% on imports from all countries, with a 25% tax on goods from Mexico and Canada, plus a punishing 60% levy on goods from China. He also pledged to use tariffs as a negotiating tool on other countries, including, for example, Denmark — putting pressure on the European nation to give control of Greenland to the United States. Asked Monday at an Oval Office signing ceremony about tariffs on China, Trump noted extensive tariffs he imposed during his first administration were still in effect after former President Joe Biden largely left them in place. And on universal tariffs, Trump punted, saying, “We may, but we’re not ready for that just yet.” The executive action signed Monday directed the secretaries of Commerce and Treasury and the United States Trade Representative to investigate the causes of America’s trade deficits with foreign nations, to determine how to build an “External Revenue Service” to collect tariffs, to identify unfair trade practices and to review existing trade agreements for potential improvements. It also directs the government agencies to analyze how the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (the USMCA) signed by Trump in his first term is affecting American workers and businesses — and whether America should remain in the free trade agreement.  January 21 - CNN As business and political leaders in many countries, especially North America wait for what's ahead, there are questions to be asked: What industries will be targeted? Will tariffs cause higher prices for consumers and increased inflation? Who wins if an all-out trade war happens? How will interwoven sectors like the auto industry and agriculture be impacted? If you're a journalist covering this ongoing story - then let us help. William J. Luther, Ph.D., is an associate professor of economics at Florida Atlantic University, director of the American Institute for Economic Research’s Sound Money Project, and an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives William is available to speak with media. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

What the 2025 Tax Season May Look Like According to the IRS

The 2025 tax filing season will begin on Jan. 27. The Internal Revenue Service warns it may not be functioning as adequately due to the Republican-controlled congress rescinding IRS designated funding, causing cuts in staffing and potential technological updates to become stagnant. During the Biden administration the IRS was granted extra funding as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, passed exclusively with Democratic votes. The Trump administration has introduced a new scanning technology allowing tax returns to be filed quicker, upon the cut in previous IRS funding. This online filing system will allow taxpayers to file electronically with IRS for free, cutting out any unnecessary third party. There are concerns that the cut in funding may cause Trump's IRS updates to delay. How will the cut in IRS funding affect the 2025 tax season?  Economics expert, Dr. Jared Pincin weighs in on the discussion of how fund distribution will look under Trump administration in recent interview. Trump administration has cut funding for IRS from $80 Billion to $60 Billion through 2031. During his campaign for presidency Trump promised a reallocation for funding and distribution. How will we see Trump's policies redistribute funding?   Trump's new system, Direct File, is available in 24 states with hopes to make the 2025 tax season smoother than ever. Concerns arise that Trump's cut in funding to reallocate elsewhere may make his system to be come stagnant, causing delays and longer wait times for tax payers. Will Trump's new tax filing system make the 2025 tax season smoother or another nightmare?  President-elect Trump promised stricter tariffs on manufacturing industries and more aggressive industrial policies. Rescinding IRS funding is just the beginning of Trump's reallocation of funding. How will we see the change in funding affects businesses? If you are covering the the U.S. economy during the Trump administration and need to know more, let us help with your questions and stories. Dr. Jared Pincin is an expert on economics and is available to speak to media regarding the Trump administration and the economy – simply click on his icon or email mweinstein@cedarville.edu to arrange an interview.

Are Trump's Economic Reforms Obsolete After Biden Administration

President-elect Donald Trump campaigns were filled with promises of economic reform including strict import tariffs, strict immigration curbs, and deregulation. However, reports reveal the current economic state of the US may not be needing the president's aggressive reform. Trends reflect a strong economy with low unemployment rate; prompting concerns that Trumps policies could disrupt the economic growth. Trump will be taking office next week with a much different economic circumstances compared to his first term in 2017. Does the economic changes since Trump's first term make his reforms obsolete or even dangerous? Economics expert, Dr. Jared Pincin weighs in on the discussion of the economy during the Biden administration in a recent interview. There has been an increase of individuals getting second jobs or "side hustles" especially in the Gen Z generation. As the need for an extra income source increased the unemployment rate has decreased. Are the lowered unemployment rates just a reflection of an economy that won't allow citizens to live on one paycheck? Although the economy that Trump will be inheriting show positive changes since his first term in 2017, there are concerns that can not be ignored. Trumps expansionary policies can incite inflation if the economy is not calling for his aggressive reforms. How will Trump's administration reap the benefits of the Biden administration while preventing an economic crisis? The economy appears to be performing well, especially over the past year. These reports come in during Trump's promises of reform. Are these reforms going to strengthen the economy or are they proof of Trumps disconnect with the current economic health? If you are covering the the U.S. economy during the Trump administration and need to know more, let us help with your questions and stories. Dr. Jared Pincin is an expert on economics and is available to speak to media regarding the Trump administration and the economy – simply click on his icon or email mweinstein@cedarville.edu to arrange an interview. Jeff Haymond, Ph.D. is Dean, Robert W. Plaster School of Business Administration and a Professor of Economics at Cedarville and is an expert in finance and trade. Dr. Haymond is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.

Preparing for Tariffs

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office in January, many business owners are preparing for his proposed economic plan to install tariffs on all imported goods. He has also spoken of a plan to add additional tariffs on imports from countries such as China. There is concern that imposing such tariffs would raise the cost of everyday goods in the United States. Looking forward, what are the potential risks and benefits of Trump's tariff plan? Economics expert, Dr. Jared Pincin, recently weighed in on this discussion. Here are three key details from his latest interview: A tariff is a tax on imports. Trump has stated that on his first day in office, he will put a 25% tax on all products coming in from Canada and Mexico. Will this effectively raise revenue without impacting consumers? If these tariffs are actually put into place, Pincin states that they do have the potential to put upward pressure on prices. How would this affect not only consumers, but also business owners? And what can business owners do to prepare for this possibility?  Trump has proposed that tariffs will deter the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, with tariffs putting pressure on countries like Mexico and China. What is the chance that these countries react with their own retaliatory tariffs? If you are covering the the U.S. economy during the Trump administration and need to know more, let us help with your questions and stories. Dr. Jared Pincin is an expert on economics and is available to speak to media regarding the Trump administration and the economy – simply click on his icon or email mweinstein@cedarville.edu to arrange an interview.

NYS Lags Behind in Payouts to Help Unemployed, Injured Workers

Gregory DeFreitas, professor of economics and director, Center for Study of Labor and Democracy, was interviewed by Newsday for a story on a report from the New York State Comptroller’s Office that shows that the state lags behind others when it comes to cash payouts for several social safety net programs meant to help unemployed or injured workers. Dr. DeFreitas explained that the state’s unemployment benefits system was challenged during the COVID-19 pandemic. The state still owes the federal government $6.2 billion in debt from borrowing funds to pay out a record number of unemployment claims spurred by pandemic job losses, according to the report. “We’re only one of three states in debt like that,” Dr. DeFreitas said. “What that means is we really can’t raise benefits until we repay that $6.2 billion or raise taxes.”

Study: Intuitive introverts lead the most successful teams

An unwritten law of leadership states the loudest voices in the room are not always the wisest. Some of history’s most notable and successful leaders were known introverts who wrangled loads of information for sizable teams: Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey, to name a few. New research from the University of Delaware found introverted leaders who rely on intuition to handle this large bundle of information lead the most successful teams. The research, co-authored by professor Dustin Sleesman, explored the concept of intuition and when it's helpful for leaders who are in charge of large teams. Sleesman and his co-authors from Michigan State University studied more than 3,000 U.S. Air Force captains at a military base in Alabama. As part of their leadership training, the captains participated in a team-based battlefield simulation, which gave the researchers an opportunity to observe and analyze their behavior. Sleesman and his co-authors accurately predicted that teams performed better when their leaders were armed with high amounts of information. But they made two interesting findings they didn't expect:  • Introverted leaders led more successful teams when intuitively handling large amounts of information. • Intuitive leaders, in general, led more successful teams when they had to handle a lot of information. "Introverted people tend to be more reflective, more introspective, they tend to be more observational than extroverted leaders," Sleesman said. "So pairing intuition with introversion tended to be very effective for team performance." Sleesman, an associate professor of management in UD's Lerner College of Business & Economics, studies the psychology of decision-making, negotiation and conflict resolution, as well as team effectiveness. To set up an interview, click on the link below.