What Moneyball looks like, without Brad Pitt.

We’ve all heard stories in the news about corrupt high standing officials that have received bribes, bribed others, and had dealings with questionable women. But what does corruption tell us? Let’s examine what we can learn from corruption using another good ole American pastime shall we? Baseball.

            First, do we even care about corruption in North America? I mean sure, we hear about it here and there, sometimes the reaches of it might come frighteningly close to us, but in general on large time scales it may seem as if our lives are not greatly affected by corruption. But are we just North America anymore? Thing is, we’re not. Canada just entered a new dairy and meat trade agreement with the European Union, our pipeline dealings with the United States, and the climax of critical consumerism all point to a homogenous exchange of finances between us and the world. One trillion dollars, according to the World Bank Institute, are the bribes paid in one fiscal year, and those are just the ones that were caught.

 Corruption is defined as the “misuse of public office for private gain”, in other words, tax dollars= why Rob Ford was caught so late in the game. So I hope you caught that the right answer is yes, we should care about corruption.

            But back to the baseball metaphors, so when do we play baseball? When it’s baseball season of course. So when do we care most about corruption, elections. Let’s start with the three bases; municipal, provincial and federal, rounded by politicians usually in that order, and available to steel if the occasion is right. Findings by Lee and Guven (2013) cite that the higher your political orientation the less likely you are to offer and accept bribes. When you’re already deep into the game, there’s no point in steeling a base and potentially losing it all. This might bring you some relief at federal elections, but might make it harder for you to cast a ballot at municipal ones. Don’t lose faith, corruption has been found to strongly be linked to risk taking behavior. So if a candidate seems risky, impulsive or confrontational, you may be motivated to dig deeper into their platform just to be sure before casting your ballot.

Corruption, also like baseball can be explained by a delicate melding of mathematics and culture. You might be raising your brows in query; however recent studies have shown that just like other human past times corruption is not immune to the influences of gender and cultural norms. For example, did you know that rich men are more likely to offer bribes, while rich women are more likely to be bribed? Why is that? Is life a big game made up of pitchers and catchers? Female politicians always carry a heavy burden because in western culture there are still stigmas against females in politics, does this finding comfort of caution you? Are women more likely to accept bribes to carry out the motives of others, or are they less likely to bribe and gain their ground fairly instead. Only you as the voter have the power and the perspective.

However, in general females are less susceptible to corruption than males, studies have shown a trend that women are more likely to condemn taking bribes than men. This also has a cultural link. North America is characterized as a masculine society, in that we promote our males to be ambitious, competitive and above all successful. This pressure encourages risk behavior by threatening a person’s ‘masculine identity’. Questioning an official’s political motivations, his marriage or his expenditures are all ways that opponents seek to undermine a candidates influence over voters. Nothing wreaks more of political rough housing than being accused of batting for the other team either.

Also theorized by Lee and Guven (2013), the higher the reward for engaging in acts of corruption the more likely you are to participate in it and dismiss the consequences, such as being caught or going to prison. Furthermore if you have strong feelings against bribery and are offered a bribe, you are more likely to offer one in the future than someone who has never been approached about bribery at all (Lee & Guven, 2013).

The problem with corruption is that even when it happens, people aren’t always caught and when they are the consequences don’t always match the crime. I mean sure we have umpires like the Senate that try to be impartial, but even then the time lag between crime and consequence is so far apart. So we need all the tips and tricks we can muster to help us figure out which box to check on our ballots before we strike out and land ourselves a benchwarmer playing the big game.

            Using this information we as general citizens are able to develop extra insight into potential political candidates and consider our precious votes accordingly. So the next time we approach baseball season, get your tickets early. Watch a few debates; give yourself the time to read multiple papers perspectives on each candidate, instead of creeping Facebook creep party websites. We’re approaching a time when critical decisions about the future of our resources and economy are having more and more impact, and the science of economic psychology is becoming more and more relevant. Yes, that does mean an increase in effort on your part but do you really want to give up your small piece of the political pie? Because as the saying goes, if there’s grass on the field, play ball!

Pavlina Faltynek

Lee, W.-S., & Guven, C. (2013). Engaging in corruption: The influence of cultural values and contagion effects at the microlevel. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 287–300. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2013.09.006

Attractive or Simply Average? Why Not Both?

         It is no secret that North American society places a seemingly unhealthy emphasis on appearance. Magazine stands are packed with covers displaying photo-shopped celebrities, fitness shortcuts, beauty tips designed to make us question our own attractiveness, and solutions to a problem we didn't even know we had (while selling a few magazines in the process). It may be easier for some to shrug off this unhealthy obsession with appearances, but it's nearly impossible to entirely dismiss the idea that we may be judged by others based on our appearance. This is because we are. Research has found that children who are rated unattractive are also judged by both adults and other children as less well-adjusted, socially appealing, and even academically competent (Langlois et al. 2000). Although it may be easy to dismiss judgments based on attractiveness as shallow and superficial, there is evidence that our attractiveness may impact our interactions with friends and colleagues. With this in mind, the question is: what makes us attractive to one another? The answer may reside in our often lazy brains.

         When it comes to selecting a romantic partner it is no surprise that people generally prefer individuals with attractive faces over their less attractive counterparts. There has been a lot of research into the psychology behind perceptions of attractiveness, particularly into the affect of average and symmetrical faces. While it seems intuitive that people would prefer symmetry over asymmetry, why would we prefer an average face to one unique in its beauty? According to researchers at the University of Texas, this appreciation for an “average” looking face may stem from the ease with which we process facial features.

         Recent research by Trujilo, Jankowitsch, and Langlois (2013) has proposed that average faces (prototypes created using features from 32 different faces) appear to be processed faster than faces of real people that were rated as attractive or unattractive. By using brain imaging technology to understand what is going on in our heads when we are presented with faces varying in ratings of attractiveness, researchers have proposed that average faces are more easily processed than their attractive and unattractive counterparts. Not only were the average faces processed faster by

individuals' brains, but these artificially created “average” faces were also rated as more attractive than the attractive faces of actual individuals. Additionally, individuals categorized the average and attractive faces as human faster than unattractive faces, which further supports the idea that attractive and average faces are simply easier for our brain to process and categorize. So what does this mean for those of us who sit in line at the grocery store and get down on ourselves while we contemplate our own looks compared to the standards presented by digitally enhanced celebrities?

         First and foremost, this research should cause us to question the importance of attractiveness. Is it really all that important that a person looks similar to some mash-up of every face we've ever seen in our lives? Should we really be catering to our lazy brains, and moving towards some standard of beauty that ignores our genetic heritage and the uniqueness that sets us apart from the crowd? Looking across a university campus you'd think that the consensus was 'yes' to both of these questions. Students dress similarly, style their hair similarly, and even groom themselves similarly.

         So should we all just break down and try to fit in with the crowd? Well if our goal is to be perceived as competent on first impressions, research seems to suggest that we should tug on our Ugg boots, pop on our faux fur-lined hooded jackets, and practice our perfectly average look in the mirror. However, we should all keep in mind that first impressions give way to deeper contemplation and appraisal by our peers. No amount of 'averageness' can save you if you aren't really that competent socially adjusted young go-getter you first appeared to be. Our brains may initially like what is easily categorized, but after first-impressions are finished with, we begin to appreciate the uniqueness of the person we are associating with. Long-lasting relationships cannot be maintained by first impressions alone, and as we get to know one another those unique characteristics that interfered with our easy categorization may not be perceived as unattractive, but as the features that make us who we are. After all, it's the freckles, wacky hair and crooked grins that let us differentiate one another, and it is these “unattractive” features that we come to love about one another. It's not the average face of every man or woman that we find attractive, but the face of that one person that fills our heart with love and desire.

        So the next time you're perusing magazines with a friend who asks if you think some digitally remastered celeb is gorgeous, you can simply smile and say “Nah, pretty average.”

-Chad Buckland

Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000).

        Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological bulletin, 

        126(3), 390.

Trujillo, L. T., Jankowitsch, J. M., & Langlois, J. H. (2013). Beauty is in the ease of the beholding: A

        neurophysiological test of the averageness theory of facial attractiveness. Cognitive, affective &

        behavioral neuroscience.