We’ve written a few times about new research on Asian-Americans and so were eager to see a new chapter in a book on ethnic pluralism and its role in the 2008 election. It’s an intriguing treatise on the amazing diversity in the Asian-American community (composed of at least nine ethnic groups and 11 different religious affiliations).
“Asian-American” doesn’t mean one thing. It means many things. According to the chapter authors (So Young Kim and Russell Jeung), Asian-Americans are unique among American ethnic groups in that they do not predictably act as either a racial bloc or a religious bloc. Asian-Americans do not share a religious faith and 27% do not follow any religion per se. And despite their high levels of education and income–they are not particularly politically involved. In fact, Asian-Americans may have lower levels of voting than other ethnic groups (although it is hypothesized this could shift as the various Asian-American groups log in more time in the US and begin establishing a stronger pan-ethnic identity).
What is especially interesting to us is that the authors found patterns in voting among Asian-Americans during the 2008 Presidential elections. Overall, Asian-Americans were more likely to support Barack Obama during the 2008 elections than Caucasian voters with similar incomes and religious affiliations. However, within the Asian-American group, there were subgroup patterns that call out for recognition:
Asian-Americans who were agnostic, atheist, Hindu or Muslim were more likely to vote for Barack Obama (and were also reportedly more liberal).
Asian-Americans who were Protestant and Catholic and more conservative also supported Obama. (You weren’t expecting that were you?)
Finally, Vietnamese-Americans (many of whom are Catholic) were more likely to vote for John McCain.
Another important descriptor the authors use is disenfranchised. Many Asian-Americans feel they are not valued (and truly, they have not been studied to the extent of other ethnic groups in this country) and this is likely an important variable to consider in terms of identification with your case.
Religion, Race, and Barack Obama’s New Democratic Pluralism is a data-dense book with an emphasis on political shifts and ideology based on ethnicity (featuring chapters on mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Seculars, Women, African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian-Americans). What is most interesting from a litigation advocacy perspective is that this chapter shows us that we know a lot less than most of us think we know about Asian-Americans. There is not a blanket description of the Asian-American just as there is not a blanket description of American women, African-Americans, American Muslims or Jews, disabled people or other identifiable groups.
It’s a terrific reminder to not assume and to maintain curiosity about those different than us. They can often surprise you.
So Young Kim, Russell Jeung. 2012. Asian Americans, Religion and the 2008 Elections (Chapter 11). In Religion, Race, and Barack Obama’s New Democratic Pluralism, Gastón Espinosa, Ed. Publisher: Routledge.
We’ve talked before about mock jurors believing they can ‘see’ who is lying, using drugs, or other negative behaviors litigants (or anyone else!) would want to keep private. Now we have new evidence that some of those jurors may have good radar—at least when it comes to being able to identify certain religious group members!
It’s easy to ‘see’ some religious affiliations, especially those whose faith involves a high degree of integration of religious obedience and daily life. Think of the Amish and other religious groups who are identifiable by attire or facial hair or turbans or robes, or the attire of some Orthodox Jews, Sufis, or Muslims. But most of us are not wearing particular clothing or neat labels identifying religious affiliation. In fact, when asked, many of us even lie about just how often we attend religious services!
Consider, for example, the religious group of Mormons. Think you could pick them out of a crowd? Maybe you think you couldn’t. But the subjects in a recent study could! Even when their hair was removed, eyes and mouth covered, and images were turned upside down. That’s pretty strange. Here’s how it worked.
Researchers examined the folklore around intuition and found strong perceptions that we can ‘know things’ about people just from their faces. We think, for example, we can identify sexual orientation, age, gender—and we are so frustrated when we cannot, or race. They cite research finding that people (both Mormon and non-Mormon) were able to identify un-labeled Mormon faces at a better than chance rate. This held true both in areas with large Mormon populations and in areas with few Mormons—although Mormons were better at identifying fellow Mormons than were non-Mormons.
Ultimately, the researchers decided to explore what it was about Mormon faces that facilitated identification to the observer. They went to fairly extensive lengths to include plain faces without piercings, extra earrings, or extreme haircuts and kept all photos within a younger age range, so as to make discrimination of Mormons/non-Mormons tough. They also had people simply observe parts of the faces (like the eyebrows) and attempt to identify the person as Mormon or not. (As you might imagine, eyebrows don’t tell you much.)
The researchers concluded that while participants were indeed able to categorize Mormons and non-Mormons more accurately than chance—they were seemingly unaware of their ability to do so. The categorization of Mormons appeared to be drawn largely from the quality of facial skin—since Mormons do not drink alcohol, smoke or drink caffeine. Participants apparently infer overall good health from what they observe of the skin and identify (accurately) the participant as Mormon. So it wasn’t so much “Mormon” they were identifying, it was the attribution of what they thought of as a Mormon trait—“healthy”.
So what does this mean for litigation advocacy? The point of this post is that we all look at very subtle cues and inform ourselves about people. We make assumptions. We doubt there will be times when you are asking a jury to identify ‘who’s the Mormon’. But you will be challenged to deal with perceptions that someone has led a healthy or unhealthy life, that they seem virtuous or dissipated.
Many of us have read the research that says we can perceive basic things about people in split seconds. Jurors do that too. They look at you. They look at your witnesses. They look at the parties. And, in the absence of other data, they form conclusions about gender, sexual orientation, good/bad habits, character, and whether you dye your own hair or have it done professionally. You need to control this interpretation by giving jurors understanding for what they see. If you do not, they will make up their own interpretations—and you have no way of knowing what they’ll ‘intuit’.
Rule NO, Garrett JV, & Ambady N (2010). On the perception of religious group membership from faces. PloS one, 5 (12) PMID: 21151864
We’ve written a number of times about the role of non-belief or of strong religious beliefs on juries and juror decision-making. The majority of research, largely based on White participants, has shown repeatedly that for White Christians, if you are an non-believer (e.g., an Atheist or a Muslim), you will be looked on less favorably than you if you were a Christian. We’ve written about countering that negative judgment at some length over in The Jury Expert.
But what about Black Christians? Will Black Christians also have a negative judgment of those who don’t share their religious beliefs? The answer, according to today’s research, is a resounding “it depends”.
The research participants were 175 Black Christian undergraduates in the United States. Seventy-six per cent were female and the average age was 19.3 years. They were shown a “target” who was named Aisha. She was “Christian, Muslim or Atheist, and either Black or White. In the Muslim condition, Aisha wore a hijab.” Participants were asked to rate Aisha on both positive and negative traits and to list the things they considered as they evaluated Aisha on these traits. They also completed demographic and personality measures assessing their “need to belong, motivation to control prejudice, social desirability, and numerous measures of religiosity”.
What this research shows is that some Black Christians will judge a nonbeliever (e.g., an Atheist or a Muslim) more negatively than they will judge a fellow Christian, but others will not take the person’s religion into account at all. Apparently, the difference is whether the individual Black Christian is “religiously conscious”. There is no standardized measure of religious consciousness and it is hard to tell exactly what that phrase means from the article itself. The authors say it refers to whether one is “conscious of the religion of others”. In other words, it relates to whether one views another in terms that include their religion, or in entirely non-religious terms.
The first and third authors “coded participant responses for explicit mentions of religion [in their description of the person being judged]; initial inter-rater reliability was 0.82 and subsequent discussion resolved all differences until the agreement reached 100%.”
Based on this method of assessing “religious consciousness”, the authors found 70 participants mentioned Aisha’s religion and 105 did not. The participants who mentioned or did not mention Aisha’s religion did not differ on demographic or personality measures. What the researchers found is this:
Only Black Christians who were religiously conscious (e.g., the 70 who mentioned Aisha’s religion) showed intergroup bias. That means the majority of the participants (e.g., the 105 who did not mention her religion) did not show any intergroup bias. (There was no significance for these participants as to whether Aisha was Black or White.)
Keep in mind that this sample may not be normative. First, most Black teenagers are not in college, which makes this sample more questionable for generalization. Second, the age of these research subjects places them firmly amidst Gen Y, a well researched group whose acceptance of out-groups such as atheists and religious minorities is higher than older people. And third, the frequency of Muslims in the African American population is more common (and possibly more accepted) than in the White American population.
Nonetheless, these findings are quite different than the patterns seen in research on White Christians (who display a strong bias in favor of those who share their beliefs). In this sample, only 40% had a more negative view of Aisha when she was an Atheist or a Muslim, than they did when she was a Christian. In this issue of The Jury Expert, Gayle Herde suggests some ways of “listening” to juror responses in voir dire to assess whether their religious beliefs are intrinsic (i.e., “religion is a way of life”) or extrinsic (“religion is a part of life”). It is possible that Herde’s distinction could explain some of the differences in “religious consciousness” but it would have to be tested with greater care for us to know.
So the answer to the question posed in the title of this post is that based upon this research, if your client is Atheist or Muslim you would prefer a Black Christian juror since they are more likely than White Christian jurors to omit the inclusion of religious beliefs in their judgment of the individual.
And, if you can figure out a way to assess whether that Black Christian is “religiously conscious” or “intrinsically religious”, you will be more clear about whether you want those particular Black Christian jurors weighing their decisions in your deliberation room.
Van Camp, D., Sloan, LR, & ElBassiouny, A. (2014). Religious bias among religiously conscious Black Christians in the United States. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154 DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2013.835708
The Jury Expert is a trial skills magazine for attorneys, written by trial consultants, and published by the American Society of Trial Consultants as a (free) service to the litigation community. The February 2014 issue just published and it was worth waiting for!
Here’s a description of what you will see in our latest issue when you visit The Jury Expert’s website:
The ABCs of Religiosity: Attitudes, Beliefs, Commitment, and Faith: Gayle Herde writes this practical article on how you can understand the role religious beliefs could play in juror deliberations. How to measure religiosity (by looking at attitudes, beliefs, commitment and faith), how to listen to responses in voir dire to “hear” religiosity without asking for direct expressions on the role of religion in a potential juror’s life, the relationship of political persuasion and religion, the role of non-belief, and how to structure your SJQ effectively.
Neuroscience, The Insanity Defense, and Sentencing Mitigation: Adam Shniderman gives us a very current, plain language review of the neuroscience arena. What does all the conflicting media coverage mean? What does the research really say? How can you best defend a client with neurological issues? This is a terrific summary of how to understand the “my brain made me do it” media coverage distortions, learn what the research actually says, and then plan accordingly.
A (Short) Primer on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Culture in America: Alexis Forbes brings us all up to date on research, why it’s important to understand this culture, and terminology. She includes helpful charts that visually demonstrate the relationships between common terms and even a “say this” and “don’t say that” graphic to help you communicate without offending. You may think you are up to date. Here’s a simple question: Do you know what ‘cisgender’ is? Go read this!
Defense Responses to Jailhouse Informant Testimony: Brittany Bates, Rob Cramer, and Robert Ray bring us this information on how to defend against allegations about your client by a jailhouse informant. From reviewing the literature to offering ideas for pre-trial research and SJQs, this is a practical article for when you are faced with damaging testimony from your client’s alleged jailhouse confidant.
Metaphors and the Minds of Jurors: We are very familiar with the power of the story model for case presentation but, according to Ron Bullis, we may not have paid as close attention to the power of the metaphor. Read this to learn how to listen for metaphors in deposition to hear (and know how to defuse) opposition arguments. This is a practical article that highlights the importance of the metaphor–how you can use the metaphor powerfully, and how you can defuse the power of opposing counsel’s metaphor.
Why Do We Ask Jurors To Promise That They Will Do the Impossible? Suzy Macpherson asks us to think about the impossibility of setting aside preconceived notions, life experiences, and values in order to be “fair and impartial”. This is a practical article that will leave you thinking about how to ask seemingly simple questions quite differently.
A new Favorite Thing: Hate spam? Especially hate how you are able to catch it at your laptop or desktop but it creeps onto mobile devices? Here’s a terrific and inexpensively priced product that will make you smile every time you get email showing you what they caught at the server level so you never have to waste time deleting spam from your smart phone or tablet again! (You are welcome.)
The Top 10 Favorite Articles from The Jury Expert in 2013! Don’t you hate it when you don’t know about something many of your friends, colleagues, and opposing counsel know? Here’s a shortcut for you: This is a list of the top 10 articles our readers (your friends, colleagues and opposing counsel) explored in 2013. Catch up quick!
As Editor of The Jury Expert, one of the real benefits for me is reading all this information first. I love learning new things and being surprised by novel ways of considering complex issues. Please visit this new issue of The Jury Expert now.
Back in early 2010, we blogged about the impact of surprise on the brain. In a nutshell, surprise makes you stop and look at situations with a new perspective. When in the courtroom, surprise can make you question your assumptions and preconceived beliefs about the case. And that is precisely what you want when your client is the “other”–that is, when your client is elderly, physically disabled, morbidly obese, hearing or visually impaired, a different ethnicity or culture, differently attired, practices a religion that is seen as “different” by the community, or any other difference that will make a difference to jurors hearing the case.
While it is politically correct to pretend we are unbiased against those who appear externally different from us, study after study after study shows it just isn’t true. But we respect objectivity, so we want to believe we are like that. (And while it can be true, it doesn’t normally happen without conscious effort.) So we were glad to see an article over at PLOSone showing that surprise can reduce prejudicial beliefs! And this is research telling us how to promote tolerance toward not just a single specific out-group, but toward multiple out-groups. Researchers refer to this ability to transfer tolerance from one specific out-group to multiple out-groups as “generalization” and to date, it (i.e., the holy grail of generalization to reduce prejudice across multiple out-groups) has been elusive. We are surprised (!) this work hasn’t had more press coverage in the litigation arena. However, it is research done in the UK (five laboratory studies) and followed up with a field test of the findings in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia–an area characterized by violent ethnic conflicts. While it is a hotbed of sectarian intolerance, research done there doesn’t get much press. Perhaps that is why it has not been applied to litigation. Until now.
The research is intriguing because the straightforward research design tested consistently reduced prejudice across six studies and with multiple out-groups (e.g., the elderly, disabled, asylum seekers, HIV patients and gay men). Not only did it reduce prejudice (and increase tolerance) during the study itself, the effect persisted outside the laboratory experiments! To make it even better, you can implement this strategy at no cost–other than spending some time (which is crucial to success in any event) considering how it could be applied to your case with your particular “other” client.
The researchers describe research related to “multiple social categorization”. You might think of our typical social categorization as “us versus them”. This sort of categorization has resulted in multiple conflicts and intolerance. What researchers are finding is that when you are forced to think of multiple ways in which you are affiliated with “them”–your attitudes toward the different other become more positive and tolerant. This is particularly effective (according to the researchers) when the multiple categories appear inconsistent with each other. They list rich student, overweight model, female firefighter, or male midwife as exemplar categories that surprise us due to apparent inconsistency.
This apparent inconsistency causes what the researchers describe as a cognitive “gear shift” as the perceiver focuses on individual characteristics of the male midwife to help resolve the perceived inconsistency. Here’s how the authors explain it:
“being compelled to think counter-stereotypically about others should induce a thinking style characterized by the tendency to abandon established routines (i.e., stereotyping), engage in generative thought, and consider individuating attitudes, regardless of the specific target group at hand.”
In other words, that “gear shift” switches the perceiver from stereotypes and biases about the “other”, to exploration of the actual individual and their unique characteristics. And that, as you might imagine, reduces bias. So. How do you cause that cognitive gear shift? By compelling counter-stereotypical thought.
Researchers simply asked the participants to generate descriptors of people that seemed to not “go together”. The participants came up with the overweight model, rich student, female firefighter, and other examples listed earlier. The descriptive pairs seem somewhat oxymoronic.
The researchers believe that when you are primed with counter-stereotypical tasks, it creates that “gear shift” and you approach problem-solving with a more creative and indirect strategy. They believe their research shows it is possible to actually “affect variables that are resistant to change such as values, personal beliefs, and attitudes by changing people’s cognitive styles”. They further opine that the generation of five examples of counter-stereotypic categories (with no specific target group defined) resulted in the generalized prejudice reduction seen in multiple studies. What you are changing is not “what” the person thinks (i.e., the content of their stereotypes) but “how” they think.
From a litigation advocacy perspective, this is not the easiest work to implement because you cannot readily give jurors a paper and pencil task to identify counter-stereotypical categories that describe people. This research talks about how to increase tolerance and reduce bias across multiple out-groups. Theoretically, we can likely agree this is a positive goal. Practically, however, your goal is to reduce bias against your specific client in this specific case. So here’s what we suggest:
Imagine an opening statement that talks about your own surprise/confusion/ embarrassment to realize that the person wasn’t only “beauty queen”, but actually a “Ivy League valedictorian super model”. Or not a retired grocer” but a retired grocer who teaches immigrant kids how to read”. Life is full of surprises, some good and some disappointing. Identify a counter-stereotypical category that describes your client or the opposition. Be careful that the description you choose for your witness or client is not one with negative connotations (e.g., “charming liar”). Then describe your client with that counter-stereotypical label. By repeatedly encouraging jurors to “shift that cognitive gear”, you are reducing bias against your client and potentially helping jurors consider facts and evidence rather than bias and fears.
Vasiljevic M, & Crisp RJ (2013). Tolerance by surprise: evidence for a generalized reduction in prejudice and increased egalitarianism through novel category combination. PloS one, 8 (3) PMID: 23483895