ABA Journal Blawg 100!
We Participate In:
Archive for the ‘Beliefs & values’ Category
“I punish you because you harmed him!”
Humans appear to be the only species who are willing to punish others who lie, cheat, steal or violate social norms even when they [the punisher] were personally unharmed or don’t stand to directly benefit from punishing the wrong-doer. The practice is called “third-party punishment”. Ironically, punishment itself is thought to have a foundational role in maintaining the level of cooperation in our modern societies. We obey rules and cooperate with each other to avoid punishment.
New research by neuroscientists [Buckholtz & Marois, 2012] indicates that we make decisions to punish bad behavior based on an evaluation of the actions and mental intentions of the criminal defendant. Rather than being impartial decision-makers who employ logic and rationality–much of our motivation for punishing seems to be driven by our own negative emotional reactions to the harm caused by the criminal behavior.
The researchers indicate that our amygdala (the part of the brain associated with emotional responses) causes us to combine our emotional responses to the actual behavior with the evidence we have about the situation itself. In other words, a juror has to integrate the information on their sense of the defendant’s mental state and the amount of harm done, with their own emotional reaction to the crime itself. So how do we keep the input from the amygdala (i.e., the strongly emotional input) from over-riding the evidence?
This is a constant tension in pre-trial research. We routinely see jurors that argue based on rationality and those who argue based on emotionality. We want to identify the most persuasive arguments for both positions and weave them into an ultimately effective trial narrative. But it’s about the brain. Our brains do things automatically. We are regularly reminded of this as we monitor the ever-increasing “my brain made me do it” defenses. Those defenses focus on ‘differences’ in the brain during the criminal act that (they believe) absolve the defendant of responsibility for their criminal behavior.
A recent fMRI-based Japanese study [Yamada, et al.], focused instead on what is occurring in the brain of the juror as they weigh ‘mitigating circumstances’ in a fact pattern that involves murder. Their results support the decision-making model proposed by Buckholtz & Marois in showing via the fMRI results, how various areas of the brain “light up” when sympathy enters into decision-making regarding punishment for the crime of murder.
In the Japanese study, the researchers identified several reactions in the brains of participants when given information on actual Japanese murders, mitigating circumstances for the defendants, and when asked to decide a punishment. Researchers watched as sympathy lit up different areas of the brain [e.g., the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, precuneus and temporo-parietal junctions] than did decision-making regarding sentencing [e.g., the precuneus and anterior cingulate cortex]. The researchers report that mitigation appears to be based on negative emotional responses to murder, sympathy for mitigating circumstances, and the cognitive control to determine length of the punishment.
In plain English, decision-making was not a strictly rational process, but incorporates emotional judgments as well. We have known for years that Aristotle was simply wrong when he said, “The law is reason, free from passion.”. Or perhaps Aristotle was right about the “law” itself but not about how it is applied in serious disputes.
We are a people of both reason and passion. The law reflects reason and our interpretation of that law, combined with our life experiences and visceral reactions to the event, often reflects a complex combination of our reason and our passions. We know some groups of jurors have more sympathy for mitigating circumstances. We know some prefer a Dragnet approach to justice: “Just the facts, ma’am”.
In any group of twelve, you are likely to have those swayed by sympathy and those determined to apply the evidence to the law without regard for sympathy. What these two very different studies have to say to us is that all of us make decisions based on both evidence and emotion. Telling stories that speak to both ends of the continuum always serve us well, as your jury is bound to include both types.
Buckholtz, J., & Marois, R. (2012). The roots of modern justice: cognitive and neural foundations of social norms and their enforcement Nature Neuroscience DOI: 10.1038/nn.3087
Yamada M, Camerer CF, Fujie S, Kato M, Matsuda T, Takano H, Ito H, Suhara T, & Takahashi H (2012). Neural circuits in the brain that are activated when mitigating criminal sentences. Nature Communications, 3 PMID: 22453832
Everyday racism: A comparison of African American and Asian American Women
There’s some intriguing new research out looking at how members of different cultures respond to overt racism. Think of your stereotypes of African American women and Asian American women. Now, think of which group you would predict would respond directly to racism and which group you would predict would be more likely to respond indirectly. If your stereotypes are like most, you likely concluded African American women would respond directly (be more confrontational about it) and Asian American women would respond indirectly (be less confrontational, more retiring).
And you would be right–at least according to this research. But the answer to the ‘why’ is pretty intriguing. Research is growing related to the negative impact of “everyday racism” on physical and mental health. Yet there is no research directly comparing different cultural or ethnic groups and their response to racism.
Researchers chose to compare African American women to Asian American women in their responses to racist comments by strangers.
Their interpretation of African American culture was that it may encourage women to engage in direct confrontation of racism. African Americans may also have a cultural norm of confronting racism as an act of social responsibility.
On the other end of the continuum, Asian American culture may well encourage women to have less assertiveness in interpersonal interactions in order to maintain harmony in the interaction. This results in common coping strategies of avoidance or accommodation. Asian American culture also endorses ‘self-silencing’ among women (to appear quiet, nonthreatening and compliant).
These researchers wanted to see if these stereotypes regarding the African American community norms and the Asian American community norms would find expression under scientific scrutiny. Naturally, they conducted a pair of studies to examine the question.
The first study showed African American women more likely than Asian American women to confront racist statements during an instant messaging interaction on interracial dating. The more racist African American women saw the comments as being, the more likely they were to confront the perpetrator.
In their second study, Asian American women were more likely than African American women to say they would either not respond to a racist statement or that they would respond indirectly. Asian American women reported a desire to “keep the peace” in their response to racist comments.
In both studies, there was no difference in the internal level of intensity with which the women [regardless of race] experienced the level of racism inherent in the interaction. Both African American and Asian American women saw the interactions as both racist and hurtful. They simply chose a different external reaction.
The researchers point to prior research saying that African Americans [both men and women] who do not confront racism end up with higher levels of anxiety and depression as they internally reproach themselves for not confronting the racist behavior. They hypothesize that these differing responses to racism for African American and Asian American women can be healthy for each as they are reinforced by cultural socialization.
In other words, African American women who confront racism directly are in line with their predecessors who confronted discrimination. Asian American women who do not confront racism directly are acting consistently with their heritage which emphasizes peaceful relations.
So what does this mean for litigation advocacy?
First, it serves as a reminder [one we hope is growing less necessary] to avoid racist statements or eliciting racist sentiments or testimony on direct exam.
Second, it tells us racist statements are offensive to women of both African American and Asian American descent and that we can’t always predict whether the external reaction will be direct or indirect–but there will be a reaction.
And third, it is a worthwhile reminder that while cultural awareness and sensitivity is always worthwhile, you might have to take it on faith that there is a cost to racist behavior that might not become immediately apparent. Whether the person immediately reacts to it or not, the impact is negative and lasting.
There remain times when, for purposes of litigation advocacy, it is better to talk about race and times it is better to stay silent. Like Martin Luther King, Jr., we hope that one day strategies like this won’t work anymore.
Lee, EA, Soto, JA, Swim, JK, & Bernstein, MJ (2012). Bitter reproach or sweet revenge: Cultural responses to racism. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin.
When good leadership goes wrong
Monty Python fans recall the optimistic pluckiness of the black knight who threatens King Arthur even after being completely de-limbed. “It’s only a flesh wound!” he chirps and asks Arthur to walk over to where the knight has fallen so he can bite King Arthur’s legs. King Arthur refers to him as a “lunatic” but also kindly agrees to call the one-sided duel “a draw” in recognition of the misguided pluck of the black knight.
Many of us have been in the role of the black knight in an organization. We want to do well. We don’t want to give up. We want to see our organization and our mission positively. But sometimes, we have to take that big tin can off our heads so we can see clearly. And every once in a while, we have to take a stand. It can be a quixotic mission. Or it can be a revolution.
It is axiomatic that leadership has a potential dark side. More contemporary examples of the “dark side” of leadership can be seen in the Enron implosion and even the Wall Street collapse. A leadership blog describes the “dark side” of leadership this way:
“It is sometimes called “the shadow.” This is the part that is negative and can create toxic environments. Characteristics can include greed, jealousy, envy, excessive competition, defensiveness, manipulation, … the list goes on. It is when the ego gets control of us and starts leading our thoughts and behaviors.”
It isn’t that the “dark side” stems from only negative or bad traits–quite the opposite. It can actually stem from good traits that simply become too strong and trip over into what might be called “tragic flaws”. Getting “carried away” with the power of leadership can be a very bad thing. And that, in turn, can be a very bad thing for your organization, your firm, your members, and your employees.
So how do you avoid this leadership trap?
Maintain trusted advisers who are not in your leadership circle. Get real feedback so you don’t live in a bubble of only those who agree with you or see things from your skewed perspective.
Curb your suspiciousness lest you find yourself in the awkward position of calling your followers/members dissenters when your leadership group, in truth, are the ones dissenting while the organization is in agreement.
Honor service and honor your members/employees. Recognize the loyalty of ‘loyal opposition’ and embrace positive diversity of views. You don’t have to agree with everyone. But you can honor their service to your firm or organization. No one likes to see leaders that deride or minimize members/followers. Be respectful. Keep critical and devaluing comments about individuals to yourself.
Give credit where credit is due. Great leaders do not create themselves. Their words and their behaviors spark commitment to “do good” among others. Fan the spark by acknowledging contributions.
And yet, when you are a leader, be unafraid to do the right thing. Just make sure it really is the right thing. If you wonder, act cautiously, and risk erring on the side of graciousness.
It seems only fitting that this post is going up on the week in which we honor Martin Luther King, Jr. Here is an example of a man who was not perfect by any means, yet he inspired a huge cultural change. Being a leader isn’t easy. But it shouldn’t hurt those who choose to follow you.
Conger, J. (1990). The dark side of leadership Organizational Dynamics, 19 (2), 44-55 DOI: 10.1016/0090-2616(90)90070-6
The incompetence stereotype: “Black people have less leadership competence”
You know. Black folks. They are not as intelligent, determined or decisive. They just are not good leaders. When a black leader performs poorly–this stereotype is used to explain the poor performance. But, when a black leader performs well–this stereotype is less useful. Then, we are likely to attribute “compensatory attributes” to the exceptional black leader–”oh, he has ‘survival skills’” or “she is especially warm”–rather than attributing the individual’s success to actual leadership competence. The core competency is still not recognized by the success– it is explained away instead.
These stereotypes are like any other–they allow a simplistic cognitive shortcut that results in a leap to a negative evaluation based on skin color rather than actual behavior. Researchers wanted to test this belief and so looked at press reactions to college football quarterbacks (31 black and 82 white). They asked coders (who knew nothing about the purpose of the study) to rate media reactions to the quarterbacks as positive or negative and to assess the leadership interpretation of the media content (i.e., competence or compensatory adjectives or adverbs).
They found (no surprises here) that the use of the incompetence stereotype or the compensatory talents depended on whether the quarterback won or lost. Further, while different stereotypes were used when black athletes won or lost–the same was not true for white athletes.
When black quarterbacks lost, they were more likely described as an incompetent leader than losing white quarterbacks. When winning, there was no difference between descriptions of the black and white quarterbacks.
When black quarterbacks won, they were often praised for athleticism–much more often than were white quarterbacks.
In other words, black success is perceived as coming from superior athletic skills, while white success comes from smarts and leadership ability. The researchers (publishing in a management journal) say that leadership and organizational success for blacks is less tied to leadership ability than to perceptions that they are lucky or have some compensatory attribute that stands in for actual competence. They recommend black leaders challenge these sorts of stereotypes by showing examples of successful leadership and perhaps even circulating “individuating information” about their personal accomplishments and skill sets in order to provide context.
In the law firm, you need to look at metrics first–when comparing a black partner and a white partner with equivalent metrics–are you rating the black partner lower? This indicates a possible issue with down-grading the black leader because of skin color. If there seems to be a gap in the leadership skills of gifted black attorneys or paralegals, take a second look. Consider whether the problem is also influenced by a culture that expects gifts of one kind, but is resistant to seeing talents of other types. Or coworkers who make minority leadership more difficult. Pay attention to making your firm evaluative scale measures the concrete and behavioral rather than the subjective (and thus prone to biases).
We write a lot about bias here. And whether that bias is about gender, age, race, disability, or something else–what’s important is recognizing it and choosing to act differently. The question is not if we have blind spots. We all do. The question is if we are able to outsmart those blind spots. This research provides some specific recommendations for outsmarting your blind spots when it comes to the performance evaluation of your African American professionals.
Carton, A., & Rosette, A. (2011). Explaining Bias against Black Leaders: Integrating Theory on Information Processing and Goal-Based Stereotyping. The Academy of Management Journal, 54 (6), 1141-1158 DOI: 10.5465/amj.2009.0745
“I feel pretty, oh so pretty!” but I’m not shallow about it.
Natalie Wood cooed these words in the musical West Side Story years ago–well, at least the first clause of our title. And now, fifty years later, science is reminding me of that old song.
It’s a long-standing tenet of social psychology that we tend to see physically attractive people more positively. Yet, at the same time, we often see the beautiful as shallow and vain. Thankfully, science has come to our rescue by examining whether the beautiful really are shallow.
Researchers had ‘judges’ [3 male, 3 female, and all professional model recruiters in London, England] rate the attractiveness [based on photographs] of more than 100 research participants. They also had the participants complete a personality measure [the Personal Orientation Inventory] assessing “self-actualization”. You may recognize self-actualization as the peak level in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Turns out beautiful people are more self-actualized than the not-so-beautiful. Wow. And I thought beauty was skin deep.
The beautiful research subjects scored significantly higher on 7 out of 12 scales [and generally higher on all 12 scales] on the measure of self-actualization. They were significantly more inner-directed, more emotionally responsive, more spontaneous, higher in self-regard and self-acceptance, had more capacity for intimate contact and were more likely to see themselves as autonomous, independent, and self-sufficient. It just isn’t fair.
The researchers chalk this result up to the positive feedback and reactions experienced throughout life by the beautiful. These reactions are internalized so that the beautiful person is more confident, assertive and in general, more “self-actualized” or psychologically accepting of themselves. So it likely isn’t that the more attractive are “born” more self-actualized but that their experiences throughout life make them more self-accepting and confident.
What does that say about jury selection? More confident and self-assured jurors tend to speak up more, and assert their views more authoritatively. If it can be assumed that physically attractive people have more of these tendencies, a juror who would otherwise be expected (by age or socio-economic status) to be low-impact might be a surprisingly compelling voice.
It’s also an interesting finding to ponder when considering witness preparation strategies. We need to help witnesses be seen as more likable, credible, truthful and confident (all contribute to a sense of attractiveness) and so perhaps we are working from the opposite end of the spectrum from these researchers. That is, are we perhaps helping the not-necessarily-attractive to seem more attractive by helping them to exhibit characteristics of self-actualization? Now that is sort of cool.
Ivtzan, I., & Moon, HS (2008). The beauty of self-actualisation: Linking physical attractiveness and self-fulfillment. European Journal of Psychology, 4 (4)
See complete article here.
Recent Comments