Archive for the ‘Beliefs & values’ Category
I listen to a lot of audiobooks while traveling. But sometimes I want something less lengthy than a full book and so I turn to podcasts. Recently, I was on a plane and turned on an episode of the NPR TED Radio Hour podcast on Why We Lie. It’s an interesting and wide-ranging look at all the reasons we lie and the research that’s been done on identifying liars. Some of it we have covered on the blog and some of it was new to me. But it was an enjoyable way to spend an hour in the middle seat of a sold-out plane.
So when I saw the research report that inspired this blog post, I wondered just how differently these researchers would perceive deception from the more entertaining TED speakers (who, in some cases, were also researchers). Today’s researchers say having a face-to-face interaction promotes honesty. And they didn’t look at face-to-face interactions where there was back and forth conversation. Instead, they did a simple hallway face-to-face where two research participants exchanged a paper form indicating their gender and age (and were then more honest with each other during the experiment than the participants who did not have that face-to-face experience).
Researchers recruited 297 participants (148 were male) to participate in a task with another research participant. In the task, participants were informed that they would “engage in a one-shot strategic game with another research participant and that their payment would depend on the choices made by both players”. Participants then circled their gender and age on a written introduction form and either saw the other participant in the hallway as they exchanged introduction forms or were informed the experimenter would deliver the introduction form to their research partner. Then the individual participants chose whether they would send a truthful or deceptive message to their partner. (The message was telling the partner to choose one of two options because it would result in their being paid more money for participation in the experiment. The participant could either tell the truth or instead, send a message that was false to their partner.)
The research found that those participants who looked at another research participant (even without speaking) were more honest than those who did not see the other participant (since the form was ostensibly delivered by the experimenter).
While this research offers a feel-good answer that we want to believe (when people look at you, it’s harder for them to lie), not all researchers agree with it. It’s an interesting example of how research can find many different things even when researching the same topic. The TED Radio Hour podcast offers a variety of findings, some of which will surprise you (like, we are more honest in email with people we know than we are when on the phone).
When you listen to the podcast, you’ll hear Dan Ariely talk about how introducing some (even small) amounts of moral accountability can increase honesty but there is a slippery slope to which all of us are susceptible. In another segment, Pamela Meyer talks about how to spot a liar and how we practice various lying strategies throughout our lives. Jeff Hancock talks about whether technology makes us more honest or not, while Michael Shermer tells us why we believe in unbelievable things. Finally, Eric Mead talks about how magicians help us see reality in a very different way. Overall, it’s a quick and easy way to get a diverse understanding of what we now know about deception. The information is not all consistent, but it is consistently interesting.
Van Zant, A., & Kray, L. (2014). “I can’t lie to your face”: Minimal face-to-face interaction promotes honesty Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 234-238 DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.014
We’ve blogged about immigration a number of times here and now it’s popped up again. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, we found a question on attitudes toward immigration successfully differentiated between Plaintiff and Defense jurors for several years. Attitudes differentiating “us” versus “them” have always had utility when anticipating some kinds of juror attitudes, but the lines seemed to become more sharply drawn after 9/11/2001. The Christian Science Monitor recently published the results of a Reuters survey on attitudes toward immigration and cited the following:
70% of Americans (and 86% of Republicans) believe that undocumented immigrants threaten traditional US beliefs and customs.
63% said undocumented immigrants place undue burden on the US economy.
45% think the number of immigrants allowed to legally enter the country should be reduced and only 17% thought the number should increase.
17% see immigration as the #1 national problem (up from just 5% in July, 2014).
The authors of the CSM article think this sudden shift may be due to the 50,000 unaccompanied children apprehended at the border since October 2013. They also suggest that these revitalized attitudes against immigration may spur Republican votes in upcoming elections. The new Pew political typology report (and our interpretation of the key Pew findings to the jury trials) certainly highlights the “issue-specific” way in which voter turnout can swing in our “new normal” political environment.
It’s as though the political landscape is becoming more like the deliberation room, wherein the attitudes, values and beliefs of those gathered together can be more important than the actual evidence presented. Some of our most vociferous and verbal mock jurors actually have very limited information on the topic at hand. We always listen carefully and question thoroughly as to why they came to their expressed belief. That process typically results in their losing ‘authority’ in the discussion, because the emptiness of their reasoning is less persuasive than their passion. But their questions and comments offer us valuable information on how to patch holes in the case narrative so their loudness will gain little, if any, traction in the (unsupervised and unobserved) deliberation room.
Just over a year ago, The Jury Expert published an article on bias and ambiguity in times of economic stress. The article was titled Does This Recession Make Me Look Black? –and it focused on how White Americans see racially ambiguous appearing others as in-group members until times are tough and then we see them as out-group members (i,e, Black). In that case, it was about multi-racial targets who were seen as White in times of economic plenty but as African-American in times of economic recession.
Today’s article looks at very similar patterns but through the lens of social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism. These are two long-studied ideas in the social sciences but they apparently have not been looked at before in terms of how we see [racially] “ambiguous others” as either “one of us” or “not one of us”. As a review, let’s briefly look at a summary of these two ideas (as presented by the researchers):
Social dominance orientation: If you are high in social dominance orientation (SDO), you favor maintaining anti-egalitarian, hierarchical relationships between social groups and favor the domination of “inferior” groups by “superior” ones.
Those high in SDO will be primarily concerned with the status of the ambiguous targets, since they are concerned about maintaining and strengthening group boundaries. High SDO people are likely to cast out those with low status (since they might bring the status of the SDOs superior group down) but to maintain the membership of [racially] ambiguous targets who have high status.
Right-wing authoritarianism: If you score high in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), you are concerned with tradition, submission to recognized authorities, and aggression toward those who violate the social norms of the in-group.
Those high in RWA will be especially sensitive to the conformity of [racially] ambiguous targets in their willingness to identify them as members of the in-group. When ambiguous targets do not conform to group norms, those with high levels of RWA would see the target as a threat to group cohesion and thus be more willing to see them as out-group members.
The researchers completed four separate studies where they used racially ambiguous targets to see how those high in SDO and/or RWA might react to them. They were curious about what drives in-group versus out-group attributions/assignments when the target is racially ambiguous. Instead of working our way through the four separate studies, we are going to skip to the findings.
Individuals high in SDO were less likely to perceive a low status ambiguous target in in-group terms. Those high in RWA were less likely to perceive a nonconformist ambiguous target in in-group terms. (These two findings were based on participant reactions to two different and highly negative news stories with racially ambiguous villains.)
Individuals high in SDO were less likely to see a target as White if they were low status rather than high status. (In this study, the participants were asked “how White the target looked”.) Those low in SDO did not differ significantly in their sense of “how White” the target appeared. The researchers saw this as reflecting the high SDO individual’s desire to resist “contamination” of their superior group with low status targets but also the desire to adopt high status targets who might enhance the status of the group to outsiders.
Those high in RWA saw targets that conformed as “more White” than targets that did not conform. For those low in RWA, there was no such relationship. The researchers saw this as the high RWA individual’s desire to maintain conformity within their group.
The results are consistent with what the article in The Jury Expert found–we welcome those that are racially ambiguous as long as we are in financial plenty (and they won’t leave us hurting for resources), or if they are high status (and will make us look good), or if they conform (and won’t make us look bad).
It’s a chilling and current assessment of race relations in America. As long as the boat doesn’t get rocked, you’re okay. If I perceive any sense of threat, you’re not okay. All the more reason, given the fickleness of our sense of whether we are threatened, to work to help jurors see your racially ambiguous or racially different client/witness/party as being as similar to the jurors as possible by using universal values in descriptions and testimony.
Kteily, N, Cotterill, S, Sidanius, J, Sheehy-Skeffington, J, & Bergh, R (2014). “Not one of us”: Predictors and consequences of denying in-group characteristics to ambiguous targets. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin
Demographic Roulette: What was once a bad idea has gotten worse. Authored by Doug Keene and Rita Handrich with a response from Paul Begala, this article takes a look at how the country has changed over the past 2 decades and our old definitions of Democrat or Republican and conservative or liberal are simply no longer useful. What does that mean for voir dire? What should it mean for voir dire? Two very good questions those.
If it feels bad to me, it’s wrong for you: The role of emotions in evaluating harmful acts. Authored by Ivar Hannikainen, Ryan Miller and Fiery Cushman with responses from Ken Broda-Bahm and Alison Bennett, this article has a lesson for us all. It isn’t what that terrible, awful defendant did that makes me want to punish, it’s how I think I would feel if I did that sort of terrible, horrible awful thing. That’s what makes me want to punish you. It’s an interesting perspective when we consider what makes jurors determine lesser or greater punishment.
Neuroimagery and the Jury. Authored by Jillian M. Ware, Jessica L. Jones, and Nick Schweitzer with responses from Ekaterina Pivovarova and Stanley L. Brodsky, Adam Shniderman, and Ron Bullis. Remember how fearful everyone was about the CSI Effect when the research on the ‘pretty pictures’ of neuroimagery came out? In the past few years, several pieces of research have sought to replicate and extend the early findings. These studies, however, failed to find support for the idea that neuroimages unduly influence jurors. This overview catches us up on the literature with provocative ideas as to where neurolaw is now.
Predicting Jurors’ Verdict Preference from Behavioral Mimicry. Authored by Matthew Groebe, Garold Stasser, and Kevin-Khristián Cosgriff-Hernandez, this paper gives insight into how jurors may be leaning in support of one side or the other at various points during the trial. This is a project completed using data from actual mock trials (and not the ubiquitous undergraduate).
Our Favorite Thing. We often have a Favorite Thing in The Jury Expert. A Favorite Thing is something low-cost or free that is just fabulous. This issue, Brian Patterson shares the idea of mind mapping and several ways (both low-tech and high-tech) to make it happen.
The Ubiquitous Practice of “Prehabilitation” Leads Prospective Jurors to Conceal Their Biases. Authored by Mykol C. Hamilton, Emily Lindon, Madeline Pitt, and Emily K. Robbins, with responses from Charli Morris and Diane Wiley, this article looks at how to not “prehabilitate” your jurors and offers ideas about alternate ways of asking the question rather than the tired, old “can you be fair and unbiased?”.
Novel Defenses in the Courtroom. Authored by Shelby Forsythe and Monica K. Miller, with a response from Richard Gabriel. This article examines the reactions of research participants to a number of novel defenses (Amnesia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Battered Women Syndrome (BWS), Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), Post-Partum Depression (PPD), and Gay Panic Defense) and makes recommendations on how (as well as whether or not) to use these defenses.
On The Application of Game Theory in Jury Selection. Authored by David M. Caditz with responses from Roy Futterman and Edward Schwartz. Suppose there was a more predictable, accurate and efficient way of exercising your peremptory strikes? Like using a computer model based on game theory? In this article, a physicist presents his thoughts on making those final decisions more logical and rational and based on the moves opposing counsel is likely to make.
We often make assumptions when discussing diversity that we all perceive a group’s diversity in the same way. Today’s research shows that simply isn’t so. That is, you and I (depending on our racial in-group) can look at the same group and you might say it is diverse while I say it is not. What makes the difference? It’s an intriguing question.
These researchers discuss how diversity means different things to different people and yet, we often discuss diversity as though “everyone ought to know it when they see it”. In other words, we often conceptualize ‘diversity’ as objective rather than as something that will vary across individuals and situations. Their belief is that racial minorities look at groups and assess whether there is anyone else in the group from their own in-group since they believe that is the best predictor of whether they would be treated fairly by the group. The researchers review the lengthy history of research and polling results showing varying perceptions of race relations by Whites and minority group members. They then focus on differences in how groups are perceived (in terms of diversity) by African-Americans and by Asian Americans.
African-Americans, say the researchers are often lower status, have more negative stereotypes and report more discrimination than do other minority groups.
Asian Americans, on the other hand, are often granted higher status and report lower levels of discrimination than other minority groups. (We would point out that just because Asian Americans report less discrimination doesn’t mean they do not experience discrimination.)
The researchers completed three separate studies to see if there were differences between African-American and Asian Americans in terms of the perception of group diversity.
Study 1 included 1,899 American (391 Asian American, 620 African-American and 888 non-Hispanic White) members of a polling panel maintained by GfK. Participants read a short statement about a large corporation forming a management team for a new project and saw a photograph of the 6 managers. The racial composition of the management team was manipulated so there were 4 conditions: the Asian representation condition had 2 Asian-Americans and 4 White managers; the African-American representation condition had 2 African-American managers and 4 White managers; the Asian + African-American condition pictured 1 Asian American, 1 African-American and 4 White managers, and the final group was composed of a WhiteOnly condition that pictured 6 White team members. Participants were asked how diverse they thought the group pictured was.
Asian Americans thought the Asian representation group more diverse than the African-American representation group. African-American participants thought the African-American representation group was more diverse than the Asian representation group. This relationship was stronger for African-American participants than for Asian American participants.
Asian-Americans saw more diversity in the Asian + African-American representation than did African-American participants. The researchers say this means Asian-Americans and African-Americans responded differently to racial minority “out-group representation”.
Study 2 included 1,080 Americans recruited by Qualtrics of which 471 were Asian American and 574 were Black. The group was 57.8% female and ranged in age from 18 to 72 years with an average age of 34 years. 13% had graduate degrees, 32% had bachelor’s degrees, 39% had some college coursework completed and 15% had completed high school or earned a GED. Some participants in this study read that a research group found prejudice and discrimination against African-Americans had increased in recent years especially in terms of employment. Others read the same article but the words “Asian Americans” replaced “African Americans”. Then they looked at either the Asian representation, African-American representation, or Asian + African-American representation photos used in the first study and rated how diverse they thought the group pictured was.
Both Asian American and African-American participants saw the teams as more diverse when it included members of their racial in-group compared to when it included members of another racial minority group. (The effect was once again stronger for African-American participants.)
The need for in-group representation to see a group as diverse was stronger for Asian-Americans who read about higher levels of discrimination against their group in the workplace. For African-American participants, however, the level of in-group representation was equally important whether they had read about higher levels of discrimination against their group or not. The researchers thought this indicated discrimination was more chronically salient for African-American participants than for Asian American participants.
Study 3 included 380 upper-level undergraduate business majors (210 non-Hispanic White and 126 Asian American). Participants read that a large company had formed a new management team and saw headshots of eight people in business attire. Altogether, there were four racial compositions for the management team: Asian Majority (5 Asian and 3 White team members), African-American Majority (5 African-American and 3 White team members), Asian + African-American diversity condition (2 Asian, 3 African-American and 3 White team members), and White Only (8 White team members). Again they were asked to rate the diversity of the team and also asked to indicate how likely they thought the team was to be able to manage discrimination issues.
Asian American participants saw each team as differently diverse. They saw the Asian + African-American team as most diverse, then Asian Majority, then African-American Majority, and finally, White Only.
White participants saw the Asian + African-American condition as most diverse and the White Only condition as least diverse but thought the Asian Majority and African-American Majority conditions were the same in terms of diversity.
This research highlights the complexity of “diversity” and the importance of assessing perceptions of different racial groups when it comes to diversity. Overall, say the researchers, African-Americans are more chronically attuned to issues about race than are Asian-Americans. Therefore, how diverse a group is seen as being depends on how many African-Americans are represented.
There are many more details to be found in this complex and nuanced work. It’s also interesting to consider in light of the research on race and death penalty juries. Perhaps part of the reason African-Americans are so sensitive to whether a group will treat them fairly is because so often they are not treated fairly. We write a lot about bias. In this line of work, we see a lot of it. This particular research helps us understand some of the nuances more fully.
Bauman CW, Trawalter S, & Unzueta MM (2014). Diverse According to Whom? Racial Group Membership and Concerns about Discrimination Shape Diversity Judgments. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin PMID: 25106545