Archive for the ‘Bias’ Category
Here’s another this-and-that post documenting things you need to know but that we don’t want to do a whole post about–so you get a plethora of factoids that will entertain your family and entrance your co-workers. Or at least be sort of fun to read and (probably) as awe-inspiring as the stack of vegetables and fruit illustrating the post.
Just don’t do it: How bringing up politics ruins your workplace
You probably know this already since many people say their Facebook feeds are a toxic combination of politics and rage these days. So. Bringing up politics up at work is now officially a bad thing. We used to think that being exposed to varying ideas in the workplace broadened all our world views. But that was before this round of extreme political polarization and the strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. Here’s a survey from Wakefield Research and workplace consultants Betterworks that gives factual information on workplace conflict surrounding politics. While reading it won’t make you feel that much better, it will certainly tell you that your own workplace is not the only one so negatively charged (and give you some tips on dealing with employees obsessively checking social media).
Can you trick narcissists into actually feeling empathy?
Recent research says yes you can—simply by reminding them to take the other person’s perspective. In short, the researchers found that those high in narcissistic traits (but not meeting diagnostic criteria) were able to demonstrate perspective-taking but they had to be directed to do so. We have talked about this when it comes to implicit racial biases so the idea is not entirely new, but it is an interesting idea that narcissists would not even consider basic empathy (i.e., imagining the other person’s perspective) unless prompted to do so.
More on beards—this time in healthcare
Just like tattoos, we have covered beards a lot here and addressed issues related to beards like women’s preferences in long-term relationships, bearded men and sexism, extra punitiveness towards bearded men, bearded experts in East Texas, genetics and your bushy beard, and even identifying the elusive lumbersexual on your jury. There is so much debate and research about beards that we’ll give you that link again so you can catch up on all things beard in this blog. Mostly the only question never adequately addressed is “what is it about beards that mobilizes any sort of attitude at all?”
This particular controversy on beards has apparently been going on since the 1800s so it is a bit surprising we don’t have something on it already. Doctors. Should they have beards? Is it a hygiene issue? Should they be able to look older, wiser, and more knowledgeable than they may be chronologically by growing a beard? Scientific American blogs has an entry telling us (among other things) that “beards retained microorganisms and toxin despite washing with soap and water” and that bearded surgeons should “avoid wiggling the face mask” to prevent bacterial contamination during surgery. There are multiple other studies cited that come down on both sides of this hygiene debate. You will want to know about this one. Even though your life won’t be improved by the debate.
We’ve also blogged about earworms a number of times (hey—it’s an important topic!) Buzzfeed recently published a list of pop songs likely to get stuck in your head—which is what an earworm is—by definition. As a public service, here is one of our top choices for “most likely to give you an earworm” pop song.
And now that you have that list of songs to give you earworms—here’s recent research giving you a “cure” for the earworm. Chew some gum! The researchers say when you are chewing gum your brain is unable to form the associations essential for the creation and maintenance of an ear worm. Okay then. We can’t say if it’s true (and apparently it doesn’t work for everyone) but go buy some gum (it’s for science).
Throwing out advances in knowledge (is that what we want to do?)
We have lived in The Age of Reason (aka the Enlightenment) since emerging from the darkness and magical thinking of the Middle Ages. A new opinion piece from Daniel J. Levitin, an educator (published at the Daily Beast) asks us to consider whether we really want to live in an era where we avoid rational thought. It’s a brief and well-written piece that will give you talking points on why a return to the Middle Ages or even the 1950s is not a goal for which we should strive.
Beaman, CP, Powell, K, & Rapley, E (2015). Want to block eagworms from conscious awareness? Buy gum! The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,, 68 (6), 1049-1057.
Hepper EG, Hart CM, & Sedikides C (2014). Moving Narcissus: Can Narcissists Be Empathic? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 40 (9), 1079-1091 PMID: 24878930
We’ve written a number of times about bias against Muslims. But here’s a nice article with an easy to incorporate finding on how to reduce bias against your female client who wears a Muslim head-covering. (In case you have forgotten, we’ve already written about head-coverings for the Muslim man.)
The graphic illustrating this post shows the variety of head-coverings Muslim women might wear and the initial findings (as to which head covering style results in the most bias) will probably not surprise you. Researchers did four studies to see how people reacted to Muslim women wearing veils. They consistently found these reactions:
Responses were more negative when the Muslim woman wore a veil of any kind compared to no veil at all.
When the various veils were compared, the niqab or burqa (where only the eyes are exposed or even the eyes are covered) were seen most negatively.
Today’s research goes beyond bias caused by face veils and looks at whether observers are able to detect deception in witnesses wearing veils (as compared to those not wearing veils). The researchers cite three fairly recent (post-2000) cases resulting in judges in the USA, the UK and Canada ruling witnesses cannot wear the niqab when testifying, in part, say the researchers, because they believed it necessary to see a person’s face to detect deception.
The researchers decided to test that assumption by comparing the ability to detect deception when a testifying witness wore a face covering veil versus when the witness did not wear a face covering veil. They ran a study in Canada with 232 participants and then a second study with participants from Canada, the UK and the Netherlands (with a total of 291 participants) and came to a perhaps surprising conclusion. While the detection of deception in unveiled witnesses was no better than chance—the same was not true for those witnesses who wore veils.
“Observers were more accurate in detecting deception in witnesses who wore niqabs or hijab than those who did not veil.”
The researchers say that (contrary to the assumptions underlying court decisions in three countries) the witness who wore a veil did not hamper lie detection—but rather improved it. Why? They make several hypotheses:
Researchers think participants in the “veiled” condition may have interpreted “eye gaze information” more accurately.
Participants had less visual information to attend to and thus were more likely to base their decisions on verbal than non-verbal information.
In short, the researchers think their participants were forced by the situation to rely more on verbal behavior and to focus their attention on the eyes of the witness in the veiled condition. This is actually consistent with the research we’ve covered in our multiple posts on deception detection research. Examples from detection research such as narrowing your focus from multiple cues to just a few or even one cue, examining eyebrows, having certain personality characteristics of your own, how much the witness uses profanity, and even how long it has been since the witness has used a bathroom, and much more are all mentioned in the research as aiding in deception detection. And then there are all of the things jurors often believe point to deception that truly do not help them to identify who is a truth teller and who is a liar.
In this research, the participants could examine eyebrows in the veiled condition and their focus was certainly narrowed so they were less likely to be distracted by irrelevancies—that alone likely improved their ability to detect deception. This is an interesting study that tells us the common reliance we see among mock jurors on non-verbal indicators to detect deception and even the court rulings since 2000 are outdated when it comes to jurors’ ability to detect deception in a witness. Like the researchers say in their article title, less is actually more when it comes to detecting deception.
We made some recommendations to reduce bias against your veil-wearing client back in 2014 and we would still make those recommendations today.
Here they are:
The researchers say that for the least bias, if a religious Muslim woman wants to wear a head-covering, the hijab is likely the best choice. That may, however, not be an option given her religious beliefs.
In either case, this research would say to give jurors information about your client’s choice to wear a Muslim head-covering (of any style) and it will reduce negative assumptions.
The very process of sharing the reasons for wearing a head-covering with jurors, gives them the opportunity for emotional connection with your client. Her sharing reasons for the head-covering allows them to ‘see’ her individuality and religious conviction.
We’d call that both making your client more similar to the jurors (through the use of universal values) and giving jurors an opportunity to see “beneath the head-covering” to the woman herself.
Leach AM, Ammar N, England DN, Remigio LM, Kleinberg B, & Verschuere BJ (2016). Less is more? Detecting lies in veiled witnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 40 (4), 401-10 PMID: 27348716
When we began this blog in 2009, the reality that facts don’t matter was one of the first posts we wrote. We wrote again about this reality back in 2011. And we’ve written about it several times since then so…here we go again!
In this new era of fake news and fake news allegations, we’ve seen a surge in the number of “fact checkers” employed by the media to verify accuracy of statements made by people in this country’s leadership. Some think the publicizing of fact checking can be effective against the spread of misinformation. New research (conducted during the 2016 Presidential election) tells us (yet again) that while fact checking is certainly of value, it depends on whether your intended audience is listening.
That is, while fact checking helped study participants understand what was true and not true, that knowledge made no difference in their voting behavior.
While that disturbing reality sinks in, here’s a brief summary of the research which was published by the Royal Society Open Science Journal and concentrated on statements (both factual and inaccurate) made by candidate Trump during the Republican primary campaign of 2016. The researchers conducted their research online with 2,023 participants. As part of the study, participants were presented with four inaccurate statements and four accurate statements made by candidate Trump (you can see the list of statements in the article itself, but they include misstatements on the unemployment rate and the relationship between vaccines and autism). Sometimes the statements were attributed to Trump and other times they were not attributed to any of the candidates. Then, inaccurate statements were corrected using non-partisan sources such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So far so good. When the researchers corrected the false statements, belief in those statements fell across the board.
That is, belief in the Trump falsehoods fell for Trump-supporting Republicans, Republicans favoring other candidates, and for Democrats.
However, the researchers continued on and examined who the supporters intended to vote for—and the correction of misinformation (and reported self-awareness of the inaccuracy of the statements) made no difference in for whom the Republican participant planned to vote. The only participants less likely to vote for Trump were the Democrats (who’d not planned to vote for him anyway).
The researchers conclude that while fact-checking can change people’s beliefs, their strength of partisanship has an effect on the strength of the change when it comes to voting intention. And, perhaps not surprisingly, the researchers wonder just what would have to happen to change voting intention in the face of strong partisan beliefs. They suggest that people “use political figures as a heuristic to guide evaluation of what is true or false, yet do not necessarily insist on veracity as a prerequisite for supporting political candidates”.
If you don’t think that makes sense, you are not alone (we don’t think it makes much sense either). For years, we have believed (and seen it borne out time after time) that political affiliation is not a difference that makes a difference when it comes to decision-making on litigation cases. Yet, we are seeing increasing amounts of research telling us the USA is so split along partisan lines that perhaps, at least right now, it is a difference that makes a difference. We still have not seen it in our work but you can bet we are watching it closely in ongoing pretrial research. Stay tuned.
Swire, B., Berinsky, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. (2017). Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science, 4 (3) DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160802
When facing a panel of prospective jurors for voir dire and jury selection it is important that you update your perceptions of who these people are in 2017. It is hard to keep up with change and to replace our outdated ideas of “how North America is” but here is some data to help you do just that. These facts are wonderful perspective changers and we hope some of them will surprise you (since that will help you remember and update your perceptions of those potential jurors).
“Normal America is not a small town of white people”
The people over at Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com site did us an incredible service with this article first published in spring 2016. So—before you go look, when you think of “normal America”, what picture comes to mind? For those of you who think of a scene more consistent with 1950s America, this is a must-read. Things, times, our citizens and what is now “normative” has changed a lot since the 1950s. Here’s a look at the communities most like 1950s America and the communities most like the America of the present. The two sets of communities are incredibly different. It is a nod to why it is so very important to know the demographics of your venire but also an imperative to update that mental picture you have of “normal America”. We are so not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
Digital news and followup by race of online news consumer
So…when you think of who reads news online and who follows up on that news—would you think those who follow-up more likely to be Black or White? You don’t have to answer out loud,—just think to yourself and read on. Pew Research just published an article based on questioning more than 2000 online news consumers twice a day for a week.
As part of that questioning, Pew asked the news consumers if they took any of six pre-identified follow-up actions: speaking with someone either in person or over the phone; searching for additional information; posting, sharing or commenting on a social networking site; sending an article to someone by email or text message; bookmarking or saving the news for later; and commenting on a news organization’s webpage.
As a reminder, you are predicting whether Black or White online news consumers are more likely to do any of these six follow-up actions. Got your prediction? Here’s what Pew found:
Black online news consumers preformed at least on of these actions 66% of the time on average. For Whites it was 49%.
There are other fascinating differences by race in this recent report from Pew. You can read the entire (brief and succinct) summary here.
Who counts as Black anymore?
This is an opinion piece that mentions the Dark Girls and Light Girls documentaries and the difficulties both groups (Blacks with dark skins and Blacks with light skins) face in being Black in the current day. The author encourages us to stretch (and update) our perceptions of what constitutes race and Blackness. A worthwhile read from the website The Conversation.
How many US homes have televisions?
Here’s another shifting reality. In the not too recent past, most US homes had televisions and often multiple televisions. That is changing. Again, from the Business Insider: the number of homes that do not include a TV set has “at least doubled since 2009”. While the percentages are still low (2.6% of American homes now do not include a TV) they are growing quickly and are a reflection of people turning to computers and mobile devices to access media. Percentages of homes without televisions is expected to continue to increase as young people grow older and continue to use alternate screens for viewing programming.
Who reads newspapers anymore? Older or younger Americans?
Young Americans have been less likely to read newspapers than older Americans for some time. But, recently, Pew Research looked closely at newspapers with a more national focus (e.g., The New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today). While readership of election news was roughly equal for USA Today, the other three (NYT, WaPo, WSJ) attracted more readers under 50 than over 50 when it came to election news coverage. This is different from the patterns for local newspaper which are read more by older readers. Pew concludes that digital outreach efforts are working for these national papers in attracting younger readership.
Just how common is crime by immigrants? (Not at all common.)
Despite ongoing political rhetoric about victims of crimes by immigrants, it is simply not a significant problem. The Business Insider summarizes the statistics this way:
According to a September 2016 study by Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, some 3,024 Americans died from 1975 through 2015 due to foreign-born terrorism. That number includes the 9/11 terrorist attacks (2,983 people) and averages nearly 74 Americans per year.
Since 9/11, however, foreign-born terrorists have killed roughly one American per year. Just six Americans have died per year at the hands, guns, and bombs of Islamic terrorists (foreign and domestic).
According to Nowrasteh’s analysis, over the past 41 years (January 1975–December 2015), and including the 9/11 attacks:
The chance an American would be killed by a foreign-born refugee terrorist is 1 in 3.64 billion per year, based on the last 41 years of data.
The chance of an American being murdered by an undocumented immigrant terrorist is 1 in 10.9 billion per year.
The chance an American could be killed by a terrorist on a typical tourist visa was 1 in 3.9 million.
This article contains tables of numbers that are easy to read and point out the reality behind the rhetoric. The political rhetoric is about fear and not about reality. Read beyond the rhetoric to get to the facts.
How America changed during Barack Obama’s Presidency
If you have looked at any of these changes with some level of surprise, it would also prove useful to look at another Pew Research report examining changes in America during the eight years of the Obama presidency. This report covers attitudes important in voir dire and jury selection as they reflect values and beliefs relevant to case decision-making. So many changes have taken place in the past eight years that it is staggering to see them all summarized in this report. There are sure to be some changes (and corresponding shifts in attitude) that will be related to your own upcoming cases.
Time for another combination post of various things you will want to know that will improve your conversation skills and general life knowledge. We are not saying that it will make your hair shiny or inspire your kids to do their homework. Kernels of wisdom, that’s what they are, in truth.
Talking to your kids about stereotypes
The Conversation website has a brief and very good article on how to talk to your children in order to combat stereotypes. They address the best ways to speak to kids at different ages, how to combat generalizations kids might make about whole groups of people, using specific language rather than making general claims, and rebutting gender stereotypes. They even tell you how to have sensitive conversations about generalizations kids bring home so you can actually talk to them about things that are bothering them. Put simply, “words matter”. Here’s how this psychologist-author ends her article:
“With our language, we can help children develop habits of mind that challenge, rather than endorse, stereotyped views of the people around us”.
Miss Manners on rudeness from the leader of the free world
Speaking of talking to our children, Miss Manners is not one to shy away from saying what she thinks (in the most polite and considerate way, of course) and this Atlantic article is no different. She asks, after years of mostly good manners from our political leaders, why did “so many citizens elect a president of the United States who unabashedly—even proudly—violated those expectations?” She answers by saying virtues have been redefined and we now have “alternate virtues” (which will no doubt remind you of the “alternate facts” memes). She thinks that perhaps, after “eight years of a dignified president with an exemplary family life, people are hungry for the pleasures of scandal”. It is an interesting and a bit depressing read.
Hungry or sleepy—judges are more punitive when they are uncomfortable
You probably remember the study showing judges issues harsher sentences when they were hungry. Well, it turns out they are also harsher when they are sleepy (measured on what the researchers coined as “Sleepy Monday”—the Monday after the ‘spring forward’ time change and then compared to other Monday sentences). One of the authors did a TedX talk on sleep deprivation and how it impairs us without us realizing we are impaired. Apparently, judges suffer from it along with the rest of us and their sentencing decisions on “Sleepy Mondays” are reported to be 5% longer than on other Mondays when they were (ostensibly) more well rested.
You know what assuming does…
And yet, we all seem to make assumptions about other beliefs and biases based on seeing or hearing a single biased expression. New research in the Psychological Science journal shows us that women tended to believe a person who expressed a racist belief would also be sexist and men of color thought someone who was sexist was likely also racist.
In other words, participants who saw a sexist, assumed they saw a racist as well. And those who saw a racist, assumed the person described was also sexist.
Question: How often do birds fly that high? Answer: At least once
A few years ago, we were doing pretrial research on a helicopter crash caused by a bird flying way too high (one last time) and the pilot losing control when the controls were not in an intuitive place. Our mock jurors were aghast at the freakish nature of the crash and one of them earnestly inquired just how often birds of that particular type flew that high. The moderator deadpanned, “Well, we know it has happened at least once” and the mock jurors and the observation room of attorney-clients burst into laughter. As it happens, birds are struck by aircraft more than any other type of animal—at least 70 bald eagles in the last decade alone (and that is only counting bird strikes in Alaska, Florida and Michigan).
The Atlantic probably thought they were being pretty novel asking the question in this article—How often do airplanes hit deer? Or alligators? Or bald eagles? Or armadillos?—but that’s what we love about trial consulting. We see and hear it all. But this article has more than even we could imagine (and they have pictures linked if you are ready for some pretty gruesome photos of birds (posthumous). They offer a description of aircraft hitting almost every living animal. Some of them beg for explanations as you will see, but we’ll leave that to someone else.
Also in the past decade in the United States, airplanes have hit bats, coyotes, raccoons, skunks, opossums, dessert hares, prairie dogs, cats, dogs, foxes, bull snakes, turtles, armadillos, alligators, badgers, at least one woodchuck, an elk, an antelope jackrabbit, and several rather ominous-sounding “unknown terrestrial mammals.”
After that list, I take it back. We have not seen “everything”. Just almost everything.
Sanchez DT, Chaney KE, Manuel SK, Wilton LS, & Remedios JD (2017). Stigma by Prejudice Transfer: Racism threatens white women and sexism threatens men of color. Psychological Science