ABA Journal Blawg 100!
We Participate In:
Archive for the ‘Bias’ Category
An update on disrupting suspicion of atheists
We’ve written a number of times about atheists in the courtroom and the general lack of trust in atheists in this country. One recent study pointed out we trust atheists about as much as we trust rapists! Identifying biases that are deep-seated and seem to be permanent is one of the things we do as trial consultants. Sometimes they are unexpected. They are almost always disheartening.
So we are grateful to social science researchers who sometimes identify strategies to disrupt permanent and deep-seated biases. And here’s one for disrupting biases against atheists. It’s simple, straightforward and free: remind jurors about the government.
Researchers point to research noting distrust of atheists who do not believe a “watchful and judging god monitors their behavior”. Most people think we behave better when reminded there is a god watching over us. That atheists have no such moral force judging their behavior makes the rest of us suspicious of their moral trustworthiness. The observation by a supernatural being gives believers a sense of psychological control over the behaviors of all believers. On a none-too-subtle level, it also suggests that mostly, we don’t trust that people to do the right thing if they don’t fear punishment.
There is also recent research showing that secular authority can also give a sense of psychological control in the world. When reminded of secular authority (and thus the awareness of monitoring by powerful figures, albeit not a deity) which also enforces prosocial behaviors–believers should also exhibit less distrust toward atheists. The idea is that there would exist some sort of behavioral control over the atheist–we don’t have to be so afraid of what they might do.
Researchers wanted to explore these ideas to see if bias against and fear of atheists would diminish if research participants were reminded of secular authority. They conducted 3 separate experiments:
In Study 1, researchers emphasized “police effectiveness” by having participants watch a video of the Vancouver police chief’s year-end report “which detailed many successes of the Vancouver Police Department during 2010”.
They found that being reminded of secular authority decreased the level of distrust toward atheists.
In Study 2, researchers examined distrust of atheists and the prevalence of disgust for homosexuals. Again the “police effectiveness” video was shown.
Again, researchers found that being reminded of secular authority (i.e., “police effectiveness”) reduced distrust for atheists but did not affect antigay prejudice.
In Study 3, researchers wanted to see if reminders of secular authority would reduce distrust in atheists and (at the same time) reduce distrust toward gays.
And again, the researchers found that being reminded of secular authority reduced distrust in atheists but did not affect distrust of gays.
What this research progression shows is that reminders of secular authority/effectiveness decrease distrust in atheists but do not decrease prejudice in general. This is a powerful finding although it will of course be moderated by how effective and trustworthy people find their government. Overall, though, it makes sense, if the secular authority is a replacement for religious authority. Bias and prejudice is not unidimensional, it is a complex response. No unidimensional explanation will capture all of the potential vagaries of bias and prejudice.
From a litigation advocacy perspective, if you have a client who is atheist (and ‘out’), you would do well to find ways to remind jurors of secular authority–either through law enforcement, regulatory agencies, or other reliable secular institutions relevant to the facts of your case. Society is safe, even if this person doesn’t perfectly mirror the religiously observant jurors. Jurors need to have a sense that “this atheist” is contained and law-abiding so they can trust the atheist’s future behavior.
It’s a simple yet powerfully, and pointedly targeted strategy.
Gervais WM, & Norenzayan A (2012). Reminders of Secular Authority Reduce Believers’ Distrust of Atheists. Psychological Science PMID: 22477103
Everyday racism at work: Hope for African American Women?
Black women are expected to behave like white men when they have reached a higher level of leadership. That is the conclusion of new research looking at black women leaders.
Traditionally, white men are expected to be assertive and even aggressive leaders, but black men and white women are often perceived negatively for those sorts of behaviors in the workplace. Researchers wondered about black women and what they found was that “one size does not fit all women” when it comes to leadership expectations.
This is a surprising and counter-intuitive finding–yet, there are familiar themes along the way. We know from earlier research that African American women are more likely to confront racist statements than are Asian American women. We also know that women leaders in general are penalized more severely if they make mistakes at work. That theme comes up in this research as well. So yes, it’s still hard to be a woman–but, in this research, once you arrive, you may sound more like Aretha Franklin than Tammy Wynette.
In the research, supervisors were presented in two modes: dominant or supportive/caring. The researchers showed both male and female supervisors and both white and black supervisors and asked the participants to rate the supervisory effectiveness.
Here’s what the researchers report:
White women were evaluated more negatively when they expressed dominance rather than caring support. However, black women did not get this same negative reaction.
Black men were penalized for expressing dominance but white men were not.
In short, black women were expected to behave more like white men when in a leadership role and (unlike white women and black men) were not punished for behaving dominantly in a leadership role. The researchers wonder why, then, are there not more black women in positions of leadership? They hypothesize that black women don’t look like the stereotype of ‘leader’ (e.g., for most people a ‘leader’ is a white male) and thus are punished more harshly for making mistakes since they don’t fit the ‘leader’ stereotype. The researchers presume it’s harder for a black female to rise to high levels of leadership due to heavy punishment for mistakes along the way. However, once she has arrived, the black female leader is given permission to act like a white male in leadership: dominant and assertive, even aggressive at times.
This research has relevance for both litigation advocacy and for law practice management as well as for women of color striving for leadership positions.
In witness preparation, a high ranking African American female can show dominance and assertiveness in her testimony without being punished for it by jurors. Remember though that a white female or African American male will be expected to express support and caring for subordinates while still expressing a belief that direct communication as to performance expectations is a must for effective management.
If this research is accurate, a senior African American female attorney can question on cross-exam as aggressively as a white male attorney. There is likely a fine line on this behavior though, as it is often expected that women will behave more sensitively to others.
In your law practice, ensure you are not censuring African American female attorneys more harshly for mistakes than you would censure a white male attorney. Make your performance standards measurable and concrete so they can be applied equally and with a minimum of bias.
Overall, this is intriguing research and the researchers plan to explore the realities for African American women struggling to climb corporate ladders. We’ll be watching for their future work.
Livingston, R., Rosette, A., & Washington, E. (2012). Can an Agentic Black Woman Get Ahead? The Impact of Race and Interpersonal Dominance on Perceptions of Female Leaders Psychological Science, 23 (4), 354-358 DOI: 10.1177/0956797611428079
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.
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
Hmmm….maybe you should ask for a bench trial
Experienced (and even inexperienced) trial lawyers know that entrusting your case to a group of a dozen strangers in a jury is a gamble. The venire can shift dramatically from day to day, for no discernible reason. You never know what you are going to get. This is why jury selection is really a process of deselection–your best effort to weed out those who won’t listen to your story in spite your best efforts to engage them.
Anyone who has done mock trial research is accustomed to projects in which one ‘jury’ of mock jurors focus on different parts of the evidence than do the other juries, and come to a correspondingly different verdict. It’s what happens. And we learn as much as we can from that anomalous group about how they came to their decisions so we can fill those holes in the case narrative. It’s enough to make a trial lawyer (or their client) fearful about taking the case to court. Yet, it is not the norm to request a bench trial where a single judge decides your case based on the merits. New research suggests that perhaps bench trials should be considered more often.
Many of us think collaborative decisions are ‘better’ than individually made decisions due to the need to exchange perspectives and be more flexible than any individual decision maker. These researchers do not agree. They looked at the difference in individual decisions and those decisions made by collaborators. In this instance, they compared the decision-making process of individuals versus dyads.
What they found was that when decisions were made via collaboration (i.e., in dyads) and the decision-makers were then given additional information with which to potentially modify their decisions–they were less willing to modify than were the individual deciders. In other words, the collaborators were more rigid in maintaining their joint decisions than the individual deciders when given new and useful information. And this hurt them. They had a supporter who agreed with them, and they were less inclined to incorporate the new information.
Because of their determination to stick to their original decisions, collaborators ended up being less accurate than the individual decision-makers. So the researchers conclude that “two heads are not always better than one”.
It would be interesting to see what happens to this sort of research when you are looking at larger groups. Groups, for example, the size of deliberating juries. What we see in our pretrial research is that there are always some individuals who refuse to budge when given additional information. In one of our recent cases, two jurors refused to believe the moderator when she gave them additional information. “That isn’t true!” said the female juror. The moderator assured her it was true and they were being given additional information to see if it made a difference to their decision-making processes. Both the male and female juror dug in and refused to consider the new information. They ‘already knew’ what had happened and their minds were made up.
In a larger group, it’s possible other jurors can persuade recalcitrant hold-outs, but they can only do it if they have information available that plugs the holes in the narrative. As irritating as mock jurors who simply do not listen can be, they are often key to completing a tight case narrative that brings everyone along as you tell the story of your client. Like the sand particle in the oyster–some irritations can become pearls.
Minson JA, & Mueller JS (2012). The cost of collaboration: why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information. Psychological Science, 23 (3), 219-24 PMID: 22344447
Recent Comments