ABA Journal Blawg 100!
We Participate In:
Archive for the ‘Communication’ Category
No one knows you’re a dog on the internet (actually, they do!)
Contrary to the now famous New Yorker cartoon, people on the internet do know you’re a dog. Sort of. We’ve all heard of undercover police officers pretending to be children in online chat rooms as they attempt to identify pedophiles. The assumption behind this strategy is that an adult can successfully manipulate perceptions of their gender and age on the internet. That may be helpful for catching pedophiles, but as a general rule it appears likely untrue.
New research demonstrates that it is quite possible to discern the age and gender of someone posing as a child online. Researchers cite a 2007 case where an alleged pedophile identified in online sting operations said he knew all along he was talking to a middle-aged man rather than a teenage girl and so he was simply role-playing. A jury acquitted him.
For the study in today’s blog, researchers divided 46 undergraduate and graduate students ranging in age from 18 to 38 years of age into two groups with the intent to have them lie about their gender and age in internet chats with each other. One group was told to pretend to be a 13 year old girl in the internet chat of up to 30 minutes that followed. Following the chat, all participants estimated the age and gender of their unknown chat partner.
None of those pretending to be a 13 year old girl was successful in the ruse. No one even thought they were 16 years old or less. When questioned about how they determined their internet chat partner was not a young teenage girl–reasons were given that had to do with both style of communication (i.e., language used, emoticons used, syntax and colloquialisms) and content of communication (i.e., chatting about football teams, shopping or television shows).
So how, say the researchers, can covert operatives become better liars? Likely by learning the content information their gender and age would be likely to know (and reading magazines and watching TV shows those girls would watch). Even better, though researchers imagine the “middle aged men who are covert operatives” would complain, they could practice chatting with adolescent females to observe content and style first-hand. In other words, being an impostor is not a job for an amateur.
When it comes to litigation advocacy, there are likely two ways this study is potentially useful.
First, if you are actually prosecuting someone caught in an internet sting operation–this research would say it’s a good defense for them to say they knew the ‘teenage girl’ with whom they were chatting was in reality, a balding, 45 year old man. This research says we simply are pretty good at intuiting gender and age of our chat partners (or we are not very good at pretending to be what we have not been for years or even ever). Conversely, if you are attempting to prosecute pedophiles through the use of internet chat-room impostors, you might want to assess the credibility of their ‘skills’ by validating their effectiveness in a blind study, to avoid the defense that resulted in the acquittal in 2007.
Second, it reminds us of a way to teach jurors about increasing their likelihood of identifying deception. Tell them to use more than one source of information. Not only the apparent credibility of the speaker (which is often linked to likability), but what does s/he say, how does s/he say it, and does the language used seem to fit the person speaking?
Generally speaking, we are not that good at identifying deception. While we have given you some ways to identify a psychopathic killer, in general, it simply isn’t that easy. But seemingly irrelevant research, like improving covert operatives performance in internet chat rooms, can often give you ideas for helping jurors ‘see’ deception more effectively than they might on their own.
Lincoln, R., & Coyle, IR (2012). No-one knows you’re a dog on the internet: Implications for proactive police investigation of sexual offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.
Image taken by Rita Handrich
The foreign-language effect: ESL Jurors
We’ve seen multiple examples of jurors being excused because they learned English as a second language (ESL) and their English is limited. But new research shows us that there may be an advantage to the juror thinking in English when it is their second language.
Researchers were interested in if and how the use of a foreign language affected judgment and decision making. They tested three groups of university students: Americans, Koreans and native English-speaking students studying in Paris, France. All of the research participants had chosen a language to study at university. The researchers discuss two different points of view on decision-making and bias. One view is that thinking in a foreign language takes so much effort that you will make fast and not particularly systematic decisions. The other view is just the opposite–that when thinking in a foreign language, you make slower and more systematic decisions.
After conducting four experiments, the researchers reported that when you are thinking in a foreign language, you are more likely to apply systematic thinking to what you hear than you are to rely on stereotypes and heuristics. In other words, you have less (not more) bias in your decision-making processes.
The researchers hypothesize that when you are thinking in a foreign language, you automatically have more psychological distance from the situation and are more able to consider rationally without excessive emotional interference.
We know that the more emotions enter into a decision-making process, the more biased the thinking processes.
We also know that trial lawyers are often wary of the English-as-a-second-language juror.
What this research says is that, if English is chosen as an area of study with the goal of mastering the language, these jurors will focus and exert cognitive effort to process the evidence in a non-biased and non-emotional way. [We can’t know about those who end up in America but exert little effort to learn the language as this research was done on students who had chosen to learn foreign languages in a university.]
This study is an interesting start, but the limitations of this study are several, as they relate to trial advocacy. First, these are college students with a heightened interest in different cultures (they are studying outside their native culture and language). They may be brighter than many jurors. Second, many ESL jurors in the United States are undereducated, disempowered, and poor. They are not likely to be as assertive as the native English speakers in the jury. The effects described in the study may be exactly on point for the study subjects, but they may not generalize in a way that is meaningful for jury applications. Other biases and perspectives need to be kept in context when the goal is one of determining trial outcomes.
It’s another “don’t guess and don’t generalize” lesson for voir dire. Not all for whom English is a second language should be automatically discounted for jury participation.
Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S., & An, S. (2012). The Foreign-Language Effect: Thinking in a Foreign Tongue Reduces Decision Biases Psychological Science DOI: 10.1177/0956797611432178
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
Generational communication: Will it hurt more than a rook piercing?
My daughter was 11 when I agreed to take her to get her ears pierced. She desperately wanted to have it done but was afraid of the pain. So I had my ears pierced with second holes to show her it was survivable. As time has gone on, she’s added to her collection–always in my company. Second ear piercings. A cartilage piercing. And now, in the wake of her 18th birthday, she asked for my company to a tattoo parlor so she could have her rook and tragus pierced. Showing my age, I asked what part of the body these unfamiliar words were located upon and was relieved (and appalled) to discover they were also on the ear.
So off we went. The “piercer” came out to meet us. He was a huge man (think sumo wrestler) with huge hands, and gauges in both nostrils and the biggest gauges I’ve ever seen in each ear. I felt faint. My daughter looked anxious. He turned out to be the nicest guy. And when he picked up the huge needle to pierce her ear, I could have passed out. She turned very pale as the needle went through not once, but twice to pierce the rook. After he got the earring in (with his huge hands and fingers), he asked if she was ready for the tragus piercing. She asked in a small voice, “Will it hurt more than the rook piercing?” He assured her it would not.
I was reminded of a blog post from Dave Munger back in the glory days of Cognitive Daily blog. In this post, Dave’s spouse Greta (co-author of the blog) discovered that the fable of the Fox and the Grapes was unfamiliar to many of her students. Cognitive Daily then did a survey of their readers to see how many were familiar with the origin and meaning of the phrase “sour grapes”. As it turned out, not that many.
It’s a good lesson in generational communication for the courtroom. While we (hopefully) will not hear plaintiffs describe their pain in terms of body piercing, it’s important to consider the examples we use to communicate. As they saw in the Cognitive Daily survey, those survey respondents who were avid readers were more familiar with the meaning and origin of the term “sour grapes”. We need to remember the phase of life of our jurors, as well as how actual ‘reading’ has decreased for many. Movie references, TV show references, book references, even pop culture references become quickly dated and meaningless to your audience.
Pay attention to what you say. Don’t use verbal shortcuts and assume everyone knows what they mean. Your snappy analogy may just fall short.
We saw this recently in a mock trial where the defense attorney was attempting to demonstrate the difference between the disputed technologies as the difference between a record album (which he held up for the mock jurors) and a CD. Same music. Much different technology. Jurors liked the comparison and it made sense for them. But an unanticipated message came through. The attorney displayed a record album by Barry Manilow. Younger jurors saw that choice as reflecting both the attorney’s age and a questionable taste in music. They were unafraid to verbalize this perception directly.
So. Be careful what you unintentionally communicate! You likely won’t have the benefit of direct juror feedback on mistakes you make.
Recent Comments