You are currently browsing the archives for the Generation or Age of Juror category.

Follow me on Twitter

Blog archive

We Participate In:

You are currently browsing the archives for the Generation or Age of Juror category.

ABA Journal Blawg 100!

Subscribe to The Jury Room via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Login

Archive for the ‘Generation or Age of Juror’ Category

We’ve written before about American attitudes toward China and Asians in general and are used to seeing knee-jerk negative reactions toward Asian companies or parties across the country as we complete pretrial research.

But, like other biases and attitudes all over the media these days, American attitudes toward China have been getting worse in the past decade. You likely know we hold Pew Research in high regard for measuring shifting attitudes in this country. We often look to their work to take a “national temperature” on various issues so we can then see if those attitudes are stronger or weaker in various venues in which we work. Earlier this month, Pew published a brief article on attitudes Americans have toward China and, as you might predict, our attitudes toward China are not particularly warm.

Here are a few highlights from the Pew report:

As you can see in the graphic illustrating this post (taken from the Pew site), American attitudes toward China are now (since 2015) more negative than the attitudes of Chinese citizens toward America. In fact, as of May 2015, the majority of Americans (55%) had unfavorable attitudes toward China.

It is more common for older (ahem, Pew says you are “older” if you are 50 years of age or above) Americans to view China unfavorably. However, negative views of China increased 21 percentage points among those aged 18 to 34 in the US between 2006 and 2016 (so it isn’t just the “old folks”).

US Republicans have consistently been more negative toward China than US Democrats. However, negative attitudes have increased among members of both political parties by more than 20 percentage points over the past decade.

American citizens see their country as declining while Chinese citizens see their country as ascending.

From a litigation advocacy perspective, it is imperative for you to be aware of the almost instantaneous reactivity to Chinese or Asian parties or products in your case. The vitriolic nature of the bias initially caught us off guard, but now we wait for it. Our various posts on negative attitudes we’ve seen in the literature and in our pretrial research (here, here, here, and here) may be useful for you to review in order to see ways the bias or negative attitudes arise. You may also want to review one of our perennially popular posts on when you want to talk about race and when you want to be very, very quiet.

Pew Research Center (February 10, 2017). Americans have grown more negative toward China over the past decade. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/americans-have-grown-more-negative-toward-china-over-past-decade/

Image

Share
Comments Off on Pew Research: Attitudes toward China are more  negative now!

The Gallup folks just published an update on LGBT adults in the US and we want to bring it to your attention to illustrate how societal change is happening and we need to keep up. We are going to highlight a few facts from the Gallup report but encourage you to read the story in its entirety.

For those interested in these things, this giant survey was conducted by telephone [60% cell phone and 40% land lines] with a random sample of 1,626,773 adults living in the US. They were all 18 or older, lived in all 50 states and in DC, and their responses were collected between June 2012 and December 2016. Of the 1.6M+ participants, 49,311 participants said “yes” to a question of whether they personally identified at LGBT.

Here are the highlights of what Gallup’s survey respondents told them:

10M US adults identify as LGBT (this is 4.1% of the population).

Millennials identifying as LGBT are up from 5.8% in 2012 to 7.3% in 2016 and are more than twice as likely as any other generation to identify as LGBT. In the same time period (2012-2016), the proportion of GenXers identifying as LGBTers remained fairly stable and Boomers identifying as LGBT decreased slightly.

More women identify as LGBT than do men.

Among ethnic minorities, the largest increase since 2012 in LGBT identification occurred among Asians and Hispanics. Gallup thinks this is likely affected by the differences in age compositions of these groups (with Asian adults being the youngest among race and ethnicity groupings and Hispanics coming in second).

Increases in LGBT identification were stable across all income and education groups (by 2016, there was “virtually no variation by education”).

Increases in LGBT identification were largely among those identifying as “not religious” (and this group is 3x more likely to identify as LGBT than those who say they are “highly religious”).

Gallup opines that Millennials are less concerned than other generations with sharing “private information” on surveys. They also think the social/cultural climate has changed since survey participants were teens and young adults and it is now more acceptable to identify as LGBT. Gallup cites the legalization of same-sex marriage to support this assertion.

Gallup also thinks it is important to note that all these changes have occurred in a span of only five years (2012-2016). They call this a “marked change” and comment that the US LGBT population has become “larger, younger, more female, and less religious”.

From a litigation advocacy standpoint, this is essential information. We are seeing more and more high-profile LGBT disclosures in the news. Gossip columns routinely report on celebrity statements on sexuality (no link to this one, you can find them on your own!). Most of us are aware of the relatively recent transgender transition of Caitlyn Jenner. Perhaps the most recent is the announcement from model Hanne Gaby Odiele that she was born intersex and had surgery she believes was unnecessary. The fact that LGBT’s are increasingly visible, their issues are discussed more openly, and (especially for younger people) LGBT folks are close friends, family, and—sometimes—themselves. And increasingly, that’s okay.

But not everywhere, or for everyone. As cases are planned and narratives developed, an awareness needs to be maintained of who your jurors might be, and what their experiences, values and beliefs may be. And that includes sexual identification as well as race, ethnicity, gender and age. It is one more variable to make sure you maintain awareness of, as it is clearly changing faster than ever before.

Gallup (January 11, 2017). In US, More Adults Identifying as LGBT.

Image

Share
Comments Off on Changing Demographics: The US LGBT population 

We read so much for this blog (and just out of general curiosity) that we often find these small bits of information which don’t justify an entire blog post but that we want to share with you because they are just too good to ignore. Here’s another one of those combination posts that you simply must read!

Generational labels are so passé

We are so used to hearing generational labels (like Boomer, Gen Xer, Millennial) tossed about in marketing presentations and in casual conversation but Harvard Business Review thinks these labels are obsolete. These labels don’t add additional information and are increasingly used as a substitute for age ranges, says HBR. Further (they opine) the cut-off dates for generations are entirely arbitrary, and frankly, there is a fair bit of variability in what birth-years ranges are thought to apply to these labels. They suggest, rather than the generational name labels, we use age or even age ranges to describe groups of people.

They call this “old way” of using generational monikers “generational segmentation” and say it is an artifact of (way back when) when marketers could not easily do “individual level targeting”. It’s an interesting perspective that rings pretty true to our minds especially considering this recent post (and we’ve done a lot of generationally-themed writing).  The most distorting aspect of the generational labels is that they are frozen in time—the members of each age cohort are often viewed as being alike in key ways, as if these characteristics don’t evolve as a person grows older. The “old way” combines generational identity (obviously, since a 30-year-old in 2017 is also a Millennial) with the idea that they are also a 30-year-old, period. That person will be 50 in 20 years, clearly a different stage of life, but they will still be a Millennial. How do we understand that? It is much more complicated. Just use actual age ranges, just like the cool kids at HBR.

Emoji’s and the pursuit of academic tenure

If you had considered this (although, in truth, who would?) you would have realized that the ever-more-popular emoji would be studied by academics in pursuit of tenure. And of course, that which was coming has now arrived. The researchers say that emojis (the modern version) and emoticons (the originals designed with punctuation symbols) have developed to communicate the appropriate facial expression to go with a string of text. The first reported use occurred in discussion forums in the 1980s (say the researchers) when this emoticon symbol 🙂 was included to communicate the message was meant in fun. Now, up to 92% of the online population uses emojis (the more modern version uses cartoonish emojis like this one 🤗). The researchers use easy to understand language (not) as they communicate the meaning behind emojis:

“They disambiguate the communicative intent behind messages, serve important verbal and nonverbal functions in communication, and can even provide insight into the users personality.”

“Drawing on the method of corpus linguistics, the bountiful occurrence of emojis in real-world online text provides a new means to examine the function of contemporary interactional communication and emotion portrayal.”

We don’t think we’ll be covering much of this work as it evolves but wanted you to be aware it is out there. Frankly, we think it is—how should we say? 💩

And as an example of how emoji research can help you in your real life, the poop emoji was “invented” in Japan and is most widely used in Canada.

Persuasion landmines: When facts fail and your most salient points are the least informative 

After more than 25 years, we still love doing pretrial research but it is still very common to see attorneys chewing peanut M&Ms in frustration while their important facts are dismissed (or ignored) by mock jurors. Here are two articles (both happened to be published in Scientific American just this month) to help you increase the likelihood your story will be heard and remembered accurately. The first article focuses on the reality that pre-existing beliefs will trump your facts when jurors listen to your narrative. The author summarizes the (frightening) research and then offers suggestions (six in all—most of which we’ve blogged about here before!) to try to convince your listeners to consider your information. It is well worth the 5-7 minutes it will take you to read.

The second article, uses the example of noting a person has purple hair to remember Amanda’s name (which means if Amanda changes her hair color, you will be stumped). The point of this article is to help us learn how to categorize important information accurately and not be side-tracked by red herrings like purple hair. The author talks to a researcher who says that if you want to overpower attention-getting facts (like purple hair), your counter-evidence needs to be eye-catching and quickly understandable. Let’s hear it again for the power of visual evidence!

Kaye LK, Malone SA, & Wall HJ (2016). Emojis: Insights, Affordances, and Possibilities for Psychological Science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences PMID: 28108281

Image

Share
Comments Off on Generational labels, researching emojis, and two persuasion  landmines

We love Pew Research and their work on cataloguing how society here in the United States changes slowly or quickly (as the case may be) over time. A review of their hard work gives you a sense of what changes are underway in our now constantly changing “new normal”. They have published a lot in 2016 to help us understand how our potential jurors are changing. Take a look at just a few of the sixteen stories they deem “striking” from 2016. We’re telling the Pew story with their own pictures. Go to the site itself to read the details. [The spacing on this post is beyond us so please scroll…thanks!]

Significant demographic changes in America have reshaped our major political parties—our political parties look very different now than they did during the George W. Bush presidency.   

 

And voters are divided on where the country is headed as well as whether that direction is better or worse. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Millennials are now the largest generation of living Americans (bigger than Boomers)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And more of the Millennials live with their parents than ever seen with young people before (although it should be noted that this trend has been growing for years now and it is not a Millennial “thing”).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Along with generational shifts, we are also seeing increased racial tensions with about four-in-ten blacks (43%) being skeptical that America will ever make the changes needed for blacks to achieve equal rights with whites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And we are wary of what new technologies will mean for our lives.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pew summary of the 16 most striking findings in their surveys published in 2016 is fascinating reading if you want to know (as most of us do) how the country is changing and what that may mean for our potential jurors. There is more division and demographic change than we’ve seen in some time and it will most likely play a significant role in how your case is heard by jurors.

Take a look at Pew’s end of year summary and update yourself on how things stand now on a wide variety of subjects that may be part of your own up coming case narratives.

Images taken from Pew site

Share
Comments Off on Pew Research looks back at 2016: Things you need to  know about how Americans have changed 

Here’s an update on the stash of tattoo posts we have here. This is a collection of new research on tattoos (to make sure we are up to date) that will undoubtedly help you decide what your individual ink means/will mean, and of course, what it suggests about your jurors, your clients, your kids, and maybe you, too! We’ll start out with the punch line from one of the articles (Galbarczyk & Ziomkiewicz 2017): women do not find tattooed men irresistibly attractive despite what men think about other men with tattoos.

Do women really “dig” tattoos? (Not so much)

Men apparently believe that a man with tattoos is likely to be serious competition for the attention of a woman. Women themselves do not generally see tattooed men as the be all, end all. That (perhaps surprising) conclusion is according to new research out of Poland where 2,584 heterosexual men and women looked at photos of shirtless men. In some of the photographs, the man’s arms were marked with a smaller black symbol (see graphic illustrating post for one of the photo pairs). Men rated these tattooed men higher in terms of what (they thought) women would look for in a long-term partner. Women did not agree and rated the tattooed men as worse candidates for long-term relationships than the men pictured without tattoos. Once again, men don’t seem to understand what women find attractive. The authors wanted to figure out if women or men were more drawn to tattoos on men and they conclude this way: “Our results provide stronger evidence for the second, intrasexual selection mechanism, as the presence of a tattoo affected male viewers’ perceptions of a male subject more intensely than female viewers’ perceptions.”

In other words, when men get tattooed, other men are going to be more impressed than will women. For men who are homophobic, this could be a traumatizing study.

Are tattooed adults more impulsive? (Not really)

There’s been a plethora of research done on whether the personalities of tattooed adults are different from the personalities of adults with no tattoos. And, after multiple grants of academic tenure—the answer is….not really. This study (Swami, et al.), done in Europe, had 1,006 adults, complete psychological measures of how impulsive and prone to boredom they were. About 1/5 of the participants (19.1%) had at least one tattoo but there were no real differences in terms of gender, nationality, education or marital status. There were also no strong differences in either impulsivity or  likelihood of becoming bored—not for those with one tattoo and not for those with more than one tattoo (the highest number among the individual participants was 23 tattoos).

The authors concluded that tattooed adults and non-tattooed adults are more similar than different. (This doesn’t really surprise us as tattoos have become much more normative, although—there is nothing normative about having 23 tattoos.)

So are tattooed women less mentally healthy than non-tattooed women? (Nope)

Women with tattoos have been seen as deviant and anti-social in past research.

If that seems odd to you, know this: When I was in graduate school, there was a widely held view that women with multiple ear piercings as more likely to have personality psychopathology. Multiple piercings were outside the norm of behavior then, and are now, much more common.

So—here’s a study out of Australia (Thompson, 2015) looking at whether that is still the case. This study was completed using an internet survey (710 women) which asked participants to complete the Loyola Generativity Scale. The term generativity comes to us from psychological research and is, very simply, the desire we have (or do not have) to contribute positively to the future. You will often see generativity used to describe the desire to mentor younger people in career or other life areas.

The people who developed the scale describe it this way: “Generativity is a complex psychosocial construct that can be expressed through societal demand, inner desires, conscious concerns, beliefs, commitments, behaviors, and the overall way in which an adult makes narrative sense of his or her life.” (With no offense intended to the scale developers, it is likely easier for you to think of generativity as a desire to positively contribute to future generations.) Essentially, this researcher wanted to see if women with tattoos would have the same level of generativity as women without tattoos.

As in the study of risk-taking and impulsivity that preceded this one, there were no differences between tattooed and non-tattooed women in terms of their level of generativity. What was seen as edgy and counter-cultural 30 years ago is now merely a personal expression and fashion statement.

Finally, can we trust tattooed adults if they have a tattoo with a Christian-theme? (It depends)

This research focused on what they identified as “mixed signals” which they defined as a signal projecting untrustworthiness (in this case, a tattoo) but where the theme or content of the signal suggests trustworthiness (in this case a tattoo of a religious symbol, the cross). Interestingly, this researcher chose to place the tattoos on the neck (either on the side or centered under the chin). While  the third photo may look like a necklace to you, it is actually a tattoo. Some were photos of men or women with cross tattoos, others were men or women with star tattoos, while still others saw men or women with no tattoos.

Participants included 326 people who were shown 26 photographs and asked to rate trustworthiness of the person pictured on a scale from 1 (extremely low trust) to 7 (extremely high trust). Only after they had rated the photos were the participants asked whether they would identify as Christians (58.9% did) and if they had tattoos themselves (31% did). The results here are (ironically) mixed.

Christian participants rated the face without tattoos (which perhaps would have communicated shared values) as more trustworthy than the tattooed faces but they also rated faces with the religious tattoo as being more trustworthy than non-Christians did. Non-Christian participants thought the religious tattoo face less trustworthy and the star tattoo face more trustworthy.

From a litigation advocacy perspective, this series of articles on tattoos and what they mean in the present day to the observer, tells us you cannot rely on knowledge from a few years ago to inform you on what a tattoo means now. It is the same with venires—old knowledge is old knowledge. Do not assume that the venire is the same as it was 5 years ago—or that neck tattoos are always signs of deviance. Update yourself. Jurors will probably feel it and be more open to your message.

Galbarczyk, A., & Ziomkiewicz, A. (2017). Tattooed men: Healthy bad boys and good-looking competitors Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 122-125 DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.051

Swami, V., Tran, U., Kuhlmann, T., Stieger, S., Gaughan, H., & Voracek, M. (2016). More similar than different: Tattooed adults are only slightly more impulsive and willing to take risks than Non-tattooed adults Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 40-44 DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.054

Thompson, K. (2015). Comparing the psychosocial health of tattooed and non-tattooed women Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 122-126 DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.010

Timming, A., & Perrett, D. (2016). Trust and mixed signals: A study of religion, tattoos and cognitive dissonance Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 234-238 DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.067

Images from Galbarczyk & Ziomkiewicz  and Timming et al. articles

Share
Comments Off on  Tattoo you—On attraction, impulsivity, pathology, and trustworthiness