Archive for the ‘Generation or Age of Juror’ Category
The smartphone has changed our lives. Just last fall, we wrote about the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) Scale. As a reminder, that post was about how smartphones allow us to obsessively check our email and social media sites to see what our friends and followers and family members are doing— out of a fear of the grave danger that we are missing out on something somehow. Now, the smartphone has inspired yet another concept and another yardstick to measure it, as academicians struggle to find novel paths to tenure. This scale isn’t about obsessively checking your phone—it’s about how you feel when the phone is not available to you. Nomophobia is considered “a 21st century disorder resulting from new technologies” and even has an entry in the Urban Dictionary which is suitably brief so as to more succinctly illustrate the horror that is nomophobia:
Fear of being away from a mobile phone.
“That guy has serious nomophobia.”
Technically, nomophobia refers a fear of being unable to communicate via a mobile phone or via the internet. It is seen as a “situational phobia” and obviously, a phobia this severe demands a scale to measure our level of nomophobia (which stands for No Mobile Phone Phobia). Researchers in Iowa wanted to measure reactions to being without use of a smartphone and so, set out to create a scale to measure our fear of being without our smartphones. Does not having your phone create anxiety? Are you in a full-blown panic at being off the grid, even for a little while? Researchers interviewed 300 undergraduates who “heavily depended on their smart phones” and ultimately devised a 20-item scale to measure nomophobia. [As an admittedly cynical aside, we would like them to find a sample of 300 undergrads who are not “heavily dependent on their smart phones”. A far more challenging research project.] They validated the questionnaire on a small group of students to ensure the scale produced reliable scores and then they administered the scale to the sample of 300 undergraduates to perform exploratory factor analysis.
Here are a few of the 20 items on the NMP-Q scale:
If I could not check my smartphone for a while, I would feel a desire to check it.
If I could not use my smartphone, I would be afraid of getting stranded somewhere.
If I did not have my smartphone with me, I would be worried because my family and/or friends could not reach me.
If I did not have my smartphone with me, I would feel weird because I would not know what to do.
If I did not have my smartphone with me, I would be anxious because I would be disconnected from my online identity.
The authors identify four separate factors that emerged in their analysis. When participants were without their cell phones, these concerns arose: not being able to communicate instantly with others, losing connectedness with others, not being able to access information, and giving up convenience of having a smartphone to use if one chose to do so. While many of us would undoubtedly worry about being stranded someplace without a smartphone—many of the items on the scale refer to losing a sense of connection to your social media identity/persona. Like the fear of missing out, nomophobia is likely more pronounced among the young.
From an outside perspective, there is nothing terribly surprising about the research. If you are accustomed to wearing a wristwatch every day and it is the only timepiece you have available, you will be uncomfortable if you are without it. You will worry about being late. You will wonder whether there will be problems associated with your not knowing what time it is frequently. We get accustomed to tools we use frequently, and we don’t like them to be suddenly unavailable to us.
From a litigation advocacy perspective, this study (again) speaks to the power of court admonitions to not use smartphones or social media during jury service. The smartphone is ubiquitous these days and increasingly, current studies are showing us that being unable to use one’s smartphone is a bitter pill for some to swallow. Last fall, we summed up the Fear of Missing Out Scale (FOMO) post this way:
Heavy social media users are likely to be more distracted, have a shorter attention span, more likely to reflexively use social media during trial, and want to get jury duty over ASAP so they can get back to tracking what really matters. You probably already knew that but with this new information you can impress everyone you know by saying, “This juror is going to be trouble for us since s/he has a high FoMO”. Thank goodness for academic research on scale development.
Now you can say, “this juror is very nomophobic” and consider if you want that level of angst in the jury room.
Yildirim, C., & Correia, A. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 130-137 DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059
We’ve written a lot about tattoos here and this writeup is going to be a little different from most of our posts. Rather than spending time on the research findings, we want to cite some of the more unusual and surprising findings the author reviews as a prelude to her results.
So, to be brief, the researcher found that Millennials are growing up and yes, they do know tattoos may be frowned upon in some parts of the business world. Further, many of them say that they will consider how able they will be to conceal a new tattoo in business attire as they approach the job market. That isn’t that surprising to us at all. What was surprising was some of the literature the author cited as she reviewed (oh the many) reasons someone should talk to Millennials and make sure they realize tattoos are permanent and may keep them from getting hired.
Here are just a few of the findings she cites in her review of the literature:
There is a Facebook page called “Tattoo Acceptance in the Workplace” which has over 2 million “likes”! (It seems to be more a place to show your art than to talk about the issues related to having tattoos in the workplace.)
A 2012 study showed that customers who have tattoos are more likely to trust salespeople who also have tattoos and that people associate more positive traits to salespeople with “feminine tattoos”.
Another survey completed in 2012 in a rural hospital showed patients did not view male health care professionals with tattoos positively. Caregivers with tattoos are seen as “unsanitary” or “dirty”. It is imagined that the judges of the tattoos are not, themselves, owners of tattoos. No ink-bonding there. Another 2010 health care setting survey resulted in concerns about infection control since tattoo cover ups could hamper good washing of the hands. We imagine that there is concern that some people who cover up tattoos don’t realize that they need to be uncovered for the sake of cleaning skin. An odd concern, we think.
Undergraduate accounting students in 2011 thought accounting professionals should not have visible tattoos (even though 26% of the survey participants had their own tattoos!). Further, those students had less confidence in the tattooed accountant and were less likely to recommend the services of a tattooed accountant.
A man in Pennsylvania sought employment as a “Liquor Enforcement Officer” in 2012 and was told in order to be hired he would have to remove his tattoos. He filed a lawsuit alleging multiple violations and the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the lower court ruling (for the Defendant) saying “having a tattoo is not a fundamental right”.
Another ruling in 2006 involved lawsuit by several police officers who claimed their police chief did not have the authority to force employees to cover up tattoos because they were “offensive” or “unprofessional”. The court said that public employees may expect to have their first amendment rights more curtailed in order to “promote effective government”.
It is intriguing that self-expression tends to lose in court. Even more so, it is a testament to the power of the tattoo to divide even those with tattoos. Tattoos are going to be judged and they are almost always going to be judged negatively (even by those who also have tattoos)—so if you are a tattooed attorney or have a tattooed client, you may want to cover your own and have your client cover theirs as well while in court.
Foltz, KA (2015). The Millennial’s perception of tattoos: Self expression or business faux pas? College Student Journal
I do not recall ever having heard of this sleep disorder before but apparently it is much more common than previously thought. At least by me, since to me it sounded like a”Jackass” stunt. This is an actual sleep disorder in which you are suddenly awakened by a loud sound akin to an explosion but there is no external noise in your environment. It is literally like an explosion in your head.
Here’s what the Daily Mail had to say about what exploding head syndrome is:
It’s estimated between 10 and 20 per cent of people have experienced this bizarre condition, in which a person is woken up by an abrupt loud noise they soon realize is imaginary, a study found. The phenomenon strikes as a person is dropping off to sleep. And the type of noise can vary from explosions and fireworks to slammed doors, the sound of a gun firing, an enormous roar, shouting, thunder or a crack of lightning. The noises start suddenly and last for a few seconds, and some people also experience visual disturbances, such as seeing lightning or flashes. The condition stops people from sleeping and leads to other psychological problems as they sometimes believe they are having a seizure or being attacked, experts said. For some, the condition is so bad it significantly impacts their lives.
Previously, the disorder was thought to occur in people over the age of 50 years old but a new study shows it also occurs in 18% of college students—that’s almost 1 in 5 young adults! And almost a third of those that had exploding head syndrome also experienced isolated sleep paralysis (awakening and being unable to move for anywhere from a second or two up to a couple of minutes). The author says that as people with exploding head syndrome disorder attempt to make sense of their experience, they can sometimes think they are having “a seizure or a subarachnoid hemorrhage”. Or, says the author, “Some people have worked these scary experiences into conspiracy theories and mistakenly believe the episodes are caused by some sort of directed-energy weapon”.
The researcher interviewed 211 undergraduate students (average age 19.7 years; 70.6% female; 59.5% White, 10.5% Hispanic, 9.1% Asian, 8.6% African-American, 1.0% Native American and 11.4% mixed-ethnicity or other) using the Fearful Isolated Sleep Paralysis Interview and the Exploding Head Syndrome Interview (which the author developed so it is not yet available online). Administration time for these interviews is about 20 minutes each. Here are some of their findings:
18% of the sample (of 211) were found to have experienced exploding head syndrome at least once and 16.6% had experienced it repeatedly.
Exploding head syndrome was equally experienced by men and women. (In previous samples of older people, exploding head syndrome was more common among women. The researcher thinks perhaps it becomes more common as women age.)
Exploding head syndrome was more commonly found in those also reporting fearful isolated sleep paralysis (41 participants in this sample).
The overall level of fear/severity during the experience of exploding head syndrome was moderate but some people (2.8%) experienced clinically significant distress and/or impairment in functioning.
Obviously, this would be a very frightening thing and those who experience it are often very secretive since they think they might be crazy (having never heard anyone else talk about it). There is no treatment, although one of the medications prescribed for it can “turn the noise down” so it is not as frightening. A case study on a 57-year-old Indian male says that simple education and reassurance could be sufficient to decrease reactions to the experience.
From a litigation advocacy perspective, this is an example of an odd phenomenon that is very real and more common than previously thought. Listening without judgment to (even unusual) reports of odd experiences from potential or existing clients can go a long ways toward building rapport. While there are likely times the reports will exist only in the other person’s mind, this is an identifiable condition that is “all in their head”—just not in an imagined way.
Sharpless BA (2015). Exploding head syndrome is common in college students. Journal of Sleep Research PMID: 25773787
Just when you thought you could relax a little about jurors accessing the internet during a jury trial, we learn this factoid from the smart folks at Pew Research Center:
“64% of American adults now own a smart phone of some kind, up from 35% in the spring of 2011. Smartphone ownership is especially high among younger Americans, as well as those with relatively high income and education levels.”
Yes. Smartphone ownership has almost doubled in the past four years. While a smart phone is now more likely than not, for some Americans, the smart phone is almost the only way they can access the internet and that particular group is different from those with multiple access points in some important ways.
Here are some of the findings from the Pew survey of 2,002 adults in the United States completed between December 4th and 21st, 2014 by telephone:
10% of Americans who own a smart phone do not have any other form of high-speed internet access.
15% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 are heavily dependent on a smart phone for online access.
13% of Americans who earn less than $30K a year are smart phone dependent for internet access. (As a comparison, only 1% of American households earning more than $75K per year rely on their smartphones for internet access.)
While 12% of African-Americans and 13% of Latinos are smart phone dependent for internet access, the same is true for only 4% of Whites.
Those who are smart phone dependent for internet access are also less likely to own another type of computing device, less likely to have a bank account, less likely to have health insurance, and more likely to rent or live with a friend or family member as opposed to owning their own home. Further, nearly half of those who are smart phone dependent have had to shut off their cell phone service for a period of time since the cost was prohibitive.
Among younger smart phone users, the smart phone is popular for avoiding boredom and to avoid interacting with others. They also use their phones more often than older users to watch videos, listen to podcasts, and get turn-by-turn directions to a desired location.
From a litigation advocacy perspective, this is one more reminder to remain vigilant about educating jurors on why smart phone research is a problem when deciding justice. On the other hand, this may also be a good question for determining financial stability and socio-economic status if you are unable to assess it otherwise.
“Do you have other means of internet access in your home besides your smart phone?”
The answer to that question could potentially give you insight into your potential juror’s life and their access to information that other questions cannot.
Pew Internet Research. 2015. US Smartphone use in 2015.
The popular perception is that Millennials are passive and uninterested in civic issues and that they do not pay attention to traditional “news” since they are glued to their smartphones. According to a very recent survey, these beliefs, like many stereotypes, are simply wrong. The Media Insight Project recently published a survey of 1,046 adults aged 18-34 years (did you realize some Millennials were that old?). The findings show that Millennials actually keep up with traditional “news” stories as well as stories connecting them to friends, hobbies, culture and entertainment. The authors say that the “first digital generation is highly engaged” and that “if anything, the enormous role of social media appears to have a widening impact, not a narrowing one, on the awareness of this generation”.
Here are just a few of the results from their survey:
Contrary to popular belief, Millennials do not see themselves as “constantly connected”. While more than 90% of them owned smartphones and half had tablets, only 51% said they were online “most or all” of the day.
Social media involvement did not narrow their perspectives. Social media network feeds exposed them to a “diverse mix of viewpoints” some similar and some dissimilar to their own, according to 70% of those surveyed.
Of interest to the trial attorney is that 73% of those exposed to different views said they investigated the differing options of others at least sometimes with a quarter saying they investigate “always or often”. (This might indicate Millennials are more willing to consider viewpoints or evidence at odds with what they currently believe.)
69% of the Millennials said they get news at least once a day and 40% got news several times a day. This does not mean they watch a television news program or visit news sites to find news. More typically, news comes to them through social contexts (social networks or friends) and then they do research to learn more about the information.
Facebook use is pretty universal although younger Millennials are expressing growing frustration with Facebook and are more likely than older Millennials to have cut back on Facebook use or even dropped it entirely.
There are news-gathering differences by age within the Millennial generation. Younger Millennials (those under age 25 and even those out of college) use social networks more to identify news stories of interest to them and they use alternative news sites more. Older Millennials see social networks as “social” rather than sources for gathering information about the world around them.
This is a good resource to challenge your stereotypes about this particular group. They (in life, and as jurors) are not all the same. There are differences within this generation by age and by gender and even by ethnicity that may be surprising to you. Millennials are maturing and changing and popular beliefs about them are often seriously in error. And the Millennial may be more open to evidence contradicting their current point of view than are older jurors. That alone may make you want to look a little more closely at the Millennial in the box.
The Media Insight Project. 2015. How Millennials get news: Inside the habits of America’s first digital generation.