ABA Journal Blawg 100!
We Participate In:
Archive for the ‘Pre-trial research’ Category
Earlobes askew and crooked nose. Aha, it’s a transformational leader!
Most people would agree that Jeff Bezos of Amazon is a transformational leader. But many of us would likely look askance at using earlobes that are unevenly aligned as a measure of leadership potential.
But according to some new research, we might want to think again! As it happens, asymmetry occurs in-utero as a result of stress. Scientists say higher symmetry is a sign of genetic fitness. When they see asymmetry between the right and left sides of the body, scientists say those fetuses were less able to develop symmetrically in the presence of those in-utero stressors. Poor babies!
Leadership researchers talk about transactional versus transformational leaders. Many of them prefer the transformational style of leadership but we’ve seen terrific examples of both among trial lawyers.
A transactional leader is very precise and linear. Communication styles are likely factual, detail oriented, chronological and thorough. They invite you to think and consider the evidence without telling you what you should conclude, and their style of persuasion is very subtle. You are drawn to the transactional leader because they are clear, straightforward, and trustworthy. One of our very successful long-term clients has this style and jurors love it.
A transformational leader is charismatic. Communication styles are more emotive even though they may also be factual and thorough. You are drawn to the transformational leader because of their intensity, passion, and commitment to their cause. The transformational leader is able to inspire followers to put aside self-interest for the good of the group. Another of our very successful long-term clients has this style and jurors love it.
In this study, researchers looked at stereotypes of symmetrical people and asymmetrical people. Symmetrical people are seen as better looking, healthier, more intelligent and more dominant. They are the classic alphas. The asymmetrical person “has to develop more positive social skills to compensate for these perceived shortcomings.”
Then, they measured leadership style via self-report questionnaires and actual small team leadership observation over the course of 22 weeks when groups were required to complete a computer simulation task. They also measured participant earlobes, wrist widths, and finger lengths and assigned scores for overall symmetry to each participant.
What they found is interesting.
Highly asymmetrical people saw themselves as having higher [self-reported] leadership abilities. They saw themselves as more able to intuit others’ feelings and needs and as more able to inspire others.
And this was confirmed as a reality via group performance. The more asymmetrical the leader, the better the team performed (about 20% better on average).
The researchers think that if you’re born with asymmetries you likely focus on developing more “people skills” to overcome perceptions that you are unattractive or not very intelligent. It’s an intriguing idea. Perhaps it is also that people with asymmetry are more interesting looking–and the longer eye gaze from others as they assess the asymmetry leads to development of skills to sustain others’ interest.
Regardless of the reason, it’s a good visual to look for as we select jurors. Crooked ears and signs of social intelligence sparkling in those too far apart eyes? Now there’s a jury leader! [If you’d like to check your own facial symmetry, [for scientific purposes] visit this website.
Senior, C., Martin, R., Thomas, G., Topakas, A., West, M., & M. Yeats, R. (2011). Developmental stability and leadership effectiveness The Leadership Quarterly DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.005
Senior C, Martin R, West M, & Yeats RM (2011). How earlobes can signify leadership potential. Harvard Business Review, 89 (11) PMID: 22111428
fMRIs and Persuasion: Did anyone tell the jurors?
We all know that neuro-imaging is not ready for courtroom persuasion yet, but did someone remember to tell the jurors? Apparently not–but maybe they already knew.
Are “pictures” of the brain so persuasive that they can sway juror decision making? Even though the credibility of the medical experts has to be factored in, many people believe that when you include brain scan photos (as opposed to bar charts or topographical maps for example) the viewer is more persuaded. Even though there isn’t a chance in the world that an average juror can make sense of the image.
So, the current researchers decided to look at the effect, if any, of neuroimages using a fact pattern of a capital murder case. They were trying to sort out whether it is useful to focus mitigation arguments on neuroimaging evidence, since it could “create the impression the defendant is ‘damaged goods’ and beyond repair.”
The researchers presented the facts of a murder along with evidence (included in nearly all capital trials) of the likelihood of future dangerousness and evidence about the psychiatric condition of the defendant. They divided participants into 3 conditions:
The first group was told the defendant was psychotic.
The second group was told the defendant was psychotic and was given the results of neuropsychological testing discussing damage to the defendant’s brain (specifically, the frontal lobe).
The third group was given the diagnostic information and the test results but also shown color photos of “structural and functional scans of the defendant’s brain” and given descriptions of likely consequences with this sort of damage to the brain.
The researchers expected that the more information participants were given, the less they would choose the death penalty IF the defendant was adjudged to be at low risk for future violence. And they were wrong.
When mock jurors were provided only a diagnosis, and were told the defendant had a high risk of future violence, they were overwhelmingly more likely to give a death sentence (65% voted for death penalty) than other mock jurors. When they were given additional information (either a psychological testing summary or the testing summary with neuroimaging evidence), their imposition of the death sentence dropped dramatically (down to 12% voting for death penalty). If jurors assessing these ‘dangerous’ defendants were given all three forms of information, the death penalty was selected only 8% of the time.
Oddly, low risk of dangerousness only affected those jurors who were only given the diagnosis (but no supportive test data or images). ‘Diagnosis only’ mock jurors assigned the death penalty about 17% of the time (down from 65%), while diagnosis plus testing mock jurors chose the death penalty about 21% of the time and mock jurors receiving all three types of evidence chose the death penalty about 14% of the time (essentially the same as the ‘high risk of violence’ condition).
The researchers concluded that with high risk for future violence defendants, both neuropsychological testing and neuroimaging evidence reduced the likelihood jurors would choose the death penalty. Rather than being ‘aggravating’, this additional evidence was truly mitigating in the case of the high-risk-to-violently-reoffend defendant.
Our view is that this is consistent with what is frequently seen in juror decision-making: Jurors are much more comfortable accepting a high-risk proposition if they are comforted that they have a valid reason for doing it. This is most clearly seen in the high risk group, where they needed to be assured there is ‘scientific evidence’ that the defendant was impaired, not merely that the defense found an expert willing to make that claim. It also suggests that in the population used in the study, there were about 15-20% who were in favor of the death penalty regardless of mitigating scientific evidence.
It’s important to note that the neuropsychological testing results mitigated almost as much as the testing results plus the brain pictures. The verbal description alone (or verbal picture if you will) persuaded jurors. The researchers say it is possible that any additional information pertinent to the defendant’s condition ‘personalizes’ the defendant for jurors and thus may prove mitigating. We go with the former idea, as it seems unlikely that a psychological test profile or a description of neuroimaging studies causes anyone to become more ‘personal’. The jurors simply want reassurance that they are working off more than one person’s opinion.
For the practitioner, this says you don’t need bells and whistles [like brain scans] to successfully mitigate. But you do need solid and scientific information, well-presented using language and examples jurors can understand. That testimony can save a life.
Greene, E., & Cahill, B. (2011). Effects of Neuroimaging Evidence on Mock Juror Decision Making Behavioral Sciences & the Law DOI: 10.1002/bsl.1993
“Psychologically, men and women are almost a different species”
Someone should give researchers a list of what sorts of things not to say when describing their research. Whether it’s “this may help explain everything from unrequited love to the uprisings of the Arab Spring!” or “men and women are almost a different species”–it’s just unwise. You can be proud of your research without absurd hyperbole. There’s always someone out there ready to burst your bubble.
In this instance, we have Europeans stepping into the spotlight with a study of the personality differences between men and women using 20 year old data. You likely know that most recent studies show small differences between the genders. Previous studies, according to these researchers, were flawed by weak measures and poor design. So, the European researchers (from Italy and the UK) used a large US sample of 10,261 people who had taken the 16PF Personality Questionnaire back in 1993, during the standardization research for the test.
The researchers found only a 10% overlap in the responses of the males and females comprising the standardization group. They interpret the findings as showing very large and very significant gender differences that have been overlooked in the past. They published their article on the PLoS ONE website. That is when their readers began to respond. Loudly.
Some agreed.
“Del Giudice, Booth, and Irwing’s title employs the much-used “Mars and Venus” metaphor, suggesting a seemingly astronomical separation between the sexes. This is undoubtedly an exaggeration, reflecting a kind of poetic license. Hyde prefers to speak of the distance between North Dakota and South Dakota.”
“It is surprising that this paper is so controversial. I thought that it was obvious that men and women have different personalities, and I had assumed that psychometric testing had established this decades ago.”
Others did not.
“I don’t have a lot of patience for this sort of boys-do-this, girls-do-that flavor of schoolyard evolutionary biology. In this particular case, any observed differences between men and women can be explained in any number of ways so I see the connection to evolution as being pretty weak.”
“Giudice et al’s study is already getting a lot of attention, and its title, “The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality,” suggests that it’s tailor-made for the popular press. Many will probably claim it proves once and for all that men and women are inherently different, and those who ascribe to this view will probably be citing it for a long time to come. When they do, remember to take it with a grain of salt.”
“So I would say that these data show that, while men and women may be distinguishable in personality, they could still be similar. This is something of a semantic point but not “merely” semantic: it changes the interpretation of the numbers.” http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2012/01/men-and-women-alien-personalities.html
Gender differences are well-recognized by all of us who are male or female. We know it when we see it and we “see it” all the time. Or so we think. But our pretrial research rarely finds differences between the genders that we can rely upon. Obviously, we are not doing research on 10,000 people (and not on anyone from 1993) but we see many more similarities than differences. Perhaps as some commenters opine, this is about something other than gender.
The lesson is to not trumpet your atypical findings as the whole truth. There’s plenty of truth to go around. And plenty of ways to misconstrue your findings.
Del Giudice M, Booth T, & Irwing P (2012). The distance between Mars and venus: measuring global sex differences in personality. PloS one, 7 (1) PMID: 22238596
Does itemizing impairment increase damage awards in civil cases?
When we do civil pretrial research, there is generally a mock jury charge (jury questions). Sometimes the jury charge is simple and brief–liability and damages.
Other times, the jury charge is lengthy and every possible form of damages is itemized. It’s done because the attorneys know what these researchers have apparently just identified: more discreet elements of damage tend to make the overall damage award higher. Our view has been that it forces jurors to more carefully consider the ways that the negligence has affected the plaintiff.
Researchers designed an experiment where participants would designate either one, two [mental and physical] or four [mental, loss of enjoyment of life, disability and disfigurement] non-economic damage elements for a case in which they were told negligence had already been determined. Their findings are complicated.
Participants awarded more when they had to itemize four elements of damages than when instructed to make one decision.
Two choices, however, was not appreciably different than one choice. That is, splitting the single award into one award for physical injuries and one award for mental injuries did not appreciably increase the overall damage award.
When examining the specific damage awards, they found the mock jurors awarded the most for physical disability/impairment, followed closely by loss of enjoyment of life, and then about half these amounts for both mental anguish and disfigurement.
These results are fairly consistent with what we’ve seen in our pretrial research. The loss of life enjoyment (hedonic) damages is one we have seen eliciting higher damages from younger jurors (these mock jurors were undergraduate students). Our belief is that the idea of being ‘trapped in your body’ or ‘losing your freedom’ or is one that resonates particularly with young people.
However, we’ve also seen that limited life experience (i.e., being young) also drives down damage awards in general due to a lack of understanding of how serious physical injuries become chronic over time and may result in additional impairment and expense–as well as due to simply being young and generally healthy and lacking experiences with which to empathize.
Overall, our experience confirms the findings in this new study– itemizing damages drives higher awards. If you are plaintiff in a venue that permits a lengthy set of special damages or damages ‘lines’, it is generally smart to take advantage of it.
Gregory, A., & Winter, R. (2011). More than the sum of its parts? Itemizing impairment in civil cases Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16 (1), 173-187 DOI: 10.1348/135532510X496204
“I like you but I don’t know why”
Ahhh….it’s a good thing we know why. We write regularly about increasing likability of your client by making them “like” your jurors. And for the same reason, we cover research about values, attitudes, beliefs, community and family involvement and so on. This research nugget points out another way of making your client “like” the jurors–and frankly, it’s not one we would have suggested!
Researchers were curious about whether facial resemblance to one’s significant other would influence liking. They recruited heterosexual couples who had been together at least a year. But (naturally) they wanted to test their hypotheses outside of the research participant’s conscious awareness so they took photos of random people and electronically combined them “using morphing techniques” [yes, they really say that] with photographs of the participants’ significant others so that half of the photographs shown to participants resembled their partner and half did not. Then they showed photographs [a combination of the morphed photos and the random shots of strangers] to the participants and had them make “snap judgments” as to characteristics of the person in the photograph.
You guessed it. Participants tended to “like” those photographs morphed to resemble their partners and tended to presume the positive characteristics they saw in their partner belonged to the person resembling their partner. But there were several twists.
Gender makes a difference: Women were more likely than men to judge the ‘morphed’ faces more positively.
Relationship quality makes a difference: People who were happier in their relationships were more likely to make snap positive judgments on the morphed faces than those who were less happy.
The researchers explain these differences by pointing out that past research shows women are more sensitive to subtle facial cues and tend to process visual information more thoroughly than do men.
That may be true. What we wonder about though is whether this might be a “I have to choose between two jurors and I have no idea which one to choose” sort of study. We make snap judgments about people based on their appearance all the time. And so do jurors. But we don’t pause as often to ask ourselves why. Maybe they have a nice smile, or they gratify our vanity by appearing to respond to what we say. But as often as not, we probably fall back onto attributing to that person the qualities we find in someone that looks like them, or dresses like them, or has the same voice.
So. If you have a case with a lot of visual information–you choose your juror based on whether you wish to have them process that information more thoroughly [the female juror] or less thoroughly [the male juror].
Does your anxious client look culpable? Women may pay more attention to that than men since women are more attuned to subtle facial cues. Defense lawyers might want the male jurors while opposing counsel would choose the female.
The reality is that we can never know for certain which juror is going to be ‘best’ for our case when it comes down to two evenly matched ‘not so good for us’ potential jurors– certainly not based on whether they more closely resemble favorite cousin Ruth or ex-wife Sandra. You can choose based on information like this (culled from the research literature) or go based on your intuition/gut. And you can make an amusing anecdote about it during voir dire:
“Ladies and gentlemen, I once had a juror explain to me afterwards that she didn’t trust me for half of the trial because I looked like a bum that dated her sister. I’m glad she kept her mind open, but I don’t want you to struggle with that. Does anyone here see in me or in my co-counsel or clients a familiar face? I promise you we’re nice people, but does anyone see in us the face of someone you don’t like?”
Choose the path you feel best about. The most important issue while presenting a case is not so much having made the ‘right’ decision, as having confidence you made the best decision you could given the information you had available.
Gunaydin, G., Zayas, V., Selcuk, E., & Hazan, C. (2012). I like you but I don’t know why: Objective facial resemblance to significant others influences snap judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 350-353
Recent Comments