You are currently browsing the archives for the Self Presentation category.

Follow me on Twitter

Blog archive

We Participate In:

You are currently browsing the archives for the Self Presentation 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 ‘Self Presentation’ Category

i-am-powerfulWe have written about power poses and other strategies to help yourself feel powerful.  Be clear, though—you do not become more powerful by doing such things, but it might make you feel that way, which in itself can be communicated as confidence or authority. This post isn’t about how to make yourself feel powerful, it is about those who perceive themselves as already powerful. In short, those who see themselves as powerful draw more inspiration from themselves than they do from others. It apparently doesn’t matter if you really are powerful, only that you think you are powerful. The authors begin by quoting from Matthew McConaughey’s Oscar acceptance speech in 2014.

McConaughey “recalled someone asking him ‘Who’s your hero?’. He replied: “You know who it is? It’s me in ten years”. [snip] Apparently, Matthew McConaughey derives inspiration from his future self.”

So the researchers took a look at how this happens. How do you draw inspiration from yourself rather than drawing inspiration from the example of others. They give the example of the sort of  person we have all encountered, who goes on and on about their accomplishments and experiences. The dynamic is not only one exemplified by famous actors.

The researchers planned four separate studies with 555 participants across all four studies (3 studies performed with Dutch undergraduates and one with undergraduates at UC Berkeley). In the first three experiments all participants completed a measure of their personal sense of power, and other tasks (including writing tasks and various efforts to measure how the participants were “inspired”). In the final study, the researchers “primed” the participants to experience either a high or low sense of personal power. What the researchers wanted to know was if the participants who felt “powerful” would report they drew more inspiration from themselves than they drew from others.

Their findings are consistent with Matthew McConaughey’s Oscar speech (even in the fourth study where participants were “primed” for high power sense of self rather than just reporting it was the way they saw themselves).

The powerful are more inspired by their own experiences than are those that do not see themselves as powerful.

And the powerful are more inspired by their own experiences than by the experiences of others.

The authors conclude that the reason powerful people talk more, are poor perspective takers, are less prone to consider the opinions of others, and less likely to take expert advice (all findings in previous research) is because “the powerful prefer to entertain their own rather than other people’s experiences and ideas, because they are more inspired by their own internal states than by those of others”. The authors close by returning to consider the case of Matthew McConaughey. They say,

“Inspiration is always within reach for their powerful—entertaining their own uplifting experiences is enough to spark the flame.”

It brings to mind how important it is to look at how a persuasive person with high socio-economic status and confidence  (a “powerful” person) may function in jury deliberations. If you want to avoid having a jury dominated by this person, take the time to teach all jurors “how to deliberate” so if they feel run over by jurors who feel empowered to drive the verdict—others have ammunition with which to disrupt that intention.

Van Kleef, G., Oveis, C., Homan, A., van der Lowe, I., & Keltner, D. (2015). Power Gets You High: The Powerful Are More Inspired by Themselves Than by Others Social Psychological and Personality Science DOI: 10.1177/1948550614566857

Image

Share
Comments Off

williams and stewartI grew up listening to the television news with (Uncle) Walter Cronkite and my dad every night. I had a morbid fascination with his recitation of the body count of soldiers in the Vietnam War and silently said his sign-off line along with him: “And that’s the way it was…” and then a repeat of the day’s date. Walter Cronkite reported the news. He had credibility and gravitas. He was a cultural icon in a more innocent time.

Flash forward to the present and I have not watched the evening news with any regularity for at least two decades. There is simply no need with breaking news alerts and NPR while I am on the road. So when the Brian Williams “misremembers” memes began, after his story of being shot down in a helicopter was refuted, I was saddened, but neither surprised nor particularly interested. But the buzz turned to scandal and scandal  turned to NBC news dropping Mr. Williams name from the show title. Conservative websites published “32 Lies” that Williams told regularly about his experiences. He was mocked mercilessly on the Saturday Night Live 40th Anniversary Special. Time Magazine wondered if Williams was a narcissistic liar or the victim of false memories.

Brian Williams is likely not the only well-known news personality to embellish his experiences and even to tell stories easily proven to be untrue. Yet, he seems to have believed nothing bad would happen to him even if he continued to exhibit very poor judgment. Just like Anthony Wiener. Eliot Spitzer. Tiger Woods. Even David Letterman (on whose show Brian Williams told falsehoods to a national audience). And so on. David Letterman appears to have not forgotten the glare of the spotlight when his own deceptions were made public. He combined his support of Brian Williams with a Top 10 List of Things Brian Williams Has Said That May or May Not Be True on a recent show and said he believes this will “blow over” and it will all “be fine”.

But how can we trust the mass media when a highly respected and well-liked spokesperson for the media has fallen so publicly and so hard? Well, says Gallup Polls, we don’t trust the mass media anyway and while Brian Williams’ actions may reinforce that distrust, he certainly has not created the distrust of the mass media. One Gallup chart shows clearly that TV news now enjoys less confidence from the American people than any institution in the country—other than Congress! A second chart shows how dramatically our trust in television news has been declining for the past two decades.

brian williams insert 2

So Brian Williams’ “misremembering” and offering a glib apology that only made things worse will hardly sink all of television news. That ship appears to have sailed, largely propelled by the cable news industry. In some ways, I miss the days when Uncle Walter intoned and I believed. But I was a kid then and the news cycle is very different. Faster. Constant. Now I have more information about the world from a multitude of sources. I understand how various media outlets slant their reporting to meet political ideology demands, the demographics of their desired audience, or biased but real demands of their owners. Frankly, as I have considered all this attention for Brian Williams’ falsehoods, it has been hard for me to think anything but, “what will we do without Jon Stewart?”. That, to me, is the larger loss as I contemplate my own news consumption habits. And the answer may turn out to be John Oliver.

Image

Share
Comments Off

Leftover treasures: This and that

Monday, December 8, 2014
posted by Douglas Keene

We are again honored by our inclusion in the ABA Blawg 100 list for 2014. If you value this blog, please take a moment to vote for us here in the Litigation Category. Voting closes on December 19, 2014. Doug and Rita

leftovers

Like that cranberry sauce* shoved to the back of the refrigerator, this post contains small “leftover” treasures to which we do not want to devote an entire post but which we would like to share with you.

Tattoos, Piercings and the Workplace

You may have noticed we have quite a collection of posts about tattoos here at The Jury Room. We’ve said it is because we may have some tattooed 20-something kids but it is also perhaps because we are very curious about anything that stirs up bias or strong feelings in the observer. While tattoos may seem like yesterday’s news, in some people they still arouse strong reactions. And apparently in some corporations as well. A recent post at The Act of Violence identifies various corporate policies against tattoos and body piercings: Starbucks, for example, allows no tattoos that show (and now no “gem-encrusted rings or diamond-heavy wedding rings”).   Other companies ask that tattoos not carry “racist, anti-religious, demeaning, profane, or hostile” messages. Still others apparently have a “percentage policy” wherein they say you may not have more than 30% of your exposed skin showing visible tattoos! Piercings, embedded jewelry, branding, scarring, and other body modifications are undoubtedly giving HR personnel across the country heartburn as they figure out how to respond to individual employees. This is an interesting post well worth visiting.

Don’t send that cover letter!

Speaking of the workplace, if you are on the job market, don’t just get in touch with your own pain–get in touch with the pain of the hiring manager. Here’s a Forbes piece on what they call human-voiced resumes. It’s a way of communicating to that hiring manager that you not only understand, but that you would be terrific to work with, rather than using a cover letter and making the mistake of leading with your “passion”.

“Meanies” online get more attention

So if what you want is attention, just be mean. Snarky. Sarcastic. People will think you are smarter and you will get re-tweeted a lot when you are mean (at least according to this Wired article). It’s called the “negativity bias” and this is how Wired describes it: “when we seek to impress someone with our massive gray matter, we spout sour and negative opinions”. So, when you see people being mean online, just know they are trying to impress you with how smart they are.

Do I want to vote for brains or potential lifespan?

Speaking of how smart people are, let’s take a look at how people decide who to vote for when faced with several political candidates. You guessed it, here’s a study (presented in a podcast that hit boingboing.net) saying when choosing whom to vote for, people prefer candidates who look healthy over those who seem smart. Here’s a website with an example of what, in this study, constituted a healthier looking person versus an intelligent looking person.

Would that be a homonym, homograph, or homophone?

Many people have trouble with words that sound alike but mean different things. You may have noticed that popular word processors often share that trouble. Here’s a terrific infographic that may even help you figure out the difference between “affect” and “effect”. If you know the difference you do not have to creatively use “impact” in place of either “affect” or “effect”.

Image

*And as for that leftover cranberry sauce, try it on a grilled cheese sandwich with a hearty bread the sauce will not penetrate.

Share
Comments Off

We are again honored by our inclusion in the ABA Blawg 100 list for 2014. If you value this blog, please take a moment to vote for us here in the Litigation Category. Voting closes on December 19, 2014. Doug and Rita

offensiveThe research we are covering today focuses on feedback that is subtly offensive and what observers make of it in comparison to constructive and destructive feedback. In case you are wondering just what “subtly offensive feedback” is, the researchers believe that subtly offensive feedback communicates that the recipient is “rather stupid” without saying so directly. Even when presented in a friendly fashion, say the researchers, the words hurt. Since prior research had neither focused on nor defined “subtly offensive” feedback, the researchers had to operationalize the ways in which they would offer the subtly offensive feedback to their participants. This study was seen as a pilot study upon which to develop future research.

The researchers defined three different types of subtly offensive feedback to test in the pilot study:

overkill (overly long and excessive dwelling on details);

exaggeration (explicitly exaggerating the significance of the mistakes); and

banality (declaring that a mistake is so easy to see no one should have missed it).

The researchers believe that feedback does not have to be presented in a destructive manner to be seen as negative. Their hypothesis, therefore, was that recipients would find the feedback less fair and acceptable than constructive feedback, and more fair and acceptable than destructive feedback. The hypothesis makes intuitive sense and you will likely not be surprised that they were correct.

132 Swiss undergraduate students (86 female, 46 male, average age 22.5 years, and participating in groups of 20 to 25 students) viewed a video of a man who was introduced as a professor and was allegedly giving feedback to a student about a course-related paper. Participants rated how fair they felt the feedback was after each (of 7 total) video.

As expected, participants rated the “subtly offensive” feedback as in between the fairness of constructive and destructive feedback. The researchers were surprised to find that the subtly offensive feedback conditions differed from each other. Participants saw overkill as most fair of the offensive conditions, then banality, and finally exaggeration. The researchers suggest that workplace supervisors can learn from their results that feedback can be negative and hurtful even if they are not insulting and rude. While this may seem an obvious conclusion, we would certainly agree.

From a litigation advocacy perspective, the awareness and sensibilities of jurors is a moving target. Not too long ago, it was sometimes an effective tactic to focus (and focus and focus) on whether an expert witness was being paid. That is no longer true, as the following experience connotes.

At the conclusion of a recent trial, as jurors were debriefed, they commented that they knew expert witnesses were paid and reported feeling that opposing counsel’s lengthy questions to experts about how much they were paid were insulting to their (i.e., the jurors’) intelligence. The attorneys did not mean to offend, but they had (in the words of today’s researchers) “subtly offended” their jurors.

Jurors have become increasingly sophisticated and aware of expert and fact witnesses and, like these jurors said in the post-verdict interviews: “We know experts get paid!”. This isn’t the only example of these faint lines between constructive, subtly offensive, and destructive statements. The research does a good job of establishing the distinction, but it doesn’t help at all in determining where those lines are– within a particular jury, subculture, region, nation, or anything else. Surely cultural values, differences in individual sensitivity, and life experiences all affect a person’s reaction to such things. If you wonder about that, consider how a hilarious joke that seemed innocent enough to you invariably strikes some listeners as offensive. Sometimes it is hard to tell. Play it safe. Stay away from jokes about anyone other than yourself, and carefully consider ways to be inviting- not critical- in when you present explanations and examples.

Krings, R., Jacobshagen, N., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. (2014). Subtly offending feedback Journal of Applied Social Psychology DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12287

Image

Share
Comments Off

 

We are again honored by our inclusion in the ABA Blawg 100 list for 2014. If you value this blog, please take a moment to vote for us here in the Litigation Category. Voting closes on December 19, 2014. Doug and Rita

trusting too much kills youBack in August we wrote a post on a study saying women are lied to more in negotiations. One of our readers re-tweeted the post and added, “Happy Women’s Equality Day”. Another article from the same research group says women are more likely than men to trust a liar again after they learn of deception.

The authors we are studying today conducted three separate studies to assess gender differences in trust following deception (or what the authors refer to as a trust violation). Their findings were consistent:

Women trust more than men after a deception.

Women are less likely than men to lose trust in others following transgressions.

Women are more likely than men to re-establish trust after repeated transgressions.

It seems to be about socialization–women want to maintain relationships and that desire results in a gender difference in trust after a “trust violation”. If these results are accurate, it is no wonder men keep lying to women. Women are willing to believe the apology. Women, say the authors, are more forgiving, and more motivated to work through relationship problems.  We could go on at some length about these findings but instead we want to focus on one of the measures they used to assess the importance of maintaining a relationship. We had never heard of this scale before but it has a terrific name: The Unmitigated Communion Scale. And the 9 items in the scale below (taken from the article published in 1999) highlight the differences we continue to see between men and women in 2014.

 

Unmitigated communion scale

The items in this scale were designed to measure a focus on others even when that focus resulted in one’s own detriment back in 1999. And we still get gender differences in responses to the seemingly dated questions from this scale in 2014? Wow. Just wow.

Haselhuhn, M., Kennedy, J., Kray, L., Van Zant, A., & Schweitzer, M. (2015). Gender differences in trust dynamics: Women trust more than men following a trust violation Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 104-109 DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.007

Fritz, H., & Helgeson, V. (1998). Distinctions of unmitigated communion from communion: Self-neglect and overinvolvement with others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 121-140 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.75.1.121

Image

Share
Comments Off