Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Using framing to your advantage

It's Not All About Me: Motivating Hand Hygiene Among Health Care Professionals by Focusing on Patients

Psychologists Adam M. Grant and David A. Hofmann recently did experiments in a hospital to understand the effectiveness of signs that promote hand hygiene.

In the field experiments, there were interesting findings when it came down to the comparisons of different hand hygiene signs located near dispensaries, which either promoted the idea of “hand hygiene prevents you from catching diseases,” or “hand hygiene prevents patients from catching diseases.”

At the Vienna General Hospital in 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis required health care officials to wash their hands, and the affects were dramatic. Death rates due to childbed fever decreased from 18.3% to 1.3%. After extensive research, it has since been found that hand hygiene plays an extremely important role in preventing the spread of diseases and infections.

In the study performed by Adam and Hofmann, the percentage of soap and hand-sanitizing gel were measured during 2-week periods before and after the signs were introduced.

Here are the results:

Personal consequence: 35% pre-experiment, 33% post-experiment

Patient consequences: 37% pre-experiment, 54% post-experiment

It was discovered that when it came to someone else’s life at stake when dealing with the potential spread of diseases, health care officials had better hand hygiene. But when it came to being reminded that washing hands prevents themselves from catching diseases, they didn’t seem to think twice about it.

Thinking about the patient is crucially important, and in the long run can help both health care officials and patients stay away from infectious diseases.

Cite: Psychological Science


If you have an interest in learning how you can use psychological science to your advantage in your case, please contact David A. Wenner, 602.224.0005 or david@jurybias.com

Monday, November 14, 2011

Case Plus Helps at Every Stage of Your Case

November 30, 2011 - December 3, 2011
Sheraton Nashville Downtown Hotel
Nashville, TN

Focus groups are invaluable tools for exploring key issues in your case before taking it into the courtroom. Register for Case Plus: The Next Step in Developing and Testing Your Trial Story to benefit from not one, but three focus groups—now with extended focus group time spent on your case. And you can bring a second member of your trial team from your firm at no additional cost.

Case Plus Helps at Every Stage of Your Case
• Explore the biases and beliefs surrounding your case in order to develop a
discovery plan and case themes
• Determine the strengths and weaknesses of your case in order to develop
your trial strategy
• Get feedback on your trial story
• Find the trouble spots in your trial story before you go to trial

Open Only to AAJ Plaintiff Members (Regular, Life, Sustaining, President’s Club, and Leaders Forum) and AAJ’s Paralegal Affiliates.

http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/14236.htm

Weekend with the Stars: Evolution of Trial Advocacy,

December 9, 2011 - December 10, 2011
Hilton New York Hotel
New York, NY

At AAJ Education’s seminar, Weekend with the Stars: Evolution of Trial Advocacy, you’ll hear some of the nation’s preeminent trial lawyers discuss how litigation has evolved and their responses to those changes. This program gathers the who’s who of trial advocacy in one place, for you to learn from and meet.

Your Takeaways: State of the art strategies and practical ideas you can use right away.

Featuring: Gerry Spence

Widely recognized as one of the greatest trial lawyers of all time, Mr. Spence has spent his lifetime representing the poor and the injured. He has never lost a criminal case either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney. He has not lost a civil case since 1969. Mr. Spence has won more multi-million dollar verdicts without an intervening loss than any lawyer in America.

Weekend with the Stars: Evolution of Trial Advocacy offers an introspective view of several popular advocacy theories and if—and how—they should be applied to your cases. We’ll examine topics such as:

• Voir Dire
The Reptile: The First 2 1/2 Years
• Choice Theory
• Jury Relations
• Psychodrama in the Courtroom

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE, INDEED, ON JUROR BIAS

Neurolaw: Differential brain activity for Black and White faces predicts damage awards in hypothetical employment discrimination cases

Abstract

Currently, potential jurors' racial biases are measured by explicit questioning––a poor measure because people often hide their views to adhere to social norms, and people have implicit views they are not consciously aware of. In this experiment, we investigated whether two alternative methods of measuring racial bias––a standard Black/White, good/bad Implicit Association Test (IAT) and neural activity, measured by fMRI, in response to seeing faces of Black and White individuals––could predict how much money subjects would award Black victims in hypothetical employment discrimination cases. IAT scores failed to predict how much money subjects awarded victims. However, in right inferior parietal lobule (BA 40) and in right superior/middle frontal gyrus (BA 9/10)––which have both previously been implicated in measuring biases and implicit preferences––the difference in neural activity between when subjects viewed Black faces paired with neutral adjectives and when subjects viewed White faces paired with neutral adjectives was positively correlated with the amount of money the subjects awarded victims. This suggests that brain activity measures racial bias with more practical validity, at least in this situation and with our sample size, than a common behavioral measure (the IAT).

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17470919.2011.631739

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Automatic Thinking

Can You Crack The Code And Read the Hidden Message?


7H15 M355463 53RV35 70 PR0V3 H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N D0 4M4Z1N6 7H1N65! 1MPR3551V3 7H1N65! 1N 7H3 B361NN1NG 17 W45 H4RD BU7 N0W, 0N 7H15 L1N3 Y0UR M1ND 15 R34D1N6 17 4U70M471C411Y W17H 0UT 3V3N 7H1NK1N6 4B0U7 17, B3 PR0UD! 0N1Y C34R741N P30PL3 C4N R34D 7H15. R3 P057 1F U CRN.


Juror Bias

12 Racist Men: Post-Verdict Evidence of Juror Bias





Harvard Journal of Racial & Ethnic Justice, Vol. 27, p. 165, 2011

Abstract:
Federal Evidence Rule 606(b) and similar state rules prohibit post-verdict admission of juror statements, including racist or biased remarks, made during deliberations. The roots of the evidentiary prohibition are historically deep and the interests underlying the Rule implicate the very existence of the jury system. Constitutionality of the post-verdict evidentiary exclusion is based upon the presumption that pre-trial and trial mechanisms exist to discern juror bias prior to deliberations. Empirical studies and recent cases indicate, however, that these mechanisms do not currently operate to adequately expose or remove juror biases. This article argues that the expansion of these mechanisms, including more diverse jury venires, more robust and effective juror voir dire, less discretion for parties to remove jurors on the basis of race, and the development of jury admonitions directly addressing bias, will reduce juror expressions of bias during deliberations. Even with these reforms, however, not all juror bias will be disclosed and, whether for reasons of embarrassment, inattention or intent, some jurors will misrepresent material biases during voir dire. To address juror misrepresentations during voir dire, the article proposes a narrow exception to Rule 606(b) permitting inquiry into juror bias for the purpose of showing juror misrepresentation. The article’s unique approach of combining enhanced pre-trial and trial mechanisms with a narrow exception to the rule to address juror misrepresentations strikes a balance between upholding the goals underlying Rule 606(b) and the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Interesting article worth reading

Fear, Greed, and Financial Crises: A Cognitive Neurosciences Perspective


Andrew W. Lo


MIT Sloan School of Management; MIT CSAIL; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)


October 13, 2011


Abstract:
Historical accounts of financial crises suggest that fear and greed are the common denominators of these disruptive events: periods of unchecked greed eventually lead to excessive leverage and unsustainable asset-price levels, and the inevitable collapse results in unbridled fear, which must subside before any recovery is possible. The cognitive neurosciences may provide some new insights into this boom/bust pattern through a deeper understanding of the dynamics of emotion and human behavior. In this chapter, I describe some recent research from the neurosciences literature on fear and reward learning, mirror neurons, theory of mind, and the link between emotion and rational behavior. By exploring the neuroscientific basis of cognition and behavior, we may be able to identify more fundamental drivers of financial crises, and improve our models and methods for dealing with them.



http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1943325

That's gross!: Study uncovers physiological nature of disgust in politics

That's gross!: Study uncovers physiological nature of disgust in politics

ScienceShot: Rock, Paper, Scissors Not So Random - ScienceNOW

ScienceShot: Rock, Paper, Scissors Not So Random - ScienceNOW
Interesting article about how people interact and how we are influenced by those with whom we interact. It would be interesting to know how jurors react, unconsciously, to us during trial.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The Complicated Psychology of Revenge - Association for Psychological Science

The Complicated Psychology of Revenge - Association for Psychological Science

Psychological Response to Harm

Personality Prior to Disability Determines Adaptation


Agreeable Individuals Recover Lost Life Satisfaction Faster and More Completely

  1. Christopher J. Boyce
  2. Alex M. Wood

+Author Affiliations

  1. University of Manchester
  1. Christopher J. Boyce, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom E-mail: christopher.boyce@manchester.ac.uk

Abstract

Personality traits prior to the onset of illness or disability may influence how well an individual psychologically adjusts after the illness or disability has occurred. Previous research has shown that after the onset of a disability, people initially experience sharp drops in life satisfaction, and the ability to regain lost life satisfaction is at best partial. However, such research has not investigated the role of individual differences in adaptation to disability. We suggest that predisability personality determines the speed and extent of adaptation. We analyzed measures of personality traits in a sample of 11,680 individuals, 307 of whom became disabled over a 4-year period. We show that although becoming disabled has a severe impact on life satisfaction, this effect is significantly moderated by predisability personality. After 4 years of disability, moderately agreeable individuals had levels of life satisfaction 0.32 standard deviations higher than those of moderately disagreeable individuals. Agreeable individuals adapt more quickly and fully to disability; disagreeable individuals may need additional support to adapt.


http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/10/19/0956797611421790.abstract

Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman - Association for Psychological Science

Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman - Association for Psychological Science

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Interesting Blog From A Minnesota Trial Judge

This is an interesting blog, written by a Minnesota trial judge, about jurors who do not follow jury instructions.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

In the brain, winning is everywhere

In the brain, winning is everywhere

http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273%2811%2900732-X?utm_source=ECE001&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&bid=RUI7L2F:T1HQ4

Reinforcements and punishments facilitate adaptive behavior in diverse domains ranging from perception to social interactions. A conventional approach to understanding the corresponding neural substrates focuses on the basal ganglia and its dopaminergic projections. Here, we show that reinforcement and punishment signals are surprisingly ubiquitous in the gray matter of nearly every subdivision of the human brain. Humans played either matching-pennies or rock-paper-scissors games against computerized opponents while being scanned using fMRI. Multivoxel pattern analysis was used to decode previous choices and their outcomes, and to predict upcoming choices. Whereas choices were decodable from a confined set of brain structures, their outcomes were decodable from nearly all cortical and subcortical structures. In addition, signals related to both reinforcements and punishments were recovered reliably in many areas and displayed patterns not consistent with salience-based explanations. Thus, reinforcement and punishment might play global modulatory roles in the entire brain.

Most of brain reacts to winning, losing: study

Most of brain reacts to winning, losing: study

In the brain, winning is everywhere

In the brain, winning is everywhere

Monday, October 3, 2011

Are Jurors Likely To Take The Pain Of An Unlikable Plaintiff Less Seriously?

When you dislike patients, pain is taken less seriously

Lies De Rudderea, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Liesbet Gouberta, Ken Martin Prkachinb, Michael André Louis Stevensc, Dimitri Marcel Leon Van Ryckeghema, Geert Crombeza

aDepartment of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Gent, Belgium
bUniversity of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada
cDepartment of Data Analysis, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium


Abstract

This study examined the influence of patients’ likability on pain estimations made by observers. Patients’ likability was manipulated by means of an evaluative conditioning procedure: pictures of patients were combined with either positive, neutral, or negative personal traits. Next, videos of the patients were presented to 40 observers who rated the pain. Patients were expressing no, mild-, or high-intensity pain. Results indicated lower pain estimations as well as lower perceptual sensitivity toward pain (i.e., lower ability to discriminate between varying levels of pain expression) with regard to patients who were associated with negative personal traits. The effect on pain estimations was only found with regard to patients expressing high-intensity pain. There was no effect on response bias (i.e., the overall tendency to indicate pain). These findings suggest that we take the pain of patients we do not like less seriously than the pain of patients we like.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304395911004313

This research may well be instructive for plaintiff's lawyers.

Monday, September 26, 2011

The Social Psychology of Judging


This article introduces Dr. Carol Dweck’s seminal and significant line of psychological research on the phenomenon of implicit theories and draws on this research as a lens through which we might better understand judicial decision-making. In particular, the article focuses on the implications of two types of implicit theories – whether people believe that phenomena are static and fixed versus dynamic and malleable. By introducing this research, this article aims to forward a research agenda designed to examine how social, contextual, and situational forces influence judicial behavior.

An entity theory reflects the mindset that phenomena are fixed and unlikely to change. An incremental theory reflects the mindset that phenomena are malleable and can be developed. Humans hold entity or incremental implicit theories about, for example, human nature, social institutions, and society. These theories, or “mindsets,” affect perception, judgment, and decision-making and strongly shape how people organize their experience in, knowledge about, and transactions in the world. When an entity theory is salient, people expect that phenomena are fixed, immutable and unchangeable. However, when an incremental theory is salient, humans believe that phenomena are malleable, changeable, and affected by contexts and situations. Whether one holds an entity theory versus an incremental theory is often driven by situations, contexts, and social influences.

Implicit theories affect how jurists find facts, draw inferences, and impose punishment. Research on implicit theories, moreover, can enrich our understanding of how jurists apply the common law, engage in statutory interpretation, and construe the Constitution, offering novel insight into a timeless legal debate: whether American law is static versus dynamic. The article sets forth a research agenda that will form a line of psychological experiments to examine these processes.

Lee Ross ---The Fundamental Attribution Error

Interesting video on priming

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

The Juror, the Internet and Social Media

An thoughtful article written by a Maryland trial judge discussing the impact of the internet and social media on jury and trial.

Here is the link: Worlds Collide:



Thursday, August 11, 2011

Using psychological science in the courtroom

Effective Reaction to Danger: Attachment

Insecurities Predict Behavioral Reactions

to an Experimentally Induced Threat Above

and Beyond General Personality Traits


Tsachi Ein-Dor1, Mario Mikulincer1, and Phillip R. Shaver2


Abstract

People who score high on attachment anxiety or avoidance display poorer adjustment than secure individuals in various social, emotional, and behavioral domains. Yet it may be advantageous for groups to include insecure as well as secure members. The authors tested predictions from social defense theory concerning advantages to groups of including members with different attachment patterns. A total of 46 groups were unobtrusively observed in a threatening laboratory situation: The room gradually filled with smoke, apparently because of a malfunctioning computer. Attachment anxiety was associated with quicker detection of the danger and therefore with greater group effectiveness. Attachment-related avoidance was associated with speedier escape responses to the danger once it was detected and therefore with greater group safety. The results remained significant even when extraversion and neuroticism, two possible confounds, were statistically controlled. Implications of the findings for theory and research concerning group processes, threat detection, and individual differences in attachment are discussed.


http://spp.sagepub.com/content/2/5/467.abstract

Judgment, Justice and Evil in Norway - Association for Psychological Science

Judgment, Justice and Evil in Norway - Association for Psychological Science

Surprise! Spoilers don't spoil stories: Study | Life | Toronto Sun

Surprise! Spoilers don't spoil stories: Study | Life | Toronto Sun

Reflecting on Behavior: Giacomo Rizzolatti Takes Us on a Tour of the Mirror Mechanism - Association for Psychological Science

Reflecting on Behavior: Giacomo Rizzolatti Takes Us on a Tour of the Mirror Mechanism - Association for Psychological Science

Thursday, July 14, 2011

A Specific and Rapid Neural Signature for Parental Instinct

Morten L. Kringelbach1,2,8,9*, Annukka Lehtonen1, Sarah Squire1, Allison G. Harvey3, Michelle G. Craske4, Ian E. Holliday5, Alexander L. Green8, Tipu Z. Aziz2,8, Peter C. Hansen6, Piers L. Cornelissen7, Alan Stein1

1 Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 3 Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America, 4 Department of Psychology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America, 5 The Wellcome Trust Laboratory for MEG Studies, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 6 School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 7 Department of Psychology, York University, York, United Kingdom, 8 Department of Neurosurgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom, 9 Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience (CFIN), Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Abstract

Darwin originally pointed out that there is something about infants which prompts adults to respond to and care for them, in order to increase individual fitness, i.e. reproductive success, via increased survivorship of one's own offspring. Lorenz proposed that it is the specific structure of the infant face that serves to elicit these parental responses, but the biological basis for this remains elusive. Here, we investigated whether adults show specific brain responses to unfamiliar infant faces compared to adult faces, where the infant and adult faces had been carefully matched across the two groups for emotional valence and arousal, as well as size and luminosity. The faces also matched closely in terms of attractiveness. Using magnetoencephalography (MEG) in adults, we found that highly specific brain activity occurred within a seventh of a second in response to unfamiliar infant faces but not to adult faces. This activity occurred in the medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC), an area implicated in reward behaviour, suggesting for the first time a neural basis for this vital evolutionary process. We found a peak in activity first in mOFC and then in the right fusiform face area (FFA). In mOFC the first significant peak (p<0.001) in differences in power between infant and adult faces was found at around 130 ms in the 10–15 Hz band. These early differences were not found in the FFA. In contrast, differences in power were found later, at around 165 ms, in a different band (20–25 Hz) in the right FFA, suggesting a feedback effect from mOFC. These findings provide evidence in humans of a potential brain basis for the “innate releasing mechanisms” described by Lorenz for affection and nurturing of young infants. This has potentially important clinical applications in relation to postnatal depression, and could provide opportunities for early identification of families at risk.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001664

This research provides scientific evidence confirming what advertisers have known for decades that baby images elicit positive emotional responses of empathy and protection. This is useful research for trial lawyers who are in the business of creating empathy and the need for protection.The article can be accessed from the link herein. David A. Wenner


Memory and the Internet

Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips


Betsy Sparrow,1* Jenny Liu, 2 Daniel M. Wegner 3


1Department of Psychology, Columbia University, 1190 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, USA. 2Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1202 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA. 3Department of Psychology, Harvard University, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: sparrow@psych.columbia.edu


The advent of the Internet, with sophisticated algorithmic search engines, has made accessing information as easy as lifting a finger. No longer do we have to make costly efforts to find the things we want. We can “Google” the old classmate, find articles online, or look up the actor who was on the tip of our tongue. The results of four studies suggest that when faced with difficult questions, people are primed to think about computers and that when people expect to have future access to information, they have lower rates of recall of the information itself and enhanced recall instead for where to access it. The Internet has become a primary form of external or transactive memory, where information is stored collectively outside ourselves.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6040/277

What the Stanford prison experiment taught us — and didn't teach us — about evil

What the Stanford prison experiment taught us — and didn't teach us — about evil

Pursuing Non-Conscious Goals - Association for Psychological Science

Pursuing Non-Conscious Goals - Association for Psychological Science

Sunday, July 10, 2011

A Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism up to 8 Months Later

A Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism up to 8 Months Later


Travis J. Carter1, Melissa J. Ferguson2, and Ran R. Hassin3

Psychological Science XX(X) 1–8 © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797611414726 http://pss.sagepub.com

1Center for Decision Research, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago; 2Department of Psychology, Cornell University; and 3Department of Psychology and The Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University


Abstract


There is scant evidence that incidental cues in the environment significantly alter people’s political judgments and behavior in a durable way. We report that a brief exposure to the American flag led to a shift toward Republican beliefs, attitudes, and voting behavior among both Republican and Democratic participants, despite their overwhelming belief that exposure to the flag would not influence their behavior. In Experiment 1, which was conducted online during the 2008 U.S. presidential election, a single exposure to an American flag resulted in a significant increase in participants’ Republican voting intentions, voting behavior, political beliefs, and implicit and explicit attitudes, with some effects lasting 8 months after the exposure to the prime. In Experiment 2, we replicated the findings more than a year into the current Democratic presidential term. These results constitute the first evidence that nonconscious priming effects from exposure to a national flag can bias the citizenry toward one political party and can have considerable durability.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/07/08/0956797611414726.abstract

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Life is one big priming experiment . . . - Association for Psychological Science

Life is one big priming experiment . . . - Association for Psychological Science

Most Americans See Cancer as a Death Sentence - Association for Psychological Science

Most Americans See Cancer as a Death Sentence - Association for Psychological Science
This study does not bode well for failure to diagnose cancer cases. Jurors may believe the outcome of the disease is always the same despite early treatment in the best of hands. At the very least this attitude should be a subject addressed during voir dire, e.g. "How many people feel that if you get cancer you are most likely going to die no matter how early the diagnosis is made and how good the treatment?" Jurors who hold such attitudes can never be fair in a cancer case and must be excluded for cause.

How We Decide - Association for Psychological Science

How We Decide - Association for Psychological Science

Saturday, May 14, 2011

“We’ll always have Paris.” Really? - Association for Psychological Science

“We’ll always have Paris.” Really? - Association for Psychological Science

Two Big Things Happening In Psychology Today (class 4) | Conversation | Edge

Two Big Things Happening In Psychology Today (class 4) | Conversation | Edge

An interesting article definitely worth reading.

Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory


Hugo Mercier
University of Pennsylvania

Dan Sperber
affiliation not provided to SSRN



Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 57-74, 2011

Abstract:
Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698090

2011 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?

Responses | 2011 Annual Question | Edge

Does Making Choice Salient for Jurors Cause Them to Think About Personal Responsibilty?

The Unanticipated Interpersonal and Societal Consequences of Choice Victim Blaming and Reduced Support for the Public Good
Krishna Savani1⇓,
Nicole M. Stephens2 and
Hazel Rose Markus3
+ Author Affiliations
1Graduate School of Business, Columbia University
2Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
3Department of Psychology, Stanford University
Krishna Savani, Management Division, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, Uris Hall, New York, NY 10027 E-mail: ks2884@columbia.edu
Abstract

Choice makes North Americans feel more in control, free, and independent, and thus has many positive consequences for individuals’ motivation and well-being. We report five studies that uncovered novel consequences of choice for public policy and interpersonal judgments. Studies 1 through 3 found that activating the concept of choice decreases support for policies promoting intergroup equality (e.g., affirmative action) and societal benefits (e.g., reducing environmental pollution), but increases support for policies promoting individual rights (e.g., legalizing drugs). Studies 4 and 5 found that activating the concept of choice increases victim blaming and decreases empathy for disadvantaged people. Study 5 found that choice does not decrease Indians’ empathy for disadvantaged individuals, indicating that the social and interpersonal consequences of choice are likely culture-specific. This research suggests that the well-known positive effects of choice for individuals can be accompanied by an array of previously unexamined and potentially negative outcomes for other people and for society.
Published May 13, 2011
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/11/0956797611407928.abstract

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

The Mind in the World: Culture and the Brain - Association for Psychological Science

The Mind in the World: Culture and the Brain - Association for Psychological Science

Psychologists Put “Character” Under the Microscope–and it Vanishes - Association for Psychological Science

Psychologists Put “Character” Under the Microscope–and it Vanishes - Association for Psychological Science

Trustworthiness is a social norm, but trusting is not

Trustworthiness is a social norm, but trusting is not

Cristina Bicchieri cb36@sas.upenn.edu
University of Pennsylvania, USA
Erte Xiao
Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Ryan Muldoon
University of Western Ontario, Canada
Abstract

Previous literature has demonstrated the important role that trust plays in developing and maintaining well-functioning societies. However, if we are to learn how to increase levels of trust in society, we must first understand why people choose to trust others. One potential answer to this is that people view trust as normative: there is a social norm for trusting that imposes punishment for noncompliance. To test this, we report data from a survey with salient rewards to elicit people’s attitudes regarding the punishment of distrusting behavior in a trust game. Our results show that people do not behave as though trust is a norm. Our participants expected that most people would not punish untrusting investors, regardless of whether the potential trustee was a stranger or a friend. In contrast, our participants behaved as though being trustworthy is a norm. Most participants believed that most people would punish someone who failed to reciprocate a stranger’s or a friend’s trust. We conclude that, while we were able to reproduce previous results establishing that there is a norm of reciprocity, we found no evidence for a corresponding norm of trust, even among friends.

Politics, Philosophy & Economics January 31, 2011 1470594X10387260, first published on January 31, 2011 doi:10.1177/1470594X10387260