Thursday, October 23, 2014
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Monday, January 20, 2014
February 28, 2014 - March 1, 2014
Hotel Valley Ho
Scottsdale, AZ
Hotel Valley Ho
Scottsdale, AZ
Take the Next Step in Your Practice with Case Framing
The “next step” seminar offers a new and innovative Case Framing paradigm that has been developed by renowned trial lawyer Mark Mandell. The paradigm is premised on the fundamental importance framing has to persuasion and to obtaining a just verdict. Learn how to identify your overall case frame and also how to frame each and every aspect of your case.
Join Mark Mandell and a faculty of other experienced trial lawyers at AAJ Education’s Next Step Seminar: The Newest Innovations in Case Framing on February 28–March 1, 2014 in Scottsdale, AZ, where you’ll learn how to incorporate case framing into your litigation strategy. Mandell and his colleagues will teach you how to build your case from the ground up with focus groups and case framing techniques, how to use the latest research in decision science and psychology to structure your case and how to frame each and every part of your trial.
Submit your case for consideration during breakout sessions and benefit from individualized instruction from experienced faculty members!
- Learn how to analyze your client’s case with a critical eye and identify the core issues, those issues Mandell calls the “I just can’t get over” issues of your case.
- Learn how to create “echoes” of these issues that will reverberate throughout trial.
- Understand the latest innovations in case framing and how to apply them to your pending cases.
- Learn practical strategies during interactive exercises.
Open only to AAJ Plaintiff Members (Regular, Life, Sustaining, President’s Club, and Leaders Forum) and AAJ Paralegal Affiliates.
Your Registration Includes
- 13.75 hours of continuing legal education credit, and NCA credits, which can be applied towards the American Association for Justice's professional recognition programs
- Comprehensive reference materials provided on a USB drive
- Complimentary daily contintental breakfast and coffee
- Networking lunch
- Networking reception
Undecided?Call us. We'll provide you with names and phone numbers of previous attendees of AAJ Education programs who will be pleased to answer your questions. Or, if you prefer to speak with a course advisor or faculty member, we will arrange that as well. Call 800.622.1791 or 202.965.3500, extension 8612.
Housing AAJ has a limited number of rooms available at the Hotel Valley Ho at a special group rate of $209 per night for single or double occupancy, plus 13.92% state and and city taxes, a $10.00 per reservation bellman gratuity fee, and a $3.00 per night housekeeping fee. The cut-off date for this group rate is February 6, 2014. Reservations are subject to availability. For changes or cancellations to your reservation, please contact the hotel directly. Cancellations made within 48 hours of the arrival date will be assessed a one-night room and tax penalty charge. Additional charges apply for triple or quadruple occupancy.
To reserve, please contact the Hotel Valley Ho at 1-800-882-4484 or e-mailreservations@hotelvalleyho.com and ask for the American Association for Justice group rate.
Hotel Valley Ho
6850 East Main Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
(480) 248-2000
Reservations: 1-800-882-4484
6850 East Main Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
(480) 248-2000
Reservations: 1-800-882-4484
Cancellation PolicyCancellations received in writing by February 10, 2014 will result in a refund less a 10% administrative charge. Cancellations received February 11 - February 26, 2014 will result in a voucher for the entire registration fee, which may be applied toward any AAJ Education college or seminar held within one calendar year of the date of issue. Requests for refunds or vouchers received after February 26, 2014 will not be honored. Fax or email your cancellation letter to the registrar at 202-625-7084 or education@justice.org.
Special AssistanceAAJ Education will make every effort to ensure that its meetings are held in facilities that are fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. If you plan to attend our program and need special facilities or assistance relating to a disability, please call 800-622-1791 or 202-965-3500, ext. 8612.
Contribute to the AAJ Education FundPlease consider a donation to the AAJ Education Fund 501(c)(3). Contributions support educational programs and activities to preserve and protect the civil justice system.
Learn more »
Learn more »
Monday, February 25, 2013
Monday, June 18, 2012
Ethics opinion on using social media during trial.
The New York City Bar Association issued a an ethics opinion about the use of the social media sites of jurors. This is an important topic in this digital age for anyone trying cases..
Formal Opinion 2012-02
Formal Opinion 2012-02
Friday, June 15, 2012
Interesting research
Reconstruing Intolerance
Abstract Thinking Reduces Conservatives’ Prejudice Against Nonnormative Groups
+Author Affiliations
- Jamie B. Luguri, Department of Psychology, Yale University, P. O. Box 208205, New Haven, CT 06520-8205 E-mail: jamie.luguri@yale.edu
Abstract
Myrdal (1944) described the “American dilemma” as the conflict between abstract national values (“liberty and justice for all”) and more concrete, everyday prejudices. We leveraged construal-level theory to empirically test Myrdal’s proposition that construal level (abstract vs. concrete) can influence prejudice. We measured individual differences in construal level (Study 1) and manipulated construal level (Studies 2 and 3); across these three studies, we found that adopting an abstract mind-set heightened conservatives’ tolerance for groups that are perceived as deviating from Judeo-Christian values (gay men, lesbians, Muslims, and atheists). Among participants who adopted a concrete mind-set, conservatives were less tolerant of these nonnormative groups than liberals were, but political orientation did not have a reliable effect on tolerance among participants who adopted an abstract mind-set. Attitudes toward racial out-groups and dominant groups (e.g., Whites, Christians) were unaffected by construal level. In Study 3, we found that the effect of abstract thinking on prejudice was mediated by an increase in concerns about fairness
Interesting Article
A Choice Mind-Set Increases the
Acceptance and Maintenance of
Wealth Inequality
Krishna Savani1 and Aneeta Rattan2
1Management Division, Columbia Business School, and 2Department of Psychology, Stanford University
Abstract
Krishna Savani1 and Aneeta Rattan2
1Management Division, Columbia Business School, and 2Department of Psychology, Stanford University
Abstract
Psychological Science
XX(X) 1–9
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797611434540 http://pss.sagepub.com
XX(X) 1–9
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797611434540 http://pss.sagepub.com
Wealth inequality has significant psychological, physiological, societal, and economic costs. In six experiments, we investigated
how seemingly innocuous, culturally pervasive ideas can help maintain and further wealth inequality. Specifically, we tested
whether the concept of choice, which is deeply valued in American society, leads Americans to act in ways that perpetuate
wealth inequality. Thinking in terms of choice, we argue, activates the belief that life outcomes stem from personal agency,
not societal factors, and thereby leads people to justify wealth inequality. The results showed that highlighting the concept of
choice makes people less disturbed by facts about existing wealth inequality in the United States, more likely to underestimate
the role of societal factors in individuals’ successes, less likely to support the redistribution of educational resources, and less
likely to support raising taxes on the rich—even if doing so would help resolve a budget deficit crisis. These findings indicate
that the culturally valued concept of choice contributes to the maintenance of wealth inequality.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Interesting Reseacrh
Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism
Abstract
The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.
Apparently, we were right after all. People who do not like to engage in deep effortful thought are more likely to be politically conservative. This may give us some information for jury selection Interesting research.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Emotional pain shares the same neurology as physical pain
The Neural Bases of Social Pain: Evidence for Shared Representations
With Physical Pain
NAOMI I. EISENBERGER, PHD
Experiences of social rejection or loss have been described as some of the most ‘‘painful’’ experiences that we, as humans, face and perhaps for good reason. Because of our prolonged period of immaturity, the social attachment system may have co-opted the pain system, borrowing the pain signal to prevent the detrimental consequences of social separation. This review summarizes a program of research that has explored the idea that experiences of physical pain and social pain rely on shared neural substrates. First, evidence showing that social pain activates pain-related neural regions is reviewed. Then, studies exploring some of the expected consequences of such a physical painYsocial pain overlap are summarized. These studies demonstrate that a) individuals who are more sensitive to one kind of pain are also more sensitive to the other and b) factors that increase or decrease one kind of pain alter the other in a similar manner. Finally, what these shared neural substrates mean for our understanding of socially painful experience is discussed. Key words: social pain, physical pain, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, brain, fMRI. Here is the link.
NAOMI I. EISENBERGER, PHD
Experiences of social rejection or loss have been described as some of the most ‘‘painful’’ experiences that we, as humans, face and perhaps for good reason. Because of our prolonged period of immaturity, the social attachment system may have co-opted the pain system, borrowing the pain signal to prevent the detrimental consequences of social separation. This review summarizes a program of research that has explored the idea that experiences of physical pain and social pain rely on shared neural substrates. First, evidence showing that social pain activates pain-related neural regions is reviewed. Then, studies exploring some of the expected consequences of such a physical painYsocial pain overlap are summarized. These studies demonstrate that a) individuals who are more sensitive to one kind of pain are also more sensitive to the other and b) factors that increase or decrease one kind of pain alter the other in a similar manner. Finally, what these shared neural substrates mean for our understanding of socially painful experience is discussed. Key words: social pain, physical pain, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, brain, fMRI. Here is the link.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Will jurors who suppress compassion be more closed minded about safety rule violations?
The Cost of Callousness
- C. Daryl Cameron, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Psychology, Davie Hall, Campus Box 3270, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270 E-mail:dcameron@live.unc.edu
Abstract
It has often been argued that compassion is fundamental to morality. Yet people often suppress compassion for self-interested reasons. We provide evidence that suppressing compassion is not cost free, as it creates dissonance between a person’s moral identity and his or her moral principles. We instructed separate groups of participants to regulate their compassion, regulate their feelings of distress, or freely experience emotions toward compassion-inducing images. Participants then reported how central morality was to their identities and how much they believed that moral rules should always be followed. Participants who regulated compassion—but not those who regulated distress or experienced emotions—showed a dissonance-based trade-off. If they reported higher levels of moral identity, they had a greater belief that moral rules could be broken. If they maintained their belief that moral rules should always be followed, they sacrificed their moral identity. Regulating compassion thus has a cost of its own: It forces trade-offs within a person’s moral self-concept.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Juror Bias Warrants New Trial After Defense Verdict In Medical Malpractice Case
In Fields v. Saunders the Oklahoma Supreme Court recenlty granted a new trial based on juror bias in a medical malpractice case that ended in a defense verdict. Fields In the case, later in the day after the defense verdict was rendered one of jurors walked into a bar and made the following comments to an attorney not connected with the case: "(1) the plaintiffs would have never won the case with him (the juror) serving in the case, (2) he (the juror) was not impartial despite stating in voir dire he could be, and (3) he (the juror) wanted to "play the judicial system" and believed plaintiffs had the burden to prove the defendants intended harm beyond a reasonable doubt before they could recover."
Attitudes and biases like these are not uncommon among jurors, based on my years of research on juror decision making. We have known that some people called for jury service can never be convinced that to decide for patient and against a health care provider no matter what evidence is presented and despite strong evidence of malpractice. The case is over with before it begins with such jurors. Moreover, like the juror in Fields, many jurors require a burden of proof far greater than what the law requires. Often no level of proof, no matter how strong the evidence, is satisfactory with such jurors.
What is uncommon, nonetheless, is a case getting reversed based on juror bias. The courts should take notice that juror bias like this is much more the norm than the exception and be vigilant to eradicate such bias through thorough and thoughtful voir dire. In this case, the juror intentionally mislead the parties in voir dire. Most jurors are well meaning and are motivated to do the right thing. Many jurors though can unconsciously have the same level of bias as the juror in Fields, while not intentionally trying to be deceptive. These jurors, while well intentioned, are simply not consciously aware of the level of their bias or wrongly assume that they can hold their bias in check. See Ross, et. al. Naive Realism
The opinion worth reading! Fields
Attitudes and biases like these are not uncommon among jurors, based on my years of research on juror decision making. We have known that some people called for jury service can never be convinced that to decide for patient and against a health care provider no matter what evidence is presented and despite strong evidence of malpractice. The case is over with before it begins with such jurors. Moreover, like the juror in Fields, many jurors require a burden of proof far greater than what the law requires. Often no level of proof, no matter how strong the evidence, is satisfactory with such jurors.
What is uncommon, nonetheless, is a case getting reversed based on juror bias. The courts should take notice that juror bias like this is much more the norm than the exception and be vigilant to eradicate such bias through thorough and thoughtful voir dire. In this case, the juror intentionally mislead the parties in voir dire. Most jurors are well meaning and are motivated to do the right thing. Many jurors though can unconsciously have the same level of bias as the juror in Fields, while not intentionally trying to be deceptive. These jurors, while well intentioned, are simply not consciously aware of the level of their bias or wrongly assume that they can hold their bias in check. See Ross, et. al. Naive Realism
The opinion worth reading! Fields
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Interesting article
Adam W . Craig, Yuliya Komarova Loureiro, Stacy Wood, Jennifer M.C . Vendemia (). Suspicious Minds: Exploring Neural Processes During Exposure to Deceptive Advertising. Journal of Marketing Research. Ahead of Print.
doi: 10.1509/jmr.09.0007
Suspicious Minds: Exploring Neural Processes During Exposure to Deceptive Advertising
Adam W. Craig, 1
Yuliya Komarova Loureiro, 2
Stacy Wood, 3
Jennifer M.C. Vendemia4
1Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
adamwcraig@usf.eduYuliya Komarova Loureiro, 2
2Assistant Professor of Marketing, Fordham University.
ykomarova@fordham.eduStacy Wood, 3
3Langdon Distinguished University Professor of Marketing, Poole College of Management, North Carolina State University.
stacy_wood@ncsu.eduJennifer M.C. Vendemia4
4Director of the Center for Advanced Deception Detection and Associate Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina.
jmcv@sc.edu
Abstract
When viewing advertisements, consumers must decide what to believe and what is meant to deceive. Accordingly, much behavioral research has explored strategies and outcomes of how consumers process persuasive messages that vary in perceived sincerity. New neuroimaging methods enable researchers to augment this knowledge by exploring the cognitive mechanisms underlying such processing. The current study collects neuroimaging data while participants are exposed to advertisements with differing levels of perceived message deceptiveness (believable, moderately deceptive, and highly deceptive). The functional magnetic resonance imaging data, combined with an additional behavioral study, offer evidence of two noteworthy results. First, confirming multistage frameworks of persuasion, the authors observe two distinct stages of brain activity: (1) precuneus activation at earlier stages and (2) superior temporal sulcus and temporal-parietal junction activation at later stages. Second, the authors observe disproportionately greater brain activity associated with claims that are moderately deceptive than those that are either believable or highly deceptive. These results provoke new thinking about what types of claims garner consumer attention and which consumers may be particularly vulnerable to deceptive advertising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)