Reaching African American Battered Women: Increasing the Effectiveness of Advocacy

This study reports findings from interviews with 242, primarily African American, battered women in Detroit. Most of the women rated domestic violence advocacy as very or somewhat helpful. Satisfaction with police and receiving referrals from the legal system were significantly associated with ratings of advocates helpfulness. Receiving information, being emotionally supported, and having advocates readily available and accessible were the most common reasons why women rated advocates as helpful. Women who gave advocates low helpfulness ratings described them as unavailable, unsympathetic, or ineffective in legally sanctioning abusers. Less than half of the women who experienced severe violence in the focal incident reported that advocates helped them with safety planning, and there was a low rate of follow-up on referrals provided by advocates. This analysis suggests that advocacy can be satisfying for urban, African American women, but more intensive services should be provided to make a significant contribution to their safety.     

Cueing Confidence in Eyewitness Identifications: Influence of Biased Lineup Instructions and Pre-Identification Memory Feedback Under Varying Lineup Conditions

Students watched a theft video, attempted an identification from a thief-present or thief-absent lineup under unbiased or biased instructions, and rated identification confidence. In Experiment 1, the participants received (bogus) positive, negative, or no pre-identification feedback about a recall test. Biased instructions and positive feedback increased confidence and ratings of eyewitnessing conditions. In Experiment 2, biased instructions increased confidence unless the thief was absent and lineup members were similar, where they decreased confidence. According to the cue-belief model, biased instructions send a positive accuracy cue regarding the most familiar-looking lineup member. If none stands out, instructions conflict with an inclination to reject the lineup. Feedback may create a belief about memory quality that is a cue regarding likely recognition accuracy.

Who Sees What as Fair? Mapping Individual Differences in Valuation of Reciprocity,Charity, and Impartiality

When scarce resources are allocated, different criteria may be considered: impersonal allocation (impartiality), the needs of specific individuals (charity), or the relational ties between individuals (reciprocity). In the present research, we investigated how people’s perspectives on fairness relate to individual differences in interpersonal orientations. Participants evaluated the fairness of allocations based on (a) impartiality, (b) charity, and (c) reciprocity. To assess interpersonal orientations, we administered measures of dispositional empathy (i.e., empathic concern and perspective taking) and Machiavellianism. Across two studies, Machiavellianism correlated with higher ratings of reciprocity as fair, whereas empathic concern and perspective taking correlated with higher ratings of charity as fair. We discuss these findings in relation to recent neuroscientific research on empathy, fairness, and moral evaluations of resource allocations.     

Social Motives in Integrative Negotiation: The Mediating Influence of Procedural Fairness

Although a large body of research has examined the influence of social motives on integrative negotiation, little is known about how social motives affect procedural fairness judgments in negotiation. In two experiments concerned with small group negotiation, we manipulated group members' social motives (pro-social vs. egoistic), and measured joint negotiation outcomes and procedural fairness. Experiment 1 showed that, compared to group members with an egoistic motivation, those with a pro-social motive experienced more procedural fairness, which was partly responsible for the higher joint outcomes they obtained. In Experiment 2, we manipulated social motives and decision rule. Results showed that pro-social groups experienced more procedural fairness than egoistic groups when a majority rule was applied, but not when a unanimity rule was applied.     

Ageism in the courtroom: mock juror perceptions of elder neglect

The present study explored ageism in a civil court context. In two experiments, male and female undergraduates (Experiment 1; N?=?215) and community members (Experiment 2; N?=?203) read an institutional elder neglect trial summary in which a nursing home was sued for failure to provide the necessary care for an elderly female resident. The trial varied as to who provided witness testimony: the live victim, a recorded deposition from the victim, the victim’s middle-aged niece (Experiments 1, 2), the victim’s elderly floor-mate (Experiment 1), or no testimony was provided (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, higher ageism was negatively associated with pro-victim ratings (e.g. victim memory). Ageism indirectly decreased the likelihood of ruling for the plaintiff through ratings of sympathy for the victim and victim memory (Experiment 1), and defendant responsibility (Experiment 2). Trial ratings did not differ based on whether victim testimony was presented live or via recorded deposition (Experiments 1, 2). The results suggest that jurors’ ageist attitudes may engender negative perceptions of an elderly victim, which can affect the outcome of neglect cases. We discuss the potential for these findings to inform legal proceedings and protection of elderly individuals.     

Intergroup fairness biases: Is ours the fairer sex?

These studies were designed to assess ethnocentrism and stereotypes as possible mediators of intergroup fairness biases. In Study 1, subjects wrote fair and unfair behaviors about their own sex (the ingroup) and the opposite sex (the outgroup). More fair and fewer unfair behaviors were written about the ingroup than about the outgroup, supporting the ethnocentric hypothesis. In Study 2, subjects rated the fairness and frequency of random samples of each item type. Half the subjects rated these items as they were originally written, and half rated them with the gender of the actor reversed. Ethnocentrism was evident in ratings of ingroup actors as more fair than outgroup actors when both performed fair behaviors, but this bias was reversed in favor of outgroup actors for ratings of unfair behaviors. In addition, the items written about women were rated more fair than those written about men, and men rated the reversed gender items less fair and less frequent than did women, supporting the influence of gender stereotypes in intergroup fairness biases.     

Reactions to Perceived Fairness: The Impact of Mortality Salience and Self-Esteem on Ratings of Negative Affect

In correspondence with terror management theory, the findings of two experiments show that reminders of death lead to stronger effects of perceived fairness on ratings of negative affect. Furthermore, in line with the theory's self-esteem mechanism, results of Experiment 1 suggest that state self-esteem may mediate this relationship between mortality salience and fairness. In further correspondence with the self-esteem mechanism, findings of Experiment 2 reveal that introducing an activity (after reminders of death and before the fairness manipulation) with which people can reaffirm positive conceptions of themselves leads people to react less strongly to variations in fairness than not introducing such a self-affirmation activity. These findings suggest that people react especially strongly to perceived fairness when they are in need for a boost in their self-esteem. Implications for the psychology of fairness are discussed.     

Rational choice beyond the classroom: Decision making in offenders versus college students

Purpose

Tests of rational choice theory commonly utilize samples of university students. The current study examines whether these samples provide meaningful insight into real offenders’ decisions.

Methods

A total of 760 undergraduates from a southwestern university and 1,013 offenders incarcerated in the same state were surveyed. Both groups were given a hypothetical drunk driving scenario and completed rational choice questions.

Results

Results indicate that although the samples were very different in their background characteristics (e.g., age, sex, race, prior criminal history), they identified similar costs and benefits of drunk driving, gave similar ratings of the certainty/severity of these consequences, and utilized these consequences to inform their drunk driving intentions in a similar fashion.

Conclusion

Despite social science being largely criticized as the “study of sophomores,” in this instance it appears college student samples can provide meaningful insight into the decision calculus of known offenders. Implications and limitations of the study are presented.     

Why Japanese citizens evaluate the new indirect tax as unfair: Fairness criteria and their relative importance

The study examined citizens' fairness evaluation of the consumption tax recently introduced in Japan, and explored the underlying criteria and their relative importance in judging the fairness of the tax and the procedural fairness by which the tax was introduced. Five dimensions were obtained in factor analysis. Multiple regression analysis revealed that three dimensions contributed to total fairness of the tax: Procedural Fairness, Outcome Evaluation, and Affective Responses. Further analyses revealed that ramming the bill, sufficient discussion, and reflection of citizens' opinions were crucial for Japanese citizens judgment of procedural fairness. The results supported Leventhal's theory: ethicality, accuracy, and correctability were important.     

Transgression Wrongfulness Outweighs its Harmfulness as a Determinant of Sentence Severity

When students suggest sentences for criminal offenders, do they rely more heavily on the harmfulness or on the wrongfulness of the offender's conduct? In Study 1, 116 Princeton University undergraduates rated the harmfulness and wrongfulness of, and suggested appropriate sentences for, a series of crimes. As expected, participants emphasized wrongfulness when choosing an appropriate criminal punishment. In Study 2, 33 Princeton undergraduates made similar ratings for violations of the University Honor Code, and rated their contempt for fabricated amendments to the Code that required sentencers to focus either only on harmfulness or only on wrongfulness. Again, sentences more closely reflected wrongfulness ratings, and participants were more contemptuous of the harmfulness-based proposal. We also consider the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for sentencing laws and policy.     

Fairness and participation in evaluation procedures: Effects on task attitudes and performance

A laboratory study was conducted to examine the role of two components of participatory work evaluation procedures on fairness attitudes and work performance. Opportunity for influential opinion expression and knowledge of evaluation criteria were manipulated in a business simulation exercise. Thirty-eight male and 49 female undergraduates worked under a task evaluation procedure that either did or did not allow them to express their opinions to the evaluator. In addition, subjects either were or were not provided with specific information about the criteria to be used in making the performance evaluation, and they received either a favorable or an unfavorable outcome. Questionnaire responses indicated that influential opinion expression enhanced perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness independently of the outcome of the evaluation. Both knowledge of evaluation criteria and perceptions of evaluation fairness correlated with subsequent task performance. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to understanding the influence of procedural justice on attitudes and task behavior in organizational settings.     

Does commitment affect the meaning of fairness?: Commonality and stability of fairness criteria in a political setting

This study explored political fairness criteria in Japan: examining their commonality and stability. Respondents were divided into three groups according to their commitment to the incumbent Government, as measured by neutrality, trust, and respect. Regression analyses revealed that Procedural Fairness was the commonly used criterion in judging the total fairness of the consumption tax. Citizens' commitment affected fairness criteria and their relative weights. Another regression analysis was performed to examine the meaning of procedural fairness. A comparison with our previous study (Takenishi and Takenishi, 1990) indicated that the procedural fairness criteria remained stable: however, voice became a criterion because of the Government's campaign. Results suggested than democratic ethicality, which consists of social values and beliefs, was important.Each author contributed equally.     

Is Age Irrelevant? Perceptions of Young and Old Adult Eyewitnesses

In Experiment 1, we videotaped elderly and younger adults (n = 69) reporting their memories for a crime video. The seniors were significantly less accurate than the younger adults. In Experiment 2, participants viewed the testimony videotapes and rated the elderly as less credible than the younger adults. In Experiment 3, participant-jurors (n = 302) evaluated transcribed testimonies provided by Experiment 1 participants. The ostensible age of the witnesses was manipulated. Thus, some participants read a senior's testimony believing it was provided by a younger adult and vice versa. Participants were apparently not biased by negative stereotypes of seniors' eyewitness capabilities.     

Intergroup Biases as a Function of Reflected Status Appraisals and Support for Legitimizing Ideologies: Evidence from the USA and Israel

Theory and research suggest that members of high-status groups feel more positively about their own group than members of low-status groups feel about their group. The studies presented here test two hypotheses derived from this general idea (1) that members of high-status groups will show greater bias in favor of the in-group when they believe that others perceive the status difference between their group and relevant low-status groups to be larger; and (2) that this relationship will be stronger when high-status group members also endorse ideologies legitimizing their privileged status. However, because low group status may have self-protective properties, it was hypothesized that imputed status differences would not relate to out-group bias among low-status group members, regardless of ideology endorsement. Two studies—using samples from the United States and Israel, respectively—provided clear support for these hypotheses. Implications for the study of both intergroup biases and legitimizing ideologies are discussed.     

Perceiving Self-Interest: Power,Ideology, and Maintenance of the Status Quo

We explore the perception of self-interest based on the social position of the person making a persuasive argument, and whether the argument challenges peoples representation of the social world. More self-interest is perceived when it is made on behalf of a small rather than a large group (Experiment 1), comes from a low status rather than a high status group (Experiment 2), and when it benefits an outgroup more than an ingroup (Experiment 3). We show that attempting to change the political status quo, no matter whose interests it may serve, leads to perceptions of self-interest (Experiment 4). We discuss these findings in terms of beliefs, social ideologies, and attitudes, and argue that perceptions of self-interest are often a marker of the defense of the status quo from perceived threats.     

Perceptions and Predictors of Children's Credibility of a Unique Event and an Instance of a Repeated Event

Perceptions of children's credibility were studied in two experiments wherein participants watched a videotape of a 4- to 5- or a 6- to 7-year old child report details of a play session that had been experienced once (single-event) or was the last in a series of four similar play sessions (repeat-event). The child's report was classified as high or low accurate. In Experiments 1 and 2, reports of repeat-event children were judged to be less believable on several measures. In Experiment 1, younger children were viewed as less credible than older children. In both experiments, neither undergraduates nor community members correctly discriminated between high- and low-accurate reports. Content analysis in Study 3 revealed the relationship between age and event frequency and children's credibility ratings was mediated by the internal consistency of children's reports. Recent research on children's reports of instances of repeated events has identified several challenges facing children who report repeated abuse. These data bring to light another potential difficulty for these children.     

Formal Legal Truth and Substantive Truth in Judicial Fact-Finding -- Their Justified Divergence in some Particular Cases

Truth is a fundamental objective of adjudicative processes; ideally, substantive as distinct from formal legal truth. But problems of evidence, for example, may frustrate finding of substantive truth; other values may lead to exclusions of probative evidence, e.g., for the sake of fairness. Jury nullification and jury equity. Limits of time, and definitiveness of decision, require allocation of burden of proof. Degree of truth-formality is variable within a system and across systems.     

The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed,position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario

Purpose. Laymen and legal professionals frequently make decisions on the culpability of drivers involved in collisions on the basis of incomplete and inconsistent information. Could attributions based on car and driver stereotypes influence decisions on culpability? Methods. In Experiment 1, ratings were collected on the perceived on‐road aggressiveness of drivers of different age and gender, and for models and colours of motorcars driven. In Experiment 2, participants read an accident scenario involving two cars and were asked to estimate relative speed, position on the road and blame. The ages of the drivers, colours, make and model of car driven were manipulated using the aggressiveness ratings collected in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, participants read another scenario and were again invited to allocate blame; colour, model of car and driver's age were varied systematically to establish the relative contribution of the different elements of the stereotype. Results. Combinations of colour, car and driver rated high on aggression were judged as travelling faster, being further across the road and more likely to be the cause of an accident than those rated low on these dimensions. Conclusions. Pre‐existing car and driver stereotypes have a demonstrable influence on judgments of driver behaviour from conflicting accident statements. The possible implications for the handling of accident claims and legal cases are discussed.