Moral Disengagement in Legal Judgments

We investigated the role of moral disengagement in a legally-relevant judgment in this theoretically-driven empirical analysis. Moral disengagement is a social-cognitive phenomenon through which people reason their way toward harming others, presenting a useful framework for investigating legal judgments that often result in harming individuals for the good of society. We tested the role of moral disengagement in forensic psychologists\u27 willingness to conduct the most ethically questionable clinical task in the criminal justice system: competence for execution evaluations. Our hypothesis that moral disengagement would function as mediator of participants\u27 existing attitudes and their judgmentsa theoretical bridge between attitudes and judgmentswas robustly supported. Moral disengagement was key to understanding how psychologists decide to engage in competence for execution evaluations. We describe in detail the moral disengagement measure we used, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses across two separate samples. The four-factor measure accounted for a total of 52.18 percent of the variance in the sample of forensic psychologists, and the model adequately fit the data in the entirely different sample of jurors in a confirmatory factor analysis. Despite the psychometric strengths of this moral disengagement measure, we describe the pros and cons of existing measures of moral disengagement. We outline future directions for moral disengagement research, especially in legal contexts

Inspiring and Advancing the Many-Disciplined Study of Institutional Trust

The purpose of this volume is to consider how trust research, particularly trust in institutions, might benefit from increased inter- or transdisciplinarity. In this introductory chapter, we first give some background on prior disciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary work relating to trust. Next, we describe how this manydisciplined volume on institutional trust emerged from the joint activities of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation and a National Science Foundation-funded Workshop on institutional trust. This chapter describes some of the themes that emerged, while also providing an overview of the rest of the volume, which includes chapters that discuss conceptualizations, definitions, and measurement of trust; institutional trust across domains and contexts; and theoretical advances regarding the “dark” and “light” sides of institutional trust. Finally, we conclude with some thoughts about the future of and potential promises and pitfalls of trust as a focus of interdisciplinary study

An Examination of Website Advice to Avoid Jury Duty

The use of a jury in legal proceedings can be traced as far back as the participatory democracies that emerged in Greece in the sixth century BC, although it was not until the signing of the Magna Carta that the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers emerged.1 In the United States, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution expressly provide this right in both criminal and civil proceedings.2 Furthermore, these amendments provide individuals with the right to a trial before an impartial jury.3 This right intends to serve as a safeguard against unfair treatment during a trial, providing a system of checks and balances to pursue the goal that justice remains at the heart of the legal system. A jury is intended to serve as a cross-section of the community, as it is drawn from and purports to represent the collective community conscience and common sense when resolving disagreements.4 Despite this rich constitutional history and community context, many residents of the United States actively seek to avoid jury service when they are called, for reasons we discuss further below. Some individuals search the Internet for information about how to avoid participating in jury service. As trial judges are tasked with oversight that spans the entire process of impanelment through voir dire, this study sought to provide a contextual background to assist the judiciary in easily recognizing and assessing potential jury avoidance. In the current study, the investigators examined advice offered by popular websites about how reluctant jurors may attempt to be excused from jury service

A longitudinal and experimental study of the impact of knowledge on the bases of institutional trust

This study examined a knowledge-centered theory of institutional trust development. In the context of trust in water regulatory institutions, the moderating impact of knowledge was tested to determine if there were longitudinal changes in the bases of institutional trust as a function of increases in knowledge about a target institution. We hypothesized that as people learn about an institution with which they were previously unfamiliar, they begin to form more nuanced perceptions, distinguishing the new institution from other institutions and relying less upon their generalized trust to estimate their trust in that institution. Prior to having specific, differential information about a new institution, we expected institutional trust to be a function of generalized trust variables such as dispositional trust and trust in government. The longitudinal experiment involved 185 college students randomly assigned to one of three information conditions. Every 3 months for 15 months, participants read information about water regulatory institutions or a control institution. At each time point, participants reported their trust in and perceptions of the trust- and distrust-worthiness of the water regulatory institutions. Participants also completed measures of knowledge of water regulatory institutions, dispositional trust, and governmental trust. Our manipulation check indicated that, as expected, those in the experimental group increased in subjective knowledge of water regulatory institutions to a greater extent than those in the control condition. Consistent with our hypotheses, there was some evidence that, compared to the control group, the experimental group relied less on their general trust in government as a basis for their trust in water regulatory institutions. However, contrary to our hypotheses, there was no evidence the experimental group relied less on dispositional trust as a basis for institutional trust. There also was some evidence the experimental group\u27s trust in water regulatory institutions was less affected by fluctuations of trustworthiness (but not distrustworthiness) perceptions over time. This suggests that knowledge results in the development of more stable institutional trust attitudes, but that trustworthiness and distrustworthiness perceptions may operate somewhat differently when impacting trust in specific institutions

A longitudinal and experimental study of the impact of knowledge on the bases of institutional trust

This study examined a knowledge-centered theory of institutional trust development. In the context of trust in water regulatory institutions, the moderating impact of knowledge was tested to determine if there were longitudinal changes in the bases of institutional trust as a function of increases in knowledge about a target institution. We hypothesized that as people learn about an institution with which they were previously unfamiliar, they begin to form more nuanced perceptions, distinguishing the new institution from other institutions and relying less upon their generalized trust to estimate their trust in that institution. Prior to having specific, differential information about a new institution, we expected institutional trust to be a function of generalized trust variables such as dispositional trust and trust in government. The longitudinal experiment involved 185 college students randomly assigned to one of three information conditions. Every 3 months for 15 months, participants read information about water regulatory institutions or a control institution. At each time point, participants reported their trust in and perceptions of the trust- and distrust-worthiness of the water regulatory institutions. Participants also completed measures of knowledge of water regulatory institutions, dispositional trust, and governmental trust. Our manipulation check indicated that, as expected, those in the experimental group increased in subjective knowledge of water regulatory institutions to a greater extent than those in the control condition. Consistent with our hypotheses, there was some evidence that, compared to the control group, the experimental group relied less on their general trust in government as a basis for their trust in water regulatory institutions. However, contrary to our hypotheses, there was no evidence the experimental group relied less on dispositional trust as a basis for institutional trust. There also was some evidence the experimental group\u27s trust in water regulatory institutions was less affected by fluctuations of trustworthiness (but not distrustworthiness) perceptions over time. This suggests that knowledge results in the development of more stable institutional trust attitudes, but that trustworthiness and distrustworthiness perceptions may operate somewhat differently when impacting trust in specific institutions

Designing a suite of measurements to understand the critical zone

Many scientists have begun to refer to the earth surface environment from the upper canopy to the depths of bedrock as the critical zone (CZ). Identification of the CZ as an integral object worthy of study implicitly posits that the study of the whole earth surface will provide benefits that do not arise when studying the individual parts. To study the CZ, however, requires prioritizing among the measurements that can be made – and we do not generally agree on the priorities. Currently, the Susquehanna Shale Hills Critical Zone Observatory (SSHCZO) is expanding from a small original focus area (0.08 km2 , Shale Hills catchment), to a larger watershed (164 km2 , Shavers Creek watershed) and is grappling with the prioritization. This effort is an expansion from a monolithologic first-order forested catchment to a watershed that encompasses several lithologies (shale, sandstone, limestone) and land use types (forest, agriculture). The goal of the project remains the same: to understand water, energy, gas, solute, and sediment (WEGSS) fluxes that are occurring today in the context of the record of those fluxes over geologic time as recorded in soil profiles, the sedimentary record, and landscape morphology. Given the small size of the Shale Hills catchment, the original design incorporated measurement of as many parameters as possible at high temporal and spatial density. In the larger Shavers Creek watershed, however, we must focus the measurements. We describe a strategy of data collection and modeling based on a geomorphological and land use framework that builds on the hillslope as the basic unit. Interpolation and extrapolation beyond specific sites relies on geophysical surveying, remote sensing, geomorphic analysis, the study of natural integrators such as streams, groundwaters or air, and application of a suite of CZ models. We hypothesize that measurements of a few important variables at strategic locations within a geomorphological framework will allow development of predictive models of CZ behavior. In turn, the measurements and models will reveal how the larger watershed will respond to perturbations both now and into the future

A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx)

Ethanol and High-Value Terpene Co-Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass of Cymbopogon flexuosus and Cymbopogon martinii

Cymbopogon flexuosus, lemongrass, and C. martinii, palmarosa, are perennial grasses grown to produce essential oils for the fragrance industry. The objectives of this study were (1) to evaluate biomass and oil yields as a function of nitrogen and sulfur fertilization, and (2) to characterize their utility for lignocellulosic ethanol compared to Panicum virgatum (switchgrass). Mean biomass yields were 12.83 Mg lemongrass ha⁻¹ and 15.11 Mg palmarosa ha⁻¹ during the second harvest year resulting in theoretical biofuel yields of 2541 and 2569 L ethanol ha⁻¹ respectively compared to reported 1749–3691 L ethanol ha⁻¹ for switchgrass. Pretreated lemongrass yielded 198 mL ethanol (g biomass)⁻¹ and pretreated palmarosa yielded 170 mL ethanol (g biomass)⁻¹. Additionally, lemongrass yielded 85.7 kg essential oil ha⁻¹ and palmarosa yielded 67.0 kg ha⁻¹ with an estimated value of USD $857 and$1005 ha⁻¹. These data suggest that dual-use crops such as lemongrass and palmarosa may increase the economic viability of lignocellulosic biofuels

A Guide for Social Science Journal Editors on Easing into Open Science

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://osf.io/hstcx).<br/