When in Rome Think Like a Roman: Empirical Evidence and Implications of Temporarily Adopting Dialectical Thinking

As a result of increasing globalization, people are exposed to an even greater extent to other cultures, making it possible for individuals to assimilate mindsets that are typical of another culture. Recent work on extracultural cognition has shown that immediate cultural contexts exert powerful influences on cognition and behavioral patterns. This chapter reviews empirical support for extracultural cognition. Specifically, the chapter focuses on dialectical thinking and the well-established finding in the cultural literature that Westerners tend to anticipate linear continuity in the environment and East Asians anticipate change in existing patterns. Research shows, though, that cultural cues may shift these tendencies and—at least temporarily—alter cognitive mindsets to reflect the cognitions of another culture. After a review of the literature, the chapter addresses the implications of extracultural cognition for understanding the influence of dialectical thinking on judgment and decision-making

Will the Real Reasonable Person Please Stand Up? Using Psychology to Better Understand and Apply the Reasonable Person Standard

This article will consist of four main parts. Part I will review the historical and current Reasonable Person Standard. More specifically, it will discuss a brief history of the common law negligence standard leading to the current commonly used Reasonable Person Standard, review the current American Law Institute ( ALI ) language of the Reasonable Person Standard, and briefly outline the three most common legal theorist conceptualizations of the negligence standard in order to provide a review of the current understanding of the negligence standard. Part II will then examine the importance of the jury and the limited instruction they are provided in negligence cases. I will review commonly used jury instructions to provide the context in which jurors are interacting with the standard. Part III will argue that it is important to consider a new perspective of the Reasonable Person Standard based on how juries actually interpret and apply the standard. I will also argue that the best way to understand the jury is by reviewing existing research and conducting new, systematic empirical research on how juries interpret and apply the Reasonable Person Standard. I will then examine a few empirical findings, primarily from the discipline of social psychology, to demonstrate the influence that human cognition may have on jurors\u27 interpretation of the Reasonable Person Standard. Finally, Part IV will conclude the article by emphasizing the importance of systematically studying jurors\u27 perceptions of the Reasonable Person Standard. I. The Reasonable Person Standard: Its Origins, Current Formulation, and Academic Conceptualizations … A. Origins of the Negligence Standard … B. The Reasonable Person Standard According to the ALI … C. Academic Interpretations of the Negligence Standard … 1. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: The Importance of Foreseeability … 2. Cost-Benefit Analysis: The Hand Formula … 3. Applying Prevailing Community Norms II. The Importance of Juries and Jury Instructions in Applying the Reasonable Person Standard … A. The Importance of the Jury … B. Influence of Jury Instructions III. Understanding the Reasonable Person Standard from the Juror’s Perspective … A. Limitations on Systematic Evaluation: The Theory of Bounded Rationality … B. Dual Systems of Processing: Central Route vs. Peripheral Route Processing … C. Understanding Initial, Gut Reactions: The Importance of Heuristics … 1. Framing Effects … 2. The Outcome Bias … 3. The Hindsight Bias … 4. Counterfactual Thinking—A Helping Heuristic IV. Conclusion: Will the Real Reasonable Person Please Stand Up

Fathers, Divorce, and Child Custody

A great many fathers will have their fathering eliminated, disrupted, or vastly changed because they become divorced from the child’s mother. In fact, between 40% and 50% of marriages end in divorce (Cherlin, 2010). Although the divorce rate (measured as divorces per 1,000 people) is high by the standards prior to the late 1960s, it has actually fallen more than 30% since its peak in 1980. The decline in divorce rates in recent years has, however, been concentrated among the college-educated portion of the population; divorce rates among the less well educated may have even increased (Cherlin, 2010). But for both groups, divorce remains the most prevalent reason for changes in paternal parenting opportunities. For almost all divorced fathers (as well as for most mothers and children), divorce is a life-defining event, around which all other experiences are organized: before the divorce versus after the divorce. Although mothers’ parenting is generally changed by divorce, the revision to the parent-child interaction patterns is generally not as far-reaching as it is to fathers’ (Braver & Lamb, in press; Braver, Shapiro, & Goodman, 2005; Fabricius, Braver, Diaz, & Velez, 2010). The reason, of course, is the radical difference between the two parents’ custodial arrangements that typically occurs. As will be documented more precisely below, mothers generally become chief custodians of children, with fathers having visiting rights only. Although that situation has changed in recent years, due in large part to the fact that research has accumulated that illuminates the unintended negative consequences of that practice on fathers and children, it remains normative. Thus, no review of fathers and divorce can be complete or enlightening unless it also considers custody matters, as we do here

Peer Review of Teaching Portfolio: Psychology of Social Behavior (PSYC 288)

This course portfolio assesses student learning in the Psychology of Social Behavior course, PSYC 288. This course introduces students to the field of social psychology—the scientific study of the way in which people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the real or imagined presence of other people. This course covers the fundamental principles, theories, methods, experiments, and people of social psychology. Student enrollment for this course consists of 200 to 250 undergraduates from a variety of majors with diverse educational backgrounds and familiarity with social psychology. The course portfolio outlines the goals, learning outcomes, and assessments for this course. It then offers a reflective and evidence based analysis of student learning to reflect on whether the learning outcomes were achieved. Finally, the portfolio concludes with my reflections on the successes and challenges presented throughout the semester and planned future changes

Capital and Punishment: Resource Scarcity Increases Endorsement of the Death Penalty

Faced with punishing severe offenders, why do some prefer imprisonment whereas others impose death? Previous research exploring death penalty attitudes has primarily focused on individual and cultural factors. Adopting a functional perspective, we propose that environmental features may also shape our punishment strategies. Individuals are attuned to the availability of resources within their environments. Due to heightened concerns with the costliness of repeated offending, we hypothesize that individuals tend toward elimination-focused punishments during times of perceived scarcity. Using global and United States data sets (studies 1 and 2), we find that indicators of resource scarcity predict the presence of capital punishment. In two experiments (studies 3 and 4), we find that activating concerns about scarcity causes people to increase their endorsement for capital punishment, and this effect is statistically mediated by a reduced willingness to risk repeated offenses. Perceived resource scarcity shapes our punishment preferences, with important policy implications

Does Joint Physical Custody “Cause” Children’s Better Outcomes?

Policymakers and researchers are concerned with whether joint physical custody (JPC) produces better outcomes for children than sole custody. Although several review articles summarizing up to 61 empirical articles demonstrate very positive answers, many of the research designs used compromise the ability to claim that it is JPC per se—and not selection effects—that causes the effect. We discuss several research design issues, such as propensity score analysis, that can more powerfully probe the question of causality. Some studies have already been conducted employing these strategies and more are recommended and likely to soon be forthcoming. On the basis of this comprehensive review we conclude that JPC probably does cause benefits to children on average, and that social scientists can now provisionally recommend rebuttably presumptive JPC to policymakers

Does Joint Physical Custody “Cause” Children’s Better Outcomes?

Policymakers and researchers are concerned with whether joint physical custody (JPC) produces better outcomes for children than sole custody. Although several review articles summarizing up to 61 empirical articles demonstrate very positive answers, many of the research designs used compromise the ability to claim that it is JPC per se—and not selection effects—that causes the effect. We discuss several research design issues, such as propensity score analysis, that can more powerfully probe the question of causality. Some studies have already been conducted employing these strategies and more are recommended and likely to soon be forthcoming. On the basis of this comprehensive review we conclude that JPC probably does cause benefits to children on average, and that social scientists can now provisionally recommend rebuttably presumptive JPC to policymakers

Discussion on the Paper by Neumann, Evett and Skerrett

Neumann, Evett, and Skerrett have made a major contribution to the art and science of fingerprint identification. This is an important—perhaps historic—step forward in the intellectual history of fingerprint identification and perhaps other fields of pattern matching forensic science. Their work deals ingeniously with the elusive problem of placing forensic identification on an empirically sound, quantitative foundation

Discussion on the Paper by Neumann, Evett and Skerrett

Neumann, Evett, and Skerrett have made a major contribution to the art and science of fingerprint identification. This is an important—perhaps historic—step forward in the intellectual history of fingerprint identification and perhaps other fields of pattern matching forensic science. Their work deals ingeniously with the elusive problem of placing forensic identification on an empirically sound, quantitative foundation