Search

In Title VII sexual harassment jurisprudence, U.S. courts use a 2-prong subjective-objective test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: The complainant must show that the employer's conduct was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment because of the complainant's sex from both the complainant's perspective (subjective prong) and a reasonable person's perspective (objective prong). This online study used a diverse national sample (361 MTurk Community Members) to investigate whether people apply the objective prong in a uniform manner, as the law assumes, or show predictable differences. Participants read a vignette about a female interviewee's allegations of sexual harassment following from severe, mild, or no sexual objectification by a male interviewer during a job interview. The interviewee claimed that she was either harassed or not by the interviewer during the interaction, as well as claiming to enjoy or reject sexualization. Participants made judgments about whether the interviewer's behavior was sexually harassing from the interviewee's and a reasonable person's perspective. Overall, participants' sex and enjoyment of sexualization moderated their judgments of sexual harassment when considering the situation from both points of view, demonstrating that there is no convergence on a unified standard for evaluating whether specific behavior is sexually harassing. Drawing comparisons to obscenity law, we argue that the use of data to form social fact evidence may help decision makers in hostile work environment cases to apply a more uniform understanding of what is hostile and abusive. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Under Title VII, courts may give a mixed motive instruction allowing jurors to determine that defendants are liable for discrimination if an illegal factor (here: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin) contributed to an adverse decision. Recently, the Supreme Court held that to conclude that an employer discriminated against a worker because of age, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, unlike Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires "but for" causality, necessitating jurors to find that age was the determinative factor in an employer's adverse decision regarding that worker. Using a national online sample (N = 392) and 2 study phases, 1 to measure stereotypes, and a second to present experimental manipulations, this study tested whether older worker stereotypes as measured through the lens of the Stereotype Content Model, instruction type (but for vs. mixed motive causality), and plaintiff age influenced mock juror verdicts in an age discrimination case. Decision modeling in Phase 2 with 3 levels of case orientation (i.e., proplaintiff, prodefendant, and neutral) showed that participants relied on multiple factors when making a decision, as opposed to just 1, suggesting that mock jurors favor a mixed model approach to discrimination verdict decisions. In line with previous research, instruction effects showed that mock jurors found in favor of plaintiffs under mixed motive instructions but not under "but for" instructions especially for older plaintiffs (64- and 74-year-old as opposed to 44- and 54-year-old-plaintiffs). Most importantly, in accordance with the Stereotype Content Model theory, competence and warmth stereotypes moderated the instruction effects found for specific judgments. The results of this study show the importance of the type of legal causality required for age discrimination cases. (PsycINFO Database Record

In 2 studies, we found support for current sexual harassment jurisprudence. Currently, the courts use a 2-prong test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: that the adverse treatment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter conditions of employment based on a protected class from the perspective of the individual complainant (subjective prong) and from the perspective of a reasonable person (objective prong). In Experiment 1, trained male undergraduate research assistants administered sequential objectifying gazes and comments to undergraduate female research participants. We found that the pervasive objectification delivered by multiple men (compared with 1 man) did not elicit more negative emotion or harm the experiencers' task performance, although it did lead them to make increased judgments of sexual harassment. In Experiment 2, observers (who viewed a recording of an experiencer's interactions with the male research assistants) and predictors (who read a protocol describing the facts of the interaction) anticipated the female targets would experience negative emotions, show impaired performance, as well as find more evidence in the interaction of sexual harassment. Observers' judgments mirrored those of the experiencers' while predictors' judgments demonstrated affective forecasting errors. Predictors were more likely to anticipate more negative emotion, worse performance, and greater likelihood of sexual harassment. Overall, these studies demonstrate the impact and importance of considering perceptions of sexual harassment from multiple perspectives and viewpoints. (PsycINFO Database Record

This paper reviews the four types of validity that make up Cook and Campbell's traditional approach for social science research in general and psychological research in particular: internal validity, statistical conclusion validity, external validity, and construct validity. The most important generalizability threat to the validity of jury research is not likely a selection main effect (i.e., the effect of relying solely on undergraduate mock jurors) but is more likely the interaction of sample with construct validity factors. Researchers who try to capture the trial process with experimental paradigms may find that undergraduate mock jurors react differently to those efforts than do more representative community samples. We illustrate these issues with the seven papers that make up this volume, and conclude by endorsing Diamond's call for a two-stage research process in which findings with samples of convenience gradually add more realistic trial processes and representative samples to confirm the initial findings and increase the research program's credibility.

People suffering from mental illness are increasingly referred to the domestic violence court. Yet the typical diversion programs available, including batterer's intervention programs, are inappropriate for those with serious mental illness. As a result, the Miami-Dade Domestic Violence Court has developed a new approach for dealing with this population that applies mental health court techniques in domestic violence court. This article will describe and discuss this pioneering model. It also will situate this model within the context of other problem-solving courts and discuss how the court uses principles and approaches of therapeutic jurisprudence. The paper presents some preliminary data that describe the social and legal characteristics of 20 defendants in the Domestic Violence Mental Health Court followed over a two year period between 2005 and 2007.

Recent years have seen a proliferation of problem solving courts designed to rehabilitate certain classes of offenders and thereby resolve the underlying problems that led to their court involvement in the first place. Some commentators have reacted positively to these courts, considering them an extension of the philosophy and logic of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, but others show concern that the discourse surrounding these specialty courts has not examined their process or outcomes critically enough. This paper examines that criticism from historical and social scientific perspectives. The analysis culminates in a model that describes how offenders are likely to respond to the process as they engage in problem solving court programs and the ways in which those courts might impact subsequent offender conduct. This Therapeutic Jurisprudence model of problem solving courts draws heavily on social cognitive psychology and more specifically on theories of procedural justice, motivation, and anticipated emotion to offer an explanation of how offenders respond to these programs. We offer this model as a lens through which social scientists can begin to address the concern that there is not enough critical analysis of the process and outcome of these courts. Applying this model to specialty courts constitutes an important step in critically examining the contribution of problem solving courts.

Despite the availability of effective interventions, most individuals with social anxiety disorder do not seek treatment. Given their fear of negative evaluation, socially anxious individuals might be especially susceptible to stigma concerns, a recognized barrier for mental health treatment. However, very little is known about the stigma specific to social anxiety disorder. In a design similar to Feldman and Crandall (2007), university undergraduate students read vignettes about target individuals with a generic mental illness label, major depressive disorder, and social anxiety disorder. Subjects rated each of 3 people in the vignettes on social distance and 17 dimensions including dangerousness, heritability and prevalence of the disorder, and gender ratio. Results indicated that being male and not having experience with mental health treatment was associated with somewhat greater preferred social distance. Multiple regression analyses revealed that being embarrassed by the disorder and dangerousness predicted social distance across all 3 vignettes. The vignette for social anxiety disorder had the most complex model and included work impairment, more common among women, and more avoidable. These results have implications for understanding the specific aspects of the stigma associated with social anxiety disorder. Public service messages to reduce stigma should focus on more accurate information about dangerousness and mental illness, given this is an established aspect of mental illness stigma. More nuanced messages about social anxiety might be best incorporated into the treatment referral process and as part of treatment.

In the last decade, researchers have shown burgeoning interest in issues at the intersection of emotion and law. Given the longstanding interest in emotion among social (and other) psychologists, most of this research has come from a psychological perspective, but it also includes work with a legal, sociological, philosophical, and neuroscience flavor. The issues are theoretical as well as practical, influencing both psychological theories of emotion and matters of legal practice and policy. The law adopts a double standard in its treatment of emotion. In some areas, the law explicitly addresses emotion as a legitimate consideration, but in other areas, the law denies emotion any role in legal decision making. For example, legal analysis requires decision makers to consider the emotional reactions of others when classifying certain offenses for purposes of criminal culpability (e.g., “hate crimes” and “crimes of passion”), awarding damages for emotional injuries (e.g., mental suffering and emotional distress), and allowing jurors’ moral judgments to influence certain consequential decisions such as punitive damages, capital sentencing, and jury nullification. At the same time, the courts make what may be untenable presumptions when they require factfinders to ignore their affective states and evaluate evidence, such as gory crime scene photographs, dispassionately. Thus, the field of law and emotion is ripe for scholarly exploration.

This paper reports on an evaluation of a financial education-training program for residents of New York who had filed for bankruptcy. Over 400 individuals divided into three groups (trained debtors, untrained debtors, and non-debtors) completed identical questionnaires approximately three months apart. Trained debtors took the pretest before training and the post-test after training. Results revealed that trained debtors' financial knowledge increased after training compared with untrained and non-debtors. Trained debtors showed more negative attitudes towards unnecessary spending compared with the other two groups and reported less intention to buy than non-debtors reported. Self-reported behaviors showed significant changes in the desired direction for trained debtors' use of credit cards (i.e. number owned, purchases, and balance amount), paying bills, budgeting, and borrowing from predatory lenders. Implications for pending legislation are discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A dual processing model of sexual harassment judgments predicted that the behavior of a complainant in a prior case would influence evaluations in an unrelated subsequent case. In the first of two experimental scenarios depicting social-sexual conduct at work, the female complainant's conduct was manipulated to be aggressive, submissive, ambiguous, or neutral. Half of the participants were asked to reflect upon the first scenario after reading it and before answering responsibility questions. The other half simply reviewed the scenario and answered the questions. When the complainant acted aggressively, her behavior in the first scenario caused men who reflected on the fact pattern to find less evidence of harassment. Most interestingly, an aggressive complainant observed in the first scenario caused participants (especially women) to rate lower the likelihood that a neutral complainant in a second independent case was the victim of gender discrimination. Across cases, men found less evidence of harassment than did women.

According to the story model of Pennington and Hastie, jurors collect information at trial and modify it with general knowledge to create case stories. Schank and Ableson argue that human memory is organized to tell and understand stories. However, Finkel and Groscup questioned the use of manipulated, experimenter-constructed narratives to demonstrate the existence of multiple prototypical crime stories. We interviewed 76 jury eligible, death qualified citizens and asked them to imagine a first-degree murder scenario, describing the events that led to the killing. We coded the presence of dichotomous variables in the resulting stories and identified at least three shared story prototypes using cluster and profile analysis. We conclude that people do not store crime stories as simple prototypes and comment on the implications of this finding for legal decision-making. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Qualitative interviews exploring gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment were conducted with 100 full-time St. Louis area employees. Women more than men reported that telling dirty/sexual jokes was a non-harassing behavior, qualified behaviors as harassing when they happened in the workplace, and considered behaviors as non-harassing when the man's intentions were not harmful. Men more than women reported that requesting a date was a non-harassing behavior, qualified behaviors as harassing when the woman did not welcome the behavior, and considered behaviors as non-harassing when they did not violate workplace norms. Logistic regression analysis predicted the respondent gender with 86% accuracy. Finally, concept mapping suggested that when women think about harassers they are concerned with power and social aptitude, while men seem to be more concerned about the responsibility and psychological adjustment of perpetrators of sexual harassment. When women think about victims of harassment they are concerned with a woman's assertiveness and work effectiveness, while men are more concerned with the psychological state of the woman and how provocative she is when they think about victims of sexual harassment.

Judicial decisions reviewed in this article indicate that courts have taken two disparate approaches to disputes over futility of treatment. To explore whether a consensus on medical futility is developing among hospitals, the authors conducted a nationwide survey of health care professionals at hospitals. Respondents assigned importance ratings to factors used in recent futility decisions made at their institutions. The resulting importance ratings showed significant variation by characteristics of the institution (comparing respondents from for-profit, not-for-profit, and government hospitals) and by profession of the respondent (comparing physicians and nurses). The respondents' judgments endorsed three distinct strategies for making futility decisions (i.e., emphasis on the patient's decision preferences, providing for the patient and family, and adhering to objective medical and social norms).

This research tests the possibility that the reasonable woman as compared to the reasonable person test of hostile work environment sexual harassment interacts with hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs and under some conditions triggers protectionist attitudes toward women who complain of sexual harassment. We administered to a sample of undergraduates the ambivalent sexism inventory along with the fact patterns in two harassment cases and asked them to make legally relevant decisions under either the reasonable woman or person standard. We found that those high in hostile sexism, and women, found more evidence of harassment. However, those high in benevolent sexism did not exhibit the hostile sexism effects. Although men were less sensitive to the reasonable woman standard than women, under some conditions the reasonable woman standard enabled both genders to find greater evidence of harassment. The results are discussed from the perspectives of law and psychology.

This paper presents a brief psycholegal analysis of hostile work environment sexual harassment law especially as it distinguishes between the reasonable person and reasonable woman tests of severity and pervasiveness. We tested two hypotheses: (1) women (but not men) would show stronger judgments of harassment when using the reasonable woman standard, and (2) this relationship would be strongest for women who identified with harassed victims and men who did not. We presented to a sample of undergraduates an in-group identification measurement task followed by the fact patterns in two cases and asked them to make legally relevant decisions under either the reasonable woman or person standard. Although we found gender and in-group identification effects, we found no legal standard effects. The results are discussed from the perspectives of law and psychology.

This article argues that program evaluation data may be useful to the courts when they are deciding First Amendment constitutional law disputes. Specifically, we focus on how program evaluation data, quantitative and qualitative, may be dispositive in dealing with two types of First Amendment cases—pornography and commercial speech. The different evaluative approaches that are warranted with each type of case are compared and contrasted. The different possible legal routes that program evaluation data may take to influence the outcome of constitutional law disputes determines the empirical type of approach to be utilized. Where pornography cases lend themselves more to social science data being used in trials, cases of commercial speech are more likely to use data at the appellate level. Social scientists interested in conducting legally relevant research should structure their research accordingly.

This Research Report presents an initial attempt to apply the theory of counterfactual thinking to study the cognitive processes that underlie judgments of negligence. Subjects reviewed a summary of an appellate case involving a work accident and listed all the ways in which the accident could have been undone (mutated). Participants' evaluations of the defendant's behavior were influenced by the ease of mutation of the negligent act and other mutations of the defendant's behavior, but not by the number of mutations of the plaintiffs conduct. Exploratory path analysis suggested that counterfactual thinking may have its greatest impact not as a direct influence on verdicts and damages, but rather as an indirect influence impacting verdicts through lower level judgments about the normality of the defendant's behavior and the standard of care. The results also suggest that contrary to the law, subjects base their negligence verdicts on assessments of normal care along with due care.

Jury researchers have long been concerned about the generalizability of results from experiments that utilize undergraduate students as mock jurors. The current experiment examined the differences between 120 students (55 males and 65 females, mean age = 20 years) and 99 community members (49 males and 50 females, mean age = 42 years) in culpability evaluations for homicide and sexual assault cases. Explicit attitude measures served as indicators of bias for sexual assault, defendant, and homicide adjudication. Results revealed that student and community participants showed different biases on these general explicit attitude measures and these differences manifested in judgments of culpability (guilt likelihood, convincingness of state's arguments, convincingness of defendant's arguments, and the defendants' criminal intentions) in sexual assault and homicide case scenarios. The results also showed that student mock jurors were more lenient when assigning guilt in homicide cases than were community members. The implications for future mock jury research are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Language: en

It has been hypothesized that parents of patients with obsessive compulsive disorder exhibit specific traits. 320 consecutive inpatient admissions who met criteria for OCD, depression, and panic disorder checked a list of adjectives to describe their parents. Patients with OCD were 1) less likely to perceive their mothers as disorganized than depressives, 2) more likely to perceive their mothers as overprotective than depressives and 3) less likely to perceive their fathers as demanding than patients with panic.

The purpose of this article is to further recent work in the psychology of jurisprudence. After summarizing the value positions that are central to a jurisprudence that emphasizes the role of law in the everyday lives of individuals, we examine the interaction between the tenets of that philosophy and the paradigmatic content of psycholegal research. We propose that one dominant perspective, information processing, assumes that legal actors are imperfect processors of social information and proceeds to document biases and propose ways for the law to minimize shortcomings in human cognition. After summarizing the emerging theory of psychological jurisprudence, we discuss the information processing paradigm in psychology and law, illustrating its contributions with three recent studies. Next, we present an empirical analysis of abstracts from the last 5 years of empirical research to demonstrate that there is a representative body of information processing research in psychology and law. Following this is an in-depth assessment of a sample of cognitive and social cognitive studies, detailing the scientific and normative issues that make up this literature. Finally, we conclude with some recommendations for jurisprudential theorists and psycholegal researchers which will integrate the philosophy of psychology and law with its empirical underpinnings.

The current research compares two theoretical models borrowed from social psychology (theory of planned behavior and procedural justice) to predict intentions to make use of a drug court. Medicaid-eligible substance users answered a number of questions regarding their intentions to use a drug court in the future, including items from planned behavior and procedural justice scales. When procedural justice was considered alone, only trustworthiness predicted intention to use drug courts. When planned behavior was considered alone, only deliberative attitudes predicted the intention. After combining the two models, deliberative attitudes from the theory of planned behavior were the only significant predictor of likelihood to make use of a drug court. Recommendations for future study of this area center on conceptualization of procedural justice and the use of alternative samples.

In order to examine the hypothesis that being a firstborn or only child is specifically associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder, the birth order positions and sibship sizes of 62 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder were compared with those of 60 agoraphobic and 92 depressed patients. No significant group differences were found for men, women, or both sexes combined. Results conflict with earlier findings which supported the hypothesized relationship between birth order status and development of obsessive-compulsive patterns in men. In addition to possible differences in methodology, discrepancies between the present findings and those of earlier studies may reflect a decline over the past 20 years in the percentage of male obsessive compulsives that were either firstborn or only children.

In Virginia v. Black (123 S.Ct. 1536, 2003), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not bar statutes that prohibit cross burnings in which defendants acted with intention to intimidate others. Using a variety of symbols including cross burnings, swastikas, confederate flags, and skin fists, the current research tested how mock jurors used alternative actor intentions to judge culpability in symbolic hate speech cases. Only partially validating the Court’s assumptions, participants rated guilt certainty highest when they believed the speakers conveyed direct threats, sometimes regardless of whether defendants intended to intimidate others. Further, results showed the level of perceived intimidation only partially mediated the relationship between type of fact pattern and guilt certainty ratings. While alternative intentions did produce different levels of intention to intimidate, path analysis showed that the participants’ ratings of the defendant’s intention to convey a direct threat influenced guilt certainty ratings in all cases. Perceived intimidation levels predicted culpability in only some of the cases and not for cross burning on private property.

This paper draws on research in social and cognitive psychology to show how theories of judgment and decision making that incorporate decision makers' affective responses apply to legal contexts. It takes 2 widely used models of decision making, the rational actor and lens models, and illustrates their utility for understanding legal judgments by using them to interpret research findings on juror decision making, people's obedience to the law (e.g., paying taxes), and eyewitness memory. The paper concludes with a discussion of the advantages of modifying existing approaches to information processing to include the influence of affect on how legal actors reach judgments about law and legal process.

Patients on a behaviorally-oriented inpatient psychiatric unit were asked to rate their perceptions of treatment outcome and the value of 16 program components in producing that outcome. Significant correlations were found between perceived outcome and positive evaluations of the overall behavioral treatment plan, individual meetings with nursing staff, individual meetings with team psychologists, assertion group training, and daily group therapy. Patients perceived individual meetings with the nursing staff to be the single most valuable program component among those related to favorable outcome. Implications for the increased utilization of nursing staff during a time of dwindling resources for mental health are discussed.

Although the Willoughby Personality Schedule appears to be widely used to assess interpersonal anxiety, there are few studies of its clinical validity or psychometric properties. The purpose of this study was to investigate the factor analytic structure of the Willoughby Schedule in an inpatient psychiatric population. It also explored the relationship of the Willoughby Personality Schedule to the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Gambrill-Richey Assertion Inventory and patient perception of treatment outcome. In contrast to three Willoughby Schedule factors previously reported in research with outpatients, six factors were found in this study. These were moderately correlated with scores on the BDI and the Assertion Inventory discomfort scale. Two Willoughby factors were related to the Assertion Inventory probability of assertive response scale and only one Willoughby factor was related to patient perception of treatment outcome. The overall results raise questions as to the usefulness of the Willoughby Schedule with inpatient populations.

This article examines the relationship between rape empathy and evaluations of attacker culpability. Empathy was defined as a score on the Rape Empathy Scale (RES) and whether or not subjects had previous experience with a rape victim. Summaries of the testimonies from a rape trial were presented to subjects recruited through media advertisement in a midwestern community. Ratings of responsibility were made prior to and following each summary. Although RES score was not related to participants' attributions, personal knowledge of rape victims was predictive. All participants increased their attributions of responsibility after reviewing the complainant's testimony, the first direct examination in the case for the prosecution. The ratings of participants who were acquainted with a victim remained elevated across all judgments while the subjects unacquainted with a victim lowered their attributions. At the conclusion of the transcripts the victim-acquainted subjects were more likely to find the defendant guilty of forcible rape. These findings provide evidence for two types of empathic processes, one of which appears to be involved in biased assimilation of trial evidence.

Using a combination of standardized and Likert-type measures of health, disability, and psychological adjustment, this study compared the quality of life reported by thirty-seven inpatients and thirty-six outpatients approximately eight months after completing treatment. While both patient groups reported treatment-related changes, inpatients were significantly more dysfunctional than outpatients both before and after treatment. The pattern of perceived improvement among inpatients reflected particular changes in narcotic use and in “up” time. For outpatients, the pattern of change pointed to increased periods of activity. The data are interpreted to reflect the need for treatments that are tailored to meet the differing levels of dysfunction of patients who present with chronic pain syndromes. Methodological problems of this and other clinical studies that compare treatment effects on patients demonstrating different levels of dysfunction are discussed.