The Situationist

Archive for July, 2010

Attributional Divide – Top 10

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 30, 2010

Situationist contributors Adam Benforado and Jon Hanson’s article “The Great Attributional Divide: How Divergent Views of Human Behavior are Shaping Legal Policy,” (57 Emory Law Review, 2008) recently made the SSRN all-time top-ten list for or Journal of Law & Society: Private Law – Discrimination Law eJournal. Here’s the abstract.

* * *

This article, the first of a multipart series, argues that a major rift runs across many of our major policy debates based on our attributional tendencies: the less accurate dispositionist approach, which explains outcomes and behavior with reference to people’s dispositions (i.e., personalities, preferences, and the like), and the more accurate situationist approach, which bases attributions of causation and responsibility on unseen influences within us and around us. Given that situationism offers a truer picture of our world than the alternative, and given that attributional tendencies are largely the result of elements in our situations, identifying the relevant elements should be a major priority of legal scholars. With such information, legal academics could predict which individuals, institutions, and societies are most likely to produce situationist ideas – in other words, which have the greatest potential for developing the accurate attributions of human behavior that are so important to law.

* * *

To download the article for free, click here.

To read a sample of related Situationist posts, see Legal Academic Backlash - Abstract,” “Naïve Cynicism in Election 2008: Dispositionism v. Situationism?,” “The Great Attributional Divide – Abstract,” “The Situation of ‘Common Sense’,” The Situation of Political Animals,” “Do NOT Read This Post!,” Naïve Cynicism in Election 2008: Dispositionism v. Situationism?,”Your Brain on Politics.”

Posted in Abstracts, Conflict, Cultural Cognition, Deep Capture, Ideology, Politics, Situationist Contributors, Social Psychology | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Future of Embodied Cogntion

Posted by Adam Benforado on July 28, 2010

I have just returned from the fabulous Barnard Interdisciplinary Workshop on Embodiment. The three-day workshop, funded by the National Science Foundation, brought together 23 experts from across the cognitive sciences and humanities—including George Lakoff, Larry Barsalou, and Vittorio Gallese—to plan and discuss the future of the rapidly growing field.

I was lucky enough to participate as a representative from legal academia and I must say that I am more convinced than ever that embodiment research is set to revolutionize a number of disciplines both inside the mind sciences and without.

In the coming weeks, I hope to bring more new work from embodied cognition to the Situationist, so find those soft slippers, put the tea kettle on, and sit back in a comfy chair . . .

* * *

For a sample of previous Situationist posts on the topic, click on “The Embodied Situation of Metaphors” and the links it contains.

Posted in Embodied Cognition, Events, Situationist Contributors | 1 Comment »

Shirley Sherrod and the Situation of Racial Discourse

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 27, 2010

Situationist friend Charles Ogletree and Johanna Wald had a terrific editorial this Sunday, titled “After Shirley Sherrod, We all Need To Slow Down and Listen,” in which, among other things, they discuss the relevance of research by Situationist Contributors Mahzarin Banaji and Jerry Kang.  Here are some excerpts.

* * *

President Obama has called and chatted with Shirley Sherrod. Tom Vilsack and Ben Jealous have issued heartfelt apologies. There is talk of a “Chardonnay summit” in the Rose Garden. The subtext to all this? Let’s wrap up this incident quickly so we can all go on our vacations guilt-free, secure in the knowledge that our “post-racial society” remains intact.

Once again, in the midst of the cacophony, calls abound for a national “dialogue” on race. Yet our nation cannot muster the patience or stamina to sustain such a discussion beyond a single news cycle. In some ways, Sherrod’s tale is a metaphor for this country’s aborted efforts to address race. In its entirety, her deeply moving story was about transformation and reconciliation between blacks and whites. It contained the seeds of progress and healing. She spoke of blacks and whites working together to save farms and to end poverty and suffering. But Sherrod, and those listening to her story, could get to her hopeful conclusion only by first wading through painful admissions of racial bias and struggle.

Unfortunately, our news and political cycles make it impossible for any of us to stay in a room long enough to reach that transformative moment. At the barest suggestion of race, we line up at opposite corners and start hurling accusations. Attorney General Eric Holder was widely criticized last year for suggesting that we are a “nation of cowards” when it comes to such discussions. The reaction to his comments is a reminder that we cannot continue to ignore this challenge. Yet Americans refuse to acknowledge that, in today’s society, racial attitudes are often complicated, multi-layered and conflicted.

Racial inequality is perpetuated less by individuals than by structural racism and implicit bias. Evidence of structural inequality is everywhere: in the grossly disproportionate numbers of young black men and women in prison; in the color of students shunted into remedial and special education tracks; in the stubborn segregation of our neighborhoods and schools; in the lack of recreational and academic opportunities for children of color in poor communities; in the inferior medical treatment that people of color receive; and in the still appallingly small numbers of men and women of color in law firms, corporations and government. It is evident, too, in the history of blatant discrimination against black farmers practiced by the Agricultural Department.

But that does not make doctors, nurses, police officers, judges, teachers, lawyers, city planners, admission officers or others prejudiced. Most are well-intentioned professionals who believe themselves to be free of racial bias. From their perspective, it is not easy to connect individual actions and decisions to broader structural conditions and environments built up over decades and even centuries.

Implicit bias is a reality we must confront far more openly. A growing mass of compelling research reveals the unconscious racial stereotypes many of us harbor that affect our decisions. Such attitudes do not make us prejudiced; they make us human. Those who take the Implicit Association Test often express shock when results show that their unconscious biases conflict with their explicit egalitarian values and ideals. Nonetheless, white and black test-takers match black faces more quickly than white ones with words representing violent concepts and are more likely to mistake a harmless object for a gun when it is carried by a black person. One study found that the more stereotypically black the features of a criminal defendant, the harsher the sentence he or she is likely to receive. Implicit bias has been shown to factor into hiring decisions and into the quality of health care that individuals receive. Mazharin Banaji and Jerry Kang, leading scholars on implicit bias, have noted: “As disturbing as this evidence is, there is too much of it to be ignored.”

The good news is that structures can be dismantled and replaced and unconscious biases can be transformed, as happened to Shirley Sherrod and the family she helped, the Spooners. First, though, they must be acknowledged. We and others researching race and justice are committed to untangling the web of structures, conditions and policies that lead to unequal opportunities. Our nation has to stop denying the complexity of our racial attitudes, history and progress. Let’s tone down the rhetoric on all sides, slow down and commit to listening with less judgment and more compassion. If Americans did so, we might find that we share more common ground than we could have imagined.

* * *

For a sample or related Situationist posts, see “The Situation of ‘Common Sense’,” Why Race May Influence Us Even When We “Know” It Doesn’t,” Perceptions of Racial Divide,” Black History is Now,” Jennifer Eberhardt’s “Policing Racial Bias” - Video,” Measuring Implicit Attitudes,” What Are the Legal Implications of Implicit Biases?,” Confronting the Backlash against Implicit Bias,” and Implicit Bias and Strawmen.”

Posted in Distribution, History, Implicit Associations, Morality, Politics, Situationist Contributors | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Doctors’ Conspiracy of Silence?

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 25, 2010

From ABC News, here is the introduction to Kim Carollo’s article, “Many Doctors Reluctant to Report Inept or Impaired Colleagues”:

* * *

Many professional medical organizations ethically require doctors to report other doctors who are incompetent or impaired by substance abuse or mental health problems, but as one recent survey found, more than a third of doctors don’t turn in their colleagues.

Researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital surveyed nearly 3,000 doctors across multiple specialties, and of the almost 2,000 who responded, 31 percent objected to the idea that they should have a responsibility to report physicians who are incompetent or impaired.

The survey also found that 17 percent of doctors had encountered an impaired or incompetent colleague over the past three years, but only two-thirds of them actually turned those doctors in. Only 69 percent of doctors said they know how to go about reporting a compromised colleague.

Lead study author Catherine DesRoches of the Mongan Institute for Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital told ABC News the fact that more than a third of physicians don’t agree that they have a responsibility to report doctors with problems is a “signifcant number” she finds troubling.

“Self-regulation is the primary mechanism we use to make sure doctors that shouldn’t be practicing are not practicing,” said DesRoches. “That’s a key to protecting patients.”

“This is a very important study, because it reminds us that we’re probably not doing what we should be doing,” said Dr. Virginia Hood, president-elect of the American College of Physicians and professor of medicine at The University of Vermont School of Medicine.

“Our primary responsibility is always patient safety and what’s in the best interest of the patient, and when it appears that we’re not doing what we should be doing, it’s a matter of great concern,” she added.

Doctors who are members of underrepresented minority groups, graduates of foreign medical schools and doctors in smaller practices were less likely to report an impaired or incompetent fellow doctor.

There were three main reasons many doctors did not turn in their colleagues.

“Twenty-three percent believed someone else was taking care of the problem, 15 percent didn’t think anything would happen and 12 percent feared retribution,” said DesRoches.

* * *

To read the entire article, click here.  For a sample of related Situationist posts, see “The Situation of Bystanders,” “The Deeply Captured Situation of Medicine,” “Mistakes Were Made (but not by me),” “The Situational Effect of Groups,” “Stop that Thief! (or not),” The Situation of Prejudice: Us vs. Them? or Them Is Us?Racism Meets Groupism and Teamism,” “‘Us’ and ‘Them,’” “Four Failures of Deliberating Groups - Abstract,” and “Team-Interested Decision Making.”

Posted in Food and Drug Law, Morality | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

The Toxic Situation of Cosmetics

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 23, 2010

The Story of Cosmetics, released on July 21st, 2010, examines the pervasive use of toxic chemicals in our everyday personal care products, from lipstick to baby shampoo. Produced with Free Range Studios and hosted by Annie Leonard, the seven-minute film by The Story of Stuff Project reveals the implications for consumer and worker health and the environment, and outlines ways we can move the industry away from hazardous chemicals and towards safer alternatives. The film concludes with a call for viewers to support legislation aimed at ensuring the safety of cosmetics and personal care products.

* * *

* * *

For a sample of related Situationist posts, see “Our Carcinogenic Situation,” “The Situation of Bottled Water,” “‘Flow’ and the Situation of Water,” “The Situation of our Food Series ( Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V), “Market Manipulation – Assuaging Cognitive Dissonance,”Juliet Schor, ‘Colossal Failure: The Output Bias of Market Economies’,Juliet Schor on the Situation of Consumption,”Denial,” and  The Need for a Situationist Morality.”

Posted in Choice Myth, Deep Capture, Environment, Food and Drug Law, Life, Marketing, Video | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Deeply Captured Situation of Medicine

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 21, 2010

From PBS’s Need to Know:

Prescription drug Avandia was once the top-selling diabetes drug in the world — and it still helps more than half a million Americans balance their blood sugar levels. But a Food and Drug Administration panel dealt the drug a blow this week that may have some diabetes sufferers questioning whether they want to use it.

The debate focused on whether Avandia, which is acknowledged to be one of the most effective drugs for treating Type 2 diabetes, comes with dangerous side effects: An increase in a patient’s chance of suffering a stroke or heart attack, and dying from it.

In the end, while a majority of the 33-member panel did agree that Avandia, compared to other diabetes drugs, does increase risk for cardiovascular problems, they didn’t agree that it increases a user’s risk of death. The FDA will decide if and how it will act on the panel’s recommendation soon. Whatever it decides, the drug’s reputation has already been tarnished.

Need to Know’s Jon Meacham sat down with Dr. Jerome Kassirer, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, to discuss the state of the FDA today in light of the Avandia ruling. Kassirer talked about the conditions that make it possible for drugs such as Fen-phen, Vioxx and now Avandia, the latest drug that may be pulled from the market, to reach consumers.

* * *

* * *

For a sample of related Situationist posts, see Tushnet on Teles and The Situation of Ideas – Abstract,” “Larry Lessig’s Situationism,” Industry-Funded Research,” “The Situation of Medical Research,”The company ‘had no control or influence over the research’ . . . .,” “Mark Lanier visits Professor Jon Hanson’s Tort Class (web cast),” “The Situation of University Research,” “Captured Science.”

Posted in Book, Choice Myth, Deep Capture, Food and Drug Law, Marketing, Video | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Deeply Captured Situation of Spilling Oil

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 19, 2010

From TED.com:  The Gulf oil spill dwarfs comprehension, but we know this much: it’s bad. Carl Safina scrapes out the facts in this blood-boiling cross-examination, arguing that the consequences will stretch far beyond the Gulf — and many so-called solutions are making the situation worse.

* * *

* * *

The Deeply Captured Situation of the Economic Crisis,” Our Stake in Corporate Behavior,” “Tushnet on Teles and The Situation of Ideas – Abstract,” “Larry Lessig’s Situationism,” “The Situation of Policy Research and Policy Outcomes,” Reclaiming Corporate Law in a New Gilded Age – Abstract,” The Illusion of Wall Street Reform,” Industry-Funded Research,” “The Situation of Medical Research,” “The Situation of Talk Radio,” “The company ‘had no control or influence over the research’ . . . .,” “The Situation of University Research,” “Captured Science.”

Posted in Deep Capture, Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Situation of Practice

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 17, 2010

From USC News:

Struggling with your chip shot? Constant drills with your wedge may not help much, but mixing in longer drives will, and a new study shows why.

Previous studies have shown that variable practice improves the brain’s memory of most skills better than practice focused on a single task. Cognitive neuroscientists at USC and UCLA describe the neural basis for this paradox in a new study in Nature Neuroscience.

The researchers split 59 volunteers into six groups: three groups were asked to practice a challenging arm movement, while the other three groups practiced the movement and related tasks in a variable practice structure.

Volunteers in the variable practice group showed better retention of the skill. The process of consolidating memory of the skill engaged a part of the brain – the prefrontal cortex – associated with higher level planning.

The group assigned to constant practice of the arm movement retained the skill to a lesser degree through consolidation that engaged a part of the brain – the primary motor cortex – associated with simple motor learning.

“In the variable practice structure condition, you’re basically solving the motor problem anew each time. If I’m just repeating the same thing over and over again as in the constant practice condition, I don’t have to process it very deeply,” said study senior author Carolee Winstein, professor of biokinesiology and physical therapy at the Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry of USC.

“We gravitate toward a simple, rote practice structure because we’re basically lazy, and we don’t want to work hard. But it turns out that memory is enhanced when we engage in practice that is more challenging and requires us to reconstruct the activity,” Winstein said.

Winstein’s team, led by Shailesh Kantak, a graduate student in biokinesiology at the time of the study, verified the neural circuits involved through harmless magnetic interference applied immediately after practice.

Volunteers in the variable practice group who received magnetic stimulation in the prefrontal cortex failed to retain or “consolidate” the arm movement as well as those in the same group who did not receive magnetic stimulation.

This implied that the prefrontal cortex was necessary for consolidating the memory.

Likewise, constant practice volunteers who received magnetic stimulation in the primary motor cortex failed to retain the arm movement as well as volunteers in the same group who did not receive magnetic stimulation.

“While it may be harder during practice to switch between tasks … you end up remembering the tasks better later than you do if you engage in this drill-like practice,” Winstein said.

“In motor skills training they know this, in educational programs where they’re teaching the kids cursive hand writing, they know this.”

Winstein described the study as “the linking of motor neuroscience to behavioral movement science to better understand the neural substrates that mediate motor learning through optimal practice structures. No one had done this before in this way.”

The magnetic interference tests also helped define the time window for the brain to consolidate skills. For volunteers chosen to receive interference four hours after practice, the procedure had no effect on learning. This suggested the brain already had done its consolidation.

Winstein’s team included first author Kantak, a recent USC Ph.D. graduate on his way to a postdoctoral position at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago; fellow biokinesiology faculty Katherine Sullivan (primary adviser to Kantak) and Beth Fisher, director of the Neuroplasticity and Imaging Laboratory where the study was conducted; and Barbara Knowlton, professor of behavioral neuroscience at UCLA.

* * *

To read a sample of related Situationist posts, see “The Situation of ‘Genius’,” Wise Parents Don’t Have “Smart” Kids,” Jock or Nerd,” “The Situation of “29″ & the Downside of Goal-Setting,” The Unconscious Genius of Baseball Players,” The Situation of a Baseball Pitch,” The Batting Situation,Team-Interested Decision Making,” and The Situation of ‘Winners’ and ‘Losers’.”

Posted in Education, Embodied Cognition, Situationist Sports | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Situationism in the Blogosphere – June, Part I

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 15, 2010

blogosphere image

Below, we’ve posted titles and a brief quotation from some of our favorite non-Situationist situationist blogging during June 2010 (they are listed in alphabetical order by source).

* * *

From BPS Research Digest: “Does greater competition improve performance or increase cheating?”

“What happens when you recruit dozens of students to perform a maze-based computer task and then you ratchet up the competitive pressure? Does their performance improve or do they just cheat more?” Read more . . .

From Beautiful Minds: “What do Narcissists Sound Like?”

“Narcissists love themselves. Even in psychology experiments. This is a problem for psychologists trying to study narcissists in the laboratory because narcissists are likely to present themselves in the best possible light, inflating their abilities on self-report surveys, and generally being oblivious to their own true selves (Vazire, 2010).” Read more . . .

From Frontal Cortex: “High Stakes Innovation”

“This oil spill sure is getting depressing. We’ve become extremely talented at hiding away the ill effects of our consumption decisions. We don’t see the inhumane chicken farms behind our chicken McNuggets, or the Chinese factories that produce our shoes, or the offshore oil rigs that extract our oil from the center of the earth. The end result is that, when we’re finally forced to confront the ugliness that makes our civilized life possible, we’re shocked and appalled. My cheap ground beef comes from that feedlot? My gas station depends on that infrastructure?” Read more . . .

From Jury Room: “Better find something besides DNA & hard science to persuade the jury!”

“For some time now, there have been concerns about the CSI Effect on our juries. In short, this is a belief/fear that potential jurors who watch television shows such as the CSI franchise will presume real labs can produce the same sort of evidence—and anything that falls short of that causes reasonable doubt. Litigators have lived in fear of the CSI Effect despite rising evidence it may actually be an urban (and rural!) litigation myth.” Read more . . .

From Neuromarketing: “Unconscious Buying”

“In a fascinating study just published in the Journal of Neuroscience, researchers have shown that we make buying decisions even when we aren’t paying attention to the products, and that fMRI observation of brain activity can predict these decisions. This new work builds on previous research by Stanford’s Knutson and CMU’s Loewenstein which showed that purchase decisions could be predicted when subjects were shown explicit offers.” Read more . . .

For previous installments of “Situationism on the Blogosphere,” click here.

Posted in Abstracts, Blogroll | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Situationist Political Science and the Situation of Voters

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 14, 2010

Joe Keohane wrote an outstanding article, “How Facts Backfire: Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains,” for the Boston Globe last week.  Here are some excerpts.

* * *

It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. . . . Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight.

In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”

These findings open a long-running argument about the political ignorance of American citizens to broader questions about the interplay between the nature of human intelligence and our democratic ideals. Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. And then we vote.

This effect is only heightened by the information glut, which offers — alongside an unprecedented amount of good information — endless rumors, misinformation, and questionable variations on the truth. In other words, it’s never been easier for people to be wrong, and at the same time feel more certain that they’re right.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be,” read a recent Onion headline. Like the best satire, this nasty little gem elicits a laugh, which is then promptly muffled by the queasy feeling of recognition. The last five decades of political science have definitively established that most modern-day Americans lack even a basic understanding of how their country works. In 1996, Princeton University’s Larry M. Bartels argued, “the political ignorance of the American voter is one of the best documented data in political science.”

On its own, this might not be a problem: People ignorant of the facts could simply choose not to vote. But instead, it appears that misinformed people often have some of the strongest political opinions. A striking recent example was a study done in the year 2000, led by James Kuklinski of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He led an influential experiment in which more than 1,000 Illinois residents were asked questions about welfare — the percentage of the federal budget spent on welfare, the number of people enrolled in the program, the percentage of enrollees who are black, and the average payout. More than half indicated that they were confident that their answers were correct — but in fact only 3 percent of the people got more than half of the questions right. Perhaps more disturbingly, the ones who were the most confident they were right were by and large the ones who knew the least about the topic. (Most of these participants expressed views that suggested a strong antiwelfare bias.)

Studies by other researchers have observed similar phenomena when addressing education, health care reform, immigration, affirmative action, gun control, and other issues that tend to attract strong partisan opinion. Kuklinski calls this sort of response the “I know I’m right” syndrome, and considers it a “potentially formidable problem” in a democratic system. “It implies not only that most people will resist correcting their factual beliefs,” he wrote, “but also that the very people who most need to correct them will be least likely to do so.”

What’s going on? How can we have things so wrong, and be so sure that we’re right?

* * *

To read the rest of the article, including Keohane‘s answers to those questions, click here.

For a sample of related Situationist posts, see “The Situation of Presidential Death Threats,” Voting for a Face,” “The Situation of Swift-Boating,”Implicit Associations in the 2008 Presidential Election,” “The Situation of Political Animals,” “Your Brain on Politics.” The Situation of the Obama Presidency and Race Perceptions,” Racial Attitudes in the Presidential Race,” The Racial Situation of Voting,” The Interior Situation of Undecided Voters,” On Being a Mindful Voter,” “Implicit Associations in the 2008 Presidential Election,” and “What does an Obama victory mean?

Posted in Choice Myth, Conflict, Cultural Cognition, Deep Capture, Education, Ideology, Naive Cynicism, Politics | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

What Can a Robot Teach Us about the Situation of Trust?

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 13, 2010

From Northeastern University:

What can a wide-eyed, talking robot teach us about trust?

A lot, according to Northeastern psychology professor David DeSteno, and his colleagues, who are conducting innovative research to determine how humans decide to trust strangers — and if those decisions are accurate.

(Read a Boston Globe article about this research.)

The interdisciplinary research project, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), is being conducted in collaboration with Cynthia Breazeal, director of the MIT Media Lab’s Personal Robots Group, Robert Frank, an economist, and David Pizarro, a psychologist, both from Cornell.

The researchers are examining whether nonverbal cues and gestures could affect our trustworthiness judgments. “People tend to mimic each other’s body language,” said DeSteno, “which might help them develop intuitions about what other people are feeling — intuitions about whether they’ll treat them fairly.”

This project tests their theories by having humans interact with the social robot, Nexi, in an attempt to judge her trustworthiness. Unbeknownst to participants, Nexi has been programmed to make gestures while speaking with selected participants — gestures that the team hypothesizes could determine whether or not she’s deemed trustworthy.

“Using a humanoid robot whose every expression and gesture we can control will allow us to better identify the exact cues and psychological processes that underlie humans’ ability to accurately predict if a stranger is trustworthy,” said DeSteno.

During the first part of the experiment, Nexi makes small talk with her human counterpart for 10 minutes, asking and answering questions about topics such as traveling, where they are from and what they like most about living in Boston.

“The goal was to simulate a normal conversation with accompanying movements to see what the mind would intuitively glean about the trustworthiness of another,” said DeSteno.

The participants then play an economic game called “Give Some,” which asks them to determine how much money Nexi might give them at the expense of her individual profit.  Simultaneously, they decide how much, if any, they’ll give to Nexi. The rules of the game allow for two distinct outcomes:  higher individual profit for one and loss for the other, or relatively smaller and equal profits for both partners.

“Trust might not be determined by one isolated gesture, but rather a ‘dance’ that happens between the strangers, which leads them to trust or not trust the other,” said DeSteno, who, with his colleagues, will continue testing their theories by seeing if Nexi can be taught to predict the trustworthiness of human partners.

* * *

For a sample of related Situationist posts, see The Interior Situation of Honesty (and Dishonesty),” “The Situation of Trust,” The Situation of Lying,” “The Facial Obviousness of Lying,” “Denial,” Cheating Doesn’t Pay . . . So Why So Much of it?Unclean Hands,” The Situation of Imitation and Mimickry,”

Posted in Behavioral Economics, Emotions, Morality | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

The Situation of Hazing, Torture, Gender, and Tears

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 12, 2010

Here is another segment from John Quinones’s excellent ABC 20/20 series titled “What Would You Do?” — a series that, in essence, conducts situationist experiments through hidden-camera scenarios. This episode asks, “Would you stop hazing? (and includes analysis from psychologist Susan Lipkins).

* * *

* * *

To review a sample of related Situationist posts, see “Journalists as Social Psychologists & Social Psychologists as Entertainers,” Milgram Replicated on French TV – ‘The Game of Death’,” Solomon Asch’s Famous Compliance Experiment,” The Situation of Bullying,” Lessons Learned from the Abu Ghraib Horrors,”  “Person X Situation X System Dynamics,” “From Heavens to Hells to Heroes – Part I,” “From Heavens to Hells to Heroes – Part II,” Why Torture? Because It Feels Good (at least to “Us”),”

Posted in Education, Morality, Social Psychology, Video | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

The Situation of Pleasure

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 10, 2010

From Bloggingheads.tv, Robert Wright interviews Paul Bloom about Paul’s new book (about pleasure, not happiness) “How Pleasure Works: The New Science of What We Like.”

* * *

* * *

Paul’s new book, “How Pleasure Works” (03:57)
Stories we tell ourselves about the things that please us (08:34)
Hidden connections between art, racism, and bottled water (17:05)
The allure of cannibalism (07:41)
Strange pleasures of the imagination (10:24)
Would we be better off without awe? (06:28)

Posted in Choice Myth, Positive Psychology, Video | 1 Comment »

The Stressful Situation of Religious Zealotry

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 9, 2010

From York University:

Anxiety and uncertainty can cause us to become more idealistic and more radical in our religious beliefs, according to new findings by York University researchers, published in this month’s issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

In a series of studies, more than 600 participants were placed in anxiety-provoking or neutral situations and then asked to describe their personal goals and rate their degree of conviction for their religious ideals. This included asking participants whether they would give their lives for their faith or support a war in its defence.

Across all studies, anxious conditions caused participants to become more eagerly engaged in their ideals and extreme in their religious convictions. In one study, mulling over a personal dilemma caused a general surge toward more idealistic personal goals. In another, struggling with a confusing mathematical passage caused a spike in radical religious extremes. In yet another, reflecting on relationship uncertainties caused the same religious zeal reaction.

Researchers found that religious zeal reactions were most pronounced among participants with bold personalities (defined as having high self-esteem and being action-oriented, eager and tenacious), who were already vulnerable to anxiety, and felt most hopeless about their daily goals in life.

A basic motivational process called Reactive Approach Motivation (RAM) is responsible, according to lead researcher Ian McGregor, Associate Professor in York’s Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health. “Approach motivation is a tenacious state in which people become ‘locked and loaded’ on whatever goal or ideal they are promoting. They feel powerful, and thoughts and feelings related to other issues recede,” he says.

“RAM is usually an adaptive goal regulation process that can re-orient people toward alternative avenues for effective goal pursuit when they hit a snag. Our research shows that humans can sometimes co-opt RAM for short term relief from anxiety, however. By simply promoting ideals and convictions in their own minds, people can activate approach motivation, narrow their motivational focus away from anxious problems, and feel serene as a result,” says McGregor.

Researchers also measured participants’ superstitious beliefs and deference toward a controlling God in order to distinguish religious zeal from meeker forms of devotion. “Anxiety-provoking threats sometimes also cause people to become paranoid and more submissive to externally-controlling forces, so we wanted to rule out that interpretation for our results,” he says. Anxious uncertainty had no effect on either superstition or religious submission.

Findings published last year in the journal Psychological Science by the same authors and collaborators at the University of Toronto found that strong religious beliefs are associated with low activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that becomes active in anxious predicaments.

The findings, reported in two separate articles, “Anxious Uncertainty and Reactive Approach Motivation (RAM)” and “Reactive Approach Motivation (RAM) for Religion,” were co-authored by McGregor and York University graduate students Kyle Nash, Mike Prentice, Nikki Mann, and Curtis Phills. Both appear in the July issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

* * *

For a sample of related Situationist posts, see “The Palliative Function of Ideology,” The Situation of Political and Religious Beliefs?,” Seeing Faces,” “Holier Than Thou,” “Think Progress or Die,”The Situation of Faith in God or Science,” “The Situation of Revenge,”The Situation of Ideology – Part I,” and “The Situation of Ideology – Part II.”

Posted in Choice Myth, Ideology, Life | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

The Situation of Psychopaths

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 8, 2010

NPR’s Morning Edition had a three-part series, called “Inside the Criminal Brain” (hosted by Renee Montagne and Barbara Hagerty) at the end of June.  The first in the of the series, “Neuroscientist Uncovers A Dark Secret” (which you can listen to here) tells the story of neuroscientist James Fallon.  Here are some excerpts from the transcript.

* * *

RENEE MONTAGNE:

For the past couple of decades, [James] Fallon has studied the brains of murderers.

Recently, Fallon made a startling discovery.

* * *

Fallon investigated, and it turns out that one of his direct great-grandfathers, Thomas Cornell, killed his mother in the 1600s, and that line of Cornells produced seven other alleged murderers.

Dr. FALLON: There’s this whole lineage of very violent people, killers, ending with Lizzy Borden.

* * *

HAGERTY: Fallon was a little spooked by his ancestry, so he set out to see if anyone in this family had the brain of a serial killer. He knows what to look for, since he’s studied the brains of dozens of psychopaths. He calls up an image of a brain on his computer screen. It’s lit up with patches of color.

Dr. FALLON: Here is a brain that’s not normal. You can see where this is – this yellow here and red here, and look at it. It’s almost nothing here.

HAGERTY: He’s pointing to the orbital cortex. It’s completely dark. That’s the part of the brain that’s right above the eyes, and this is the area that Fallon and other scientists believe is involved with ethical behavior, moral decision making and controlling one’s impulses.

Dr. FALLON: People with low activity are either freewheeling types or sociopaths.

HAGERTY: Fallon says that’s because the orbital cortex puts a brake on another part of the brain called the amygdala, which is involved with aggression and appetites. If there’s an imbalance, if the orbital cortex isn’t doing its job -maybe because it was damaged or was just born that way . . .

Dr. FALLON: What’s left? What takes over? Well, the area of the brain that drives your id-type behaviors, which is rage, violence, eating, sex, drinking.

HAGERTY: Now, nobody in his family has problems with those behaviors, but he persuaded 10 of his close relatives to submit to a brain scan. Then he examined the images, comparing them with the brains of psychopaths. . . .

* * *

Dr. FALLON: And I took a look at my own PET scan and saw something a little disturbing that I did not talk about.

HAGERTY: What he didn’t want to reveal was that his orbital cortex looks inactive.

Dr. FALLON: If you look at the PET scan, I look just like one of those killers.

HAGERTY: Fallon cautions that this is a young field. Scientists are just beginning to understand this area of the brain. Still, he says, the evidence is accumulating that some people’s brains predispose them toward violence, and that psychopathic tendencies may be passed down from one generation to another.

Which brings us to the next part of this family experiment. Along with brain scans, Fallon also tested each family member’s DNA for genes that are associated with violence and impulsivity. He looked at 12 genes and zeroed in on something called the MAOA gene. It’s also known as the warrior gene because it regulates serotonin in the brain.

Serotonin affects your mood, and many scientists believe that if you have a certain version of the warrior gene, your brain won’t respond to the calming effects of serotonin.

Dr. FALLON: So this is the MAO gene. And we can see here my daughter, son, daughter, daughter, brother, brother, wife, brother.

HAGERTY: Everyone in his family has the low aggression variant, except…

Dr. FALLON: I’m like 100 percent here. I have the pattern, a risky pattern. In a sense, I’m a born killer.

* * *

Ms. DIANE FALLON: I wasn’t too concerned. I really wasn’t. I mean, I’ve known him since I was 12.

HAGERTY: That’s Jim Fallon’s wife, Diane. She probably doesn’t need to worry, according to scientists who study this area. They believe that brain patterns and genetic makeup are not enough to make anyone a psychopath. You need a third ingredient: childhood abuse.

Ms. D. FALLON: And fortunately, he wasn’t abused as a young person, so I’ve lived to be, you know, a ripe old age so far.

* * *

HAGERTY: Jim Fallon says he had a great childhood. And, he says, this journey through his brain has changed the way he thinks about nature and nurture. He used to believe that genes and brain function determine everything about us, but now, he says, he thinks his childhood may have made all the difference.

Dr. FALLON: We’ll never know. But had I been abused, I think we wouldn’t be sitting here today.

HAGERTY: As to the psychopaths he studies, he feels some compassion for these people who got, as he put it, a bad roll of the dice.

Dr. FALLON: It’s an unlucky day when all of these three things come together in a bad way. And I think one has to empathize with what happened to them.

* * *

You can read the entire transcript or listen to the interview here.  Below is a Jim Fallon’s 8-minute TED Talk briefly describing his own work and his own family.

* * *

For a sample of related Situationist posts, see “The Situation of Mental Illness,” “The Situation of Bullying,” The Cruelty of Children,”  Examining the Bullying Situation,” The Disturbing Mental Health Situation of Returning Soldiers,”  “The Psychology of The Dark Knight,” The Neuro-Situation of Violence and Empathy,” The Situation of Morality and Empathy,” The Situation of Kindness,” The Situation of Caring,” New Study Looks at the Roots of Empathy,” The Situation of Gang Rape,” Some (Interior) Situational Sources War – Part I,” and Some (Interior) Situational Sources War – Part III.”

Posted in Choice Myth, Emotions, Legal Theory, Morality, Neuroscience, Video | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

The Situation of ‘Common Sense’

Posted by Jerry Kang on July 6, 2010

On April 15, I had the pleasure of participating in a Collaborative training symposium on Implicit Bias and Eyewitness Identification, conducted for Connecticut prosecutors and public defenders.  I spoke on the topic of implicit bias, a core research interest.  It was an interesting conversation, and the engagement was intelligent, thoughtful, and public minded.

Afterwards, Chris Nolan, a journalist for the Connecticut Law Tribune, interviewed me over the phone for a long while, and I tried to give him more information about the relevant science and policy implications.  He wrote up an article, which spawned a strident response by Karen Lee Torre.

She was pretty darn angry.  She called me a “known left-winger,” “liberal political operative,” “an active Obama booster,” shoveling “crock,” “junk social science,” with “comical empirics.”  I assume that after looking at my vita, she concluded that I “never held a real job,” and worse predictably clerked for the “9th Circuit.”  She fantasized about having New Haven firefighters “tear [my] critical race theory to shreds and eat [me] for lunch.”

I thought this was just another example of tendentious blogosphere huffing.  But then I realized the Ms. Torre is an attorney and that this was printed in the Connecticut Law Tribune.  And I let out a heavy sigh.  When really smart people with loads of education turn immediately into name-calling, I can’t but help get pessimistic about the possibility of open-minded, good faith talk about how to make our country a better place, more consistent in practice with its noble ideals.

But I guess I’m at heart an optimist, so I thought this might be converted to a learning moment.

Implicit Bias

There’s loads of scholarly information on implicit bias, the subject I lectured about.  Accessible accounts as well as demonstrations can be found at Project Implicit (run by Harvard, U. of Washington, and Virginia).  There’s far more many papers than you’d want to read on my own research site.  But if you’re really curious about the “junk” I’m supposedly peddling, take a look at a primer I wrote for judges in conjunction with the National Center for State Courts.   Decide for yourself whether it sounds nuts.

Nolan Article on “Checking Biases”

Chris Nolan’s article (Checking Biases at the Courtroom Door, June 7, 2010, not online) — which sparked the outraged response from Karen Lee Torre — relayed various things I communicated to him.  It’s mostly right, but there’s always a danger of meaning getting lost in translation.   As an academic talking with the popular media, this is an unavoidable risk.  Let me highlight a few claims, provide references to the actual studies, and make clarifications and corrections along the way.  Again, the goal here is to be as transparent as possible.

Shooter Bias

Nolan described the findings of shooter bias.  It turns out that when we play a video game, where the rule is to hit one key “shoot” if we see a person holding a gun, and another key “holster” if we see a harmless object (e.g. phone or wallet), most of us show a bias in how we shoot depending on whether the person holding the object is Black or White.

*See Joshua Correll et al., The police officer’s dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals, 83 J. PERSON. & SOC. PSYCHOL. 1314 (2002). See also Anthony G. Greenwald et al. Targets of discrimination: Effects of race on responses to weapons holders, 39 J. EXPERIMENTAL SOC. PSYCHOL. 399 (finding similar results).

Nolan described this as having been demonstrated with police officers.   As a clarification, most of these studies have been done with non police officers, such as students and lay folks recruited to participate in psychology experiments. Some work has been done with actual officers. There, researchers have found mixed results–sometimes police officers show the same bias; sometimes less so.

*See E. Ashby Plant & B. Michelle Peruche, 16 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 180, 181 (2005).  In another paper, police officers showed a similar tendency to be faster to respond to armed Blacks (compared to armed Whites) and unarmed Whites (compared to unarmed Blacks), but did not exhibit racial bias on the arguably more important criterion of accuracy: unarmed Blacks were not more likely to be “shot” than unarmed Whites.  See Joshua Correll et al. Across the thin blue line: Police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot., 92 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 1006, 1010-1013, 1016-1017 (2007) (describing results from two studies).

Greater Punishment for those with Afro-Centric Facial Features

Nolan also reported some work that showed differential sentencing.   Although there are a few papers relevant, I was referring to this particular paper:

Irene V. Blair et al., The Influence of Afrocentric Facial Features in Criminal Sentencing, J. PSYCHOL. SCI. 674, 677 (2004) (finding no disparate sentencing on the basis of race in Florida data set, but finding that within each racial category, White or Black, those individuals with more Afrocentric facial features received harsher sentences).

Jennifer Eberhardt has also produced relevant work here, which found that among African American defendants convicted of murdering White victims, death sentences were given to 58% of those physically rated as more stereotypically Black.  For those who looked less “Black”, the rate was only 24%.

See Jennifer L. Eberhardt et al., Looking Deathworthy:Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing Outcomes, 17 Psychol. Sci. 383 (2006).

Liberals and their Biases

Finally, Nolan pointed out that not only prosecutors but also public defenders have implicit biases.  Indeed, I regularly say “no one is immune.”  He added that “liberals tend to have fewer biases,” which is probably not exactly what I would have emphasized.   The more important point is that no one seems to be free from implicit biases–they are just the product of living in the world that exists.  One way to think about it is breathing in pollution, which leaves particulate matter in our lungs.  It’s not entirely novel or surprising that you might have some nasty stuff inside.  Capital punishment lawyers have implicit biases.  Judges have implicit biases.  Asian students at Yale showed implicit stereotypes about Asians, and so on.  Now, this doesn’t mean that there’s no differences among individuals or groups.  For instance, we tend to have better implicit attitudes about the groups we belong to.  Now, back to Nolan’s point.

In the most exhaustive statistical analysis of the implicit bias data collected at Project Implicit, Brian Nosek and colleagues cranked out all kinds of correlations.  Here’s a telling set of findings.  One implicit association test measured the implicit attitude (positive or negative) that participants showed to Arab-Muslims.  Those who self-described as strong liberals showed a bias of 0.34 (these are Cohen d units, but that doesn’t concern us now).  By contrast, those who described themselves as strong conservatives showed a bias of 1.13 (higher means more bias).  We see similar findings regarding, say, implicit attitudes toward African Americans (strong liberals at 0.08; strong conservatives at 0.74).

See Brian A. Nosek et al., Pervasiveness and Correlates of Implicit Attitudes and Stereotypes, 18 EURO. REV. SOCIAL PSYCH. 1 (2007) (Table 6).

There are two points worth making.  First, strong liberals are probably committed to having zero biases not only against Blacks but also against Arab-Muslims.  They want to be colorblind.  Yet they still registered a non-trivial attitudinal difference.  See, no one is immune.

Second, a part of me would like it if there were no such liberal versus conservative differences, if implicit biases were somehow randomly distributed regardless of self-described political leanings.  That would make the reform project easier since there would be less defensiveness on all sides.  But here’s the thing with science.  You just can’t make the data come out anyway you want. You can’t just invoke “common sense” and simply declare the state of the world.  We don’t do that with evidence-based medicine.  Why should we do that with social policy?

Ms. Torre’s Common Sense

It’s well within Karen Lee Torre’s First Amendment rights to shout out her opinion.  She doesn’t quite get to defamation, and no doubt I’ve become a limited public figure in this context.  But the great thing about the Internet is that counter-speech is relatively cheap.   And instead of getting into a fight with people being shredded into bits and eaten for lunch, I’m hoping for a genuine discussion–where facts matter.  There are skeptical scientists and lawyers who engage more on the merits.  That’s good, that’s what we should be doing.  And I don’t presume to have all the answers.  But ad hominem dismissals are fundamentally unhelpful.

In her closing, Ms. Torre writes:

“I know better than to judge any book by its cover. But I’ve also lived long enough and seen enough to know that if somebody, black or white, is walking toward me in a darkened parking lot, and he’s got pants below his butt and a cap on sideways, chances are he’s not fresh back from Oxford.

That’s my critical common sense theory. And it, in fact, saved me from an attempted mugging just last year.”

I’m glad that Ms. Torre avoided violence.  But, there’s too much social science for me to assume that race did not make any difference–that it was all about baggy pants.   A Black person is viewed as more threatening, less smiling, more aggressive than a White person even holding all other attributes constant — including attractiveness, clothing, etc.  But somehow Ms. Torre trusts her “common sense” and needs no data, no science, no research.  She seems not to recognize what Gordon Allport, a renowned 20th century psychologist, observed back in 1958:

“Prejudice is not ‘the invention of liberal intellectuals.’ It is simply an aspect of mental life that can be studied as objectively as any other.”

No doubt Allport could be attacked as a “Harvard” hack.  But what about this following quote:

“Common sense is sometimes another word for prejudice . . . .”

That comes from Judge Richard Posner….

See American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick (7th Cir. 2001).

…. although he has been sounding a little lefty re financial regulation recently.

* * *

For a sample of related Situationist posts, see Why Race May Influence Us Even When We “Know” It Doesn’t,” Perceptions of Racial Divide,” Black History is Now,” Jennifer Eberhardt’s “Policing Racial Bias” - Video,” The Situation of Litigators,” “Tierney’s Skepticism at the New York Times,” Measuring Implicit Attitudes,” What Are the Legal Implications of Implicit Biases?,” Confronting the Backlash against Implicit Bias,” Legal Academic Backlash - Abstract,” “Naïve Cynicism in Election 2008: Dispositionism v. Situationism?,”  “Implicit Bias and Strawmen,”and “The Situation of Situation in Employment Discrimination Law – Abstract.”

Posted in Implicit Associations, Naive Cynicism, Situationist Contributors | 9 Comments »

The Situation of Touch

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 5, 2010

From Situationist Contributor John Bargh’s ACME Lab:

Sitting in a hard chair can literally turn someone into a hardass. Holding a heavy clipboard leads to weighty decisions. Rubbing rough surfaces makes us prickly. So found researchers studying the interaction between physical touch and social cognition. The experiments included would-be car buyers who, when seated in a cushy chair, were less likely to drive a stiff bargain. The findings don’t just suggest tricks for salesman, but may illuminate how our brains develop.

“The way people understand the world is through physical experiences. The first sense they develop is touch,” said study co-author Josh Ackerman, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology psychologist. As they grow up, those physical experiences shape how people conceptualize abstract, social experience, he said. “Later on, you can do what we did — trigger different physical experiences, and produce changes in people’s thoughts.”

Published June 24 in Science, the study is the latest addition to a booming field of embodied cognition, which over the last decade has scientifically eroded the notion that mind and body are distinctly separate.

The paper was co-authored by Yale University psychologist [and Situationist Contributor] John Bargh. His group is especially interested in touch, which is one of the first senses to develop.

* * *

You can read more in Wired, Discover, and Boston Observer.  You can also listen to John Bargh interviewed by NPR on Science Friday.

For a sample of related Situationist posts, see “Embodied Rationality,”The Embodied Cognition Bonanza!,” The Embodied Situation of Metaphors,” Our Metaphorical Situation,” The Situation of Metaphors,” “Bargh and Baumeister and the Free Will DebatePart I & Part II” “The Situation of Body Temperature,” Social Psychology and the Unconscious: The Automaticity of Higher Processes,” “Unclean Hands,” “The Body Has a Mind of its Own,” Ideology Shaping Situation, or Vice Versa?,” “The Situation of Snacking,” “The Situation of Imitation and Mimickry,” and The (Unconscious) Situation of our Consciousness – Part I, Part II, Part III, & Part IV.”

Posted in Abstracts, Embodied Cognition, Situationist Contributors | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

A Discussion about (In)Equality

Posted by The Situationist Staff on July 2, 2010

The following (51 minute) video contains a worthwhile discussion from Agenda about how much inequality is too much.

* * *

Participants Include:

Richard Wilkinson is co-author of The Spirit Level and Professor Emeritus at the University of Nottingham Medical School and honorary professor at University College London. He has played a formative role in international research and his work has been published in 10 languages. He studied economic history at the London School of Economics before training in epidemiology.

William Watson is the Chair of the Economic Department at McGill University.

Lane Kenworthy is a sociologist at the University of Arizona where he studies the causes and consequences of poverty, inequality, mobility, employment, economic growth, and social policy in the United States and other affluent countries.

Bob Rae is the Liberal foreign affairs critic, MP for Toronto Centre, and a former premier of Ontario. Visit bobrae.ca.

Sylvia Bashevkin is principal of University College, and a professor in the Department of Political Science, at the University of Toronto. She is the author of Toeing the Lines: Women and Party Politics in English Canada.

* * *

For a sample of related Stiuationist posts, see “The Situational Effects of (In)Equality,” The Situational Consequences of Poverty on Brains,”Inequality and the Unequal Situation of Mental and Physical Health,” The Interior Situation of Intergenerational Poverty,” Rich Brains, Poor Brains?,” Jeffrey Sachs on the Situation of Global Poverty,” “The Situation of Financial Risk-Taking,” “The Situation of Standardized Test Scores,”The Toll of Discrimination on Black Women,” The Physical Pains of Discrimination,” The Depressing Effects of Racial Discrimination,” and The Cognitive Costs of Interracial Interactions.”

Posted in Distribution, Video | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 827 other followers

%d bloggers like this: