The Situationist

Archive for August, 2007

“Situation” Trumps “Disposition” – Part I

Posted by Jon Hanson & Michael McCann on August 7, 2007

blue-background-small.jpgA number of social psychologists recently published the following critical response to Situationist Contributor Phil Zimbardo’s latest book, The Lucifer Effect:

We are concerned by the message that has been conveyed to the general public regarding the power of the situation to “trump individual dispositions” (“The Banality of Evil,” Observer, April 2007). In contrast to Zimbardo, we believe that there is actually little scientific evidence indicating that situations are more important than dispositions for explaining behavior. Indeed, researchers recently summarized over 25,000 studies and found that personality and situations contribute almost equally to various outcomes, and many studies demonstrate the complex ways in which people react differently to similar situations. Our concern is that Zimbardo has misrepresented the scientific evidence in an attempt to offer a purely situational account of the antisocial acts perpetrated at Abu Ghraib. The scientific consensus, based on existing data, is that people vary in their propensity for antisocial behavior and that environments transact with personalities. Some people are more likely to turn out to be bad apples than others, and this is particularly evident in certain situations.

Phil Zimbardo last week posted his response to the criticism, indicating, among other things, that he’d never claimed that situation “trump[s] individual dispositions.” His response speaks eloquently for itself.

As self-identified situationist scholars, we have a stake in this debate and wanted to offer our own response. But we’d like to go further than Professor Zimbardo did (though we suspect he would concur). With some reservations, we are willing to accept the criticism’s premise; our claim is that situation trumps disposition, assuming those terms are properly construed.

As explained in “About Situationism,” “[s]ituationism is premised on the social scientific insight that the naïve psychology—that is, the highly simplified, affirming, and widely held model for understanding human thinking and behavior—on which our laws and institutions are based is largely wrong.” So what is that highly simplified model of the human animal? According to anthropologist Alan Fiske, who has researched that question:

[t]he person is believed to consist of a set of “internal,” “personal” attributes such as . . . personality traits, preferences, subjective feeling states, beliefs and attitudes. . . . Taken together, these attributes define each person as an autonomous, freely choosing, special individual.

From that perspective, it is easy to assume that each individual has control over his or her own destiny and to credit or blame good and bad conduct or outcomes accordingly. Fiske boils down the simple attributional schema to the following elements:

  • Actions are freely chosen.
  • Choices imply a preference.
  • Preferences are stable over time.
  • Preferences implicate the identity of the self.
  • Outcomes are mostly controllable.
  • People are responsible for (and hence the self is implicated in) the choices they make and the resultant outcomes.

Given those elements, it makes sense that people who do bad things should be punished, that people who do good things should be rewarded, and the situation should be ignored. That is the “dispositionism” that we situationists maintain is, pretty much, completely wrong.

Professor Zimbardo’s critics are, as far as we are concerned, knocking down a straw man. The critics build their case around evidence that “people react differently to similar situations.” No offense, but . . . duh. As Zimbardo has already underscored, no one disputes that point.

A perfect example of such differing reactions can be found in the experiment that, as much as any others, revealed the power of situation: Stanley Milgram’s Obedience experiment, in which ordinary people gave seemingly fatal shocks to innocent victims. (For a Situationist post summarizing Milgram’s experiment and those lessons, click here; Milgram’s forty-five minute movie about his experiment is available below.)

The significance of that classic experiment is that it makes clear that people will often behave in ways that contradict how they imagine they would behave based on their own perceived dispositions. It reveals how “good people” could easily be made to engage in “evil conduct” because of hard-to-see situational influences.

Some of our students have responded to the findings of Milgram’s initial trial in a way that resembles the arguments of Zimbardo’s critics. They point out that roughly one-third of the subjects did not shock the “learner” all the way to 450 volts, thus revealing the significance of the role of disposition. “Look,” they remind us, “some people’s disposition overcomes their situation.”

Upon closer examination, however, that argument fails. First of all, virtually all of those subjects shocked the “student” to at least 300 volts. Obviously, people were willing to inflict a good deal of pain on innocent victims.

In any event, there is nothing about the one-third of “disobedient” subjects that suggests that “disposition” overcame or was equal to “situation.” Quite the contrary, the experiment was set up such that there were powerful situational forces pushing the subjects in two directions—one to continue obediently with the experiment and the other to end the experiment in response to the screams, kicks, complaints, demands, and eventual silence of the “student.” They could comply with the white-coated authority, or with the desperate innocent victim. No matter what “choice” the subjects made, they felt considerable situational pressure to make the other choice—and those mixed situational reactions manifested themselves in stress, nervous laughter, and significant discomfort.

The reason the experiment is famous is not because situation trumped disposition forAdam and Eve and Snake some subjects while disposition trumped situation for others, but because seemingly trivial situational forces to inflict great pain on an innocent person overcame the obvious situational forces to do otherwise. It had been presumed by virtually everyone, including Milgram himself, that the latter situational forces would trump the former. But that presumption was wrong for the majority of subjects—and that prediction error makes clear how easily situational forces can lead “good people” to behave more or less like “bad apples.”

Still, some would argue that the difference between the two groups in the original version of the study—the 2/3 who shocked to 450 volts and the 1/3 who stopped shocking at some point before 450 volts—must represent something different about the people themselves, given that the situation was constant. That difference, the argument seems to be, is “dispositonal.”

But there is nothing about differences in individual behavior across seemingly similar situations that demonstrates that disposition is the driving force. That’s true for many reasons, which we will turn to in Part II of this post (available Thursday).

Posted in Legal Theory, Social Psychology, System Legitimacy, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Prejudice Against the Obese and Some of its Situational Sources

Posted by The Situationist Staff on August 5, 2007

obese-student.jpgThere can be little question that the growing number of overweight and obese Americans confront serious discrimination and prejudice. Situationist Contributors, Adam Benfrorado, Jon Hanson, and David Yosifon summarized the extent of the problem in their article, “Broken Scales,” as follows:

For obese Americans, constant stigmatization and frequent discrimination are found in all aspects of daily life, including education, employment, health care, and interpersonal relationships. . . . [P]arents provide significantly less monetary support for their overweight children than for their thin children in pursuing advanced education and that 28% of teachers involved in the study said that becoming obese was one of the worst things that could happen to a person. Unsurprisingly, fewer fat students end up going to college.

[Another scholar] reviewed twenty-nine studies about the experiences of the obese in the workplace, and he found discrimination in nearly every aspect of the employment relationship, from hiring to wages to benefits. In fact, weight appears to elicit more pervasive discrimination than other appearance-related factors like gender, age, or race. . . . Isolating weight and sex, one group of researchers found that the weight of an applicant explained 34.6% of hiring, whereas sex explained only 10.4%. In another set of experiments that studied how decisions about employee discharge were colored by social stigmas, participants demonstrated stronger negative feelings toward overweight employees than they did toward ex-mental patients or ex-felons.

The wage differential is equally startling, although the effect is far stronger in women. Morbidly obese white women have wages 24.1% lower than their standard weight counterparts, and moderately obese woman earn 5.9% less. This substantiates recent work . . . [finding] that the net worth for an obese woman fifty-seven to sixty-seven years of age was 60% less than a woman of normal weight in 1998.

Much of the discrimination occurs in areas less noticeable than hiring or wages. In one study of people who were at least 50% above their ideal weight, more than a quarter reported that they had been denied benefits like health insurance on account of their weight. Moreover, 24% of nurses in another study reported that they are “repulsed” by obese patients, so even when obese individuals manage to get health care there is reason to believe that it may not be the best.

obesity1.jpgThose situationist scholars argued that “[t]he added discrimination reserved for the overweight and obese reflects our sense that those problems, more than the others, reflect personal choices” (that is, disposition, instead of situation):

When we look at the obese we see only their fat. We miss their intelligence, their kindness, and their strength, just as we miss the broader situational influences that led them to be overweight. We see a disposition that reassuringly explains their most salient feature–fat people are weak. . . . [O]verweight people are frequently stereotyped as being socially handicapped and emotionally impaired, and as having negative personality traits. After all, who else would choose to look like that?

Such negative stereotypes attach early on. By nursery school, children show a preference for drawings of children in wheelchairs and with facial disfigurements to those of obese children; by the time they enter elementary school, they have already begun to construct causal schemas. In one study, children who were asked to describe a silhouette of an obese child used words like “dirty,” “lazy,” “ugly,” “stupid,” and “sloppy.” According to another study, the quality of life for obese children is approximately the same as that of children undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. . . . [As one of the researchers] explained: “Obesity is an extremely socially stigmatized disease, and unlike some conditions, it’s not something a child can hide.” Evidence abounds that obese people are not wanted. Sixteen percent of adult Americans would abort a baby if they knew it would be untreatably obese, whereas 17% would abort if they were certain the child would be mentally retarded. In a 1988 study, students reported that they would rather marry someone who was an embezzler, a drug addict, a shoplifter, or a blind person than someone who was obese.

It seems strange that there could be so much discrimination against the overweight in a country with so many fat people. The explanation may be that the overweight, just like everyone else, have been convinced of the desirability of the waif body and the righteousness of the dispositionist message. They made a bad choice–or many bad choices–and now fairness demands that they pay the consequences. They look in the mirror and say, “Yes, it’s true, I am disgusting;” “I brought all this discrimination on myself;” and “I have a decision to make, just like Dr. Phil says.” This self-assessment shares much with the reflections of Milgram’s subjects who left feeling that their own evil ways, and not the situation, were solely to blame for their behavior. (citations and footnotes omitted)

Elsewhere in their article, Benforado, Hanson and Yosifon explain some of the many situational forces (including the food, beauty, exercise, and self-help industries) that contribute to that discriminatory dynamic.from the Scotsman

Roger Dobson and Ian Griggs recently wrote a brief article in The Independent summarizing studies at the University of British Columbia that may shed additional light on the possible situational causes of disgust and discrimination toward the obese. We excerpt portions of their article below:

* * *

From the taunting of the chubby child in the playground to cruel jibes at fat people in work and social settings, few could doubt there is widespread prejudice against the overweight. However, according to research reported in Evolution and Human Behavior some people suffer abuse because being too fat is mistaken by the brain for a sign of disease.

Researchers say the immune system can be triggered into action at the sight of obesity because it doesn’t like the look of what it sees, and associates it with infection.

Just as it orchestrates attacks on viruses and bacteria and triggers nausea at the hint of bad food, so it sends out signals of disgust in some people at the sight of an obese body that is designed to encourage avoidance and survival.

The finding comes just days after research in The New England Journal of Medicine suggested that obesity is contagious, in a social rather than bacteriological sense. [summarized here.]

overweight2.jpg“Antipathy toward obese people is a powerful and pervasive prejudice in many contemporary populations. Our results reveal, for the first time, that this prejudice may be rooted in multiple, independent mechanisms. They provide the first evidence that obesity serves as a cue for pathogen infection,” say the University of British Columbia researchers.

They say a behavioural immune system appears to have evolved in humans that is designed to detect body signs that are related to disease, like rashes and lesions. The sight of them triggers disgust as well as negative attitudes and avoidance. The system errs in favour of over-reacting because failure to react to a real danger could be fatal.

Researchers carried out a number of experiments, including word associations and tests where they compared the reactions and views of men and women to obesity.

The results show that people who agreed with comments such as “it really bothers me when people sneeze without covering their mouths” were more likely to agree with statement such as “if I were an employer looking to hire, I might avoid hiring a fat person.” The greater the fear of disease, the stronger the negative feeling about obesity.

* * *

We have not been able to read the study ourselves, and have our doubts about its underlying theory. After all, antipathy toward obesity seems to vary across cultures and historical periods. Indeed, depending on the situation, some excess weight has often been seen as attractive. In addition, there is another evolutionary-based argument that the ability to store large quantities of fat is one that would likely have been “selected” by situational, evolutionary forces. That is a little hard to square with the hypothesized disease -disgust link. Nonetheless, it is an interesting theory about which our readers may have an interest (and, we hope, some interesting reactions and comments).

Other Situationist posts on the topic of obesity include “Infant Death Rates in Mississippi” and “Situational Obesity,” (which contains additional links to other related posts); other Situationist posts discussing related forms of discrimination include “Shades of Fairness and the Marketing of Prejudice” and the “Physical Pain of Discrimination” (which also contains additional links).

Cognitive Daily has a terrific post from last summer, “Obesity and Discrimination,” that is well worth the read. For an audio recording of an interesting Talk of the Nation panel discussion (from 2003) on attitudes toward overweight people, click here.

Posted in Choice Myth, Deep Capture, Emotions, Life, Marketing | 29 Comments »

The Situation of Death Row

Posted by The Situationist Staff on August 3, 2007

Capital punishment is undoubtedly one of the more controversial and increasingly unique features of the American criminal justice system. While every European country (except Belarus), along with Canada and Australia, have abolished capital punishment, the United States is among a dwindling number of democracies, including Japan and India, that preserve it. Capital punishment isn’t available in every U.S. State, although 38 states sanction it, as does the federal government. Since 1976, there have been 1,089 executions in the United States, 398 of which occurred in the state of Texas.

In this week’s issue of Newsweek, Eve Conant examines a study appearing in the August issue of the American Sociological Review on whether the race of murder victims affects the probability that a convicted killer gets the death penalty or life in prison. Her story is mainly comprised of an interview with David Jacobs, coauthor of the study and a professor of sociology and political science at Ohio State University. Below we have excerpted portions of her story.

* * *

Is American justice colorblind? A new study finds that blacks on death row convicted of killing whites are more likely to be executed than whites who kill minorities. It also concludes that blacks who kill other minorities are less likely to be executed than blacks who kill whites. The authors of the report say their findings raise serious doubts about claims that the U.S. criminal justice system is colorblind.

Appearing in the August issue of American Sociological Review, the report claims to be the first of its kind to study whether the race of murder victims affects the probability that a convicted killer gets the ultimate punishment. The study examined outcomes of 1,560 people sentenced to death in 16 states between 1972 and 2002. NEWSWEEK’s Eve Conant spoke to David Jacobs, coauthor of the study and a professor of sociology and political science at Ohio State University.

NEWSWEEK: Why did you do this study?

David Jacobs: Because the role of race is a fundamental question about the death penalty. There was a lot of research, mostly on one or two Southern states, which found that if an African-American killed a white, that they’d be more likely to get the death penalty. But you have to remember that only about 10 percent of those who get the death sentence actually get executed. Most people wind up leaving death row and going back to prison where they serve long sentences. But we really didn’t know much about what happened to offenders after they were sentenced to death and that’s what’s unique about this study. We didn’t know the factors that cause executions. There have been a few studies, but we didn’t know if a black or Hispanic who kills a white person would be more likely to be executed. We knew it was more likely that these offenders would get the death sentence. But we didn’t know if they were more likely to actually get executed.

NEWSWEEK: So what did you find?

David Jacobs: Holding a whole bunch of stuff constant, including several political variables, we found that if a black person killed a white person they were more likely to get executed. If a Hispanic killed a white person they were also more likely, but this probability wasn’t quite as strong. There is more than a twofold greater risk that an African-American who killed a white will be executed than a white person who kills a nonwhite victim. A Hispanic is at least 1.4 times more likely to be executed if such an offender kills a white. Both findings are statistically significant. Also, the findings indicate that blacks who kill nonwhites are less likely to be executed than blacks who kill whites, which shows that the postsentencing capital-punishment process continues to place greater value on white lives.

* * *

For the rest of the piece, click here. In a previous post, “Black History is Now,” Jon Hanson & Michael McCann discussed a recent and remarkable study by Jennifer Ebehardt and co-authors that examined the life-and-death significance of “blackness” and found a disturbing correlation between how prototypically “black” a death-eligible criminal defendant was and whether that defendant was sentenced to death.

Posted in Law, Public Policy | 1 Comment »

Situational Obesity, or, Friends Don’t Let Friends Eat and Veg

Posted by The Situationist Staff on August 2, 2007

Fat RonaldNo one would deny that your friends have a profound effect on your personality and what you find to be socially acceptable. A group of friends develops inside jokes, shared history, and gestures that instantly convey complex meanings. They also influence each member’s views of how people should act in groups and what is acceptable behavior. Sense of humor, language deemed acceptable, and actions that are allowed and frowned upon all develop within a group.

It should not surprise us to learn that our social groups also influence our appearance — from how we dress, to whether we like or are turned off by tattoos and piercings. A recent study shows that this group influence may go further than most of us probably assume and may even influence obesity rates. A great deal has already been written on the situational sources of obesity. But this study sheds light on how body type and fitness may be connected to one situational feature that has been largely missed in previous work: friendships, social connections and their associated implicit (perhaps sometimes explicit) group norms . Dr. Nicholas Christakis of Harvard Medical School and James Fowler, a political scientist at the University of California San Diego, followed the weight levels of more than 12,000 Framingham, MA residents over a 30 year period and found some shocking correlations. Gina Kolata of the International Herald Tribune reports.

* * *

Obesity spreads to friends, study concludes

by Gina Kolata

Obesity can spread from person to person, much like a virus, according to researchers. When one person gains weight, close friends tend to gain weight too.

Their study, published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved a detailed analysis of a large social network of 12,067 people who had been closely followed for 32 years, from 1971 until 2003. The investigators knew who was friends with whom, as well as who was a spouse or sibling or neighbor, and they knew how much each person weighed at various times over three decades.

That let them watch what happened over the years as people became obese. Did their friends also become obese? Did family members? Or neighbors?

The answer, the researchers report, was that people were most likely to become obese when a friend became obese. That increased one’s chances of becoming obese by 57 percent.

There was no effect when a neighbor gained or lost weight, however, and family members had less of an influence than friends. It did not even matter if the friend was hundreds of miles away – the influence remained. And the greatest influence of all was between mutual close friends. There, if one became obese, the other had a 171 percent increased chance of becoming obese too.

The same effect seemed to occur for weight loss, the investigators say, but since most people were gaining, not losing, over the 32 years, the result was an obesity epidemic.

Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a physician and professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School and a principal investigator in the new study, says one explanation is that friends affect each others’ perception of fatness. When a close friend becomes obese, obesity may not look so bad.

“You change your idea of what is an acceptable body type by looking at the people around you,” Christakis said.socially-contagious-obesity.jpg

The investigators say their findings can help explain why Americans became fatter in recent years: Persons who became obese were likely to drag some friends with them.

Their analysis was unique, Christakis said, because it moved beyond a simple analysis of one person and his or her social contacts, and instead examined an entire social network at once, looking at how a friend’s friends’ friends, or a spouse’s siblings’ friends, could have an influence on a person’s weight. The effects, Christakis said, “highlight the importance of a spreading process, a kind of social contagion, that spreads through the network.”

Of course, the investigators say, social networks are not the only factors that affect body weight. There is a strong genetic component at work too.

Science has shown that individuals have genetically determined ranges of weights, spanning perhaps 30 or so pounds, or 13.5 kilograms, for each person. But that leaves a large role for the environment in determining whether a person’s weight is near the top of his or her range or near the bottom. As people have gotten fatter, it appears that many are edging toward the top of their ranges. The question has been why.

If the new research is correct, it might mean that something in the environment seeded what many call an obesity epidemic, making a few people gain weight. Then social networks let the obesity spread rapidly.

It also might mean that the way to avoid becoming fat is to avoid having fat friends.

Dr. ChristakisThat is not the message they meant to convey, say the study investigators, Christakis and his colleague James Fowler, an associate professor of political science at the University of California in San Diego. You don’t want to lose a friend who becomes obese, Christakis said. Friends are good for your overall health, he explains.

So why not make friends with a thin person, he suggests, and let the thin person’s behavior influence you and your obese friend?

That answer does not satisfy obesity researchers like Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.

“I think there’s a great risk here in blaming obese people even more for things that are caused by a terrible environment,” Brownell said.

On average, the investigators said, their rough calculations show that a person who became obese gained 17 pounds, and the newly obese person’s friend gained 5 pounds. But some gained less or did not gain at all, while others gained much more.

Those extra pounds were added onto the natural increases in weight that occur when people get older. What usually happened was that peoples’ weights got high enough to push them over the boundary, a body mass index of 30, that divides overweight and obese. (For example, a man 6 feet, or 1.8 meters, tall who went from 220 pounds to 225 would go from being overweight to obese.)

Their research has taken obesity specialists and social scientists aback. But many say the finding is path-breaking and can shed new light on how and why people have gotten so fat so fast.

marathon-friends.jpg

“It is an extraordinarily subtle and sophisticated way of getting a handle on aspects of the environment that are not normally considered,” said Dr. Rudolph Leibel, an obesity researcher at Columbia University in New York.

Dr. Richard Suzman, who directs the office of behavioral and social research programs at the U.S. National Institute on Aging, called it “one of the most exciting studies to come out of medical sociology in decades.” The National Institute on Aging funded the study.

But Dr. Stephen O’Rahilly, an obesity researcher at the University of Cambridge in England, says the very uniqueness of the Framingham data is going to make it hard to try to replicate the new findings. No other study he knows of has the same sort of long term and detailed data on social interactions.

“When you come upon things that inherently look a bit implausible, you raise the bar for standards of proof,” O’Rahilly said. “Good science is all about replication, but it is hard to see how science will ever replicate this.”

* * *

For an NPR, Morning Edition transcript and audio report about the study click here. For a collection of previous, related Situationist posts discussing the role of situation in obesity, click here. To link to an article by Situationist contributors, Adam Benforado, Jon Hanson, and David Yosifon on the situational sources of the obesity epidemic, click here.

Posted in Choice Myth, Food and Drug Law, Life | 6 Comments »

Guilt and Racial Prejudice

Posted by The Situationist Staff on August 1, 2007

SadnessWe have explored the concept of “feeling guilty” on several occasions (e.g., Guilty or Not Guilty?: Law & Mind Meets Hamlet; Implicit Bias and Strawmen). We now bring you news of a new study by New York University psychologist David M. Amodio and his colleagues, Patricia G. Devine of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Eddie Harmon-Jones of Texas A&M University, that examines the intersection between guilt and racial prejudice. The study appears in the June issue of Psychological Science. Below we have excerpted a Science Daily summary of the study.

* * *

Guilt plays a vital role in the regulation of social behavior. That worried feeling in our gut often serves as the impetus for our stab at redemption. However, psychologists have trouble agreeing on the function of this complex emotion.

On one hand, the punitive feeling of guilt may keep you from repeating the same transgressive behavior in the future, which psychologists call “withdrawal motivation.” Conversely, some researchers view the function of guilt in a societal context, in that; it keeps people’s behavior in line with the moral standards of their community. This view emphasizes a more positive emotional experience and is associated with “approach motivation.”

In a new study appearing in the June issue of Psychological Science, published by the Association for Psychological Science, New York University psychologist, David M. Amodio, and his colleagues, Patricia G. Devine, and Eddie Harmon-Jones, sought to combine the two camps. The researchers believe that guilt is initially associated with withdrawal motivation, which then transforms into approach-motivated behavior when an opportunity for reparation presents itself. Furthermore, the researchers sought to test these questions about the functions guilt in the context of reducing racial prejudice.

To test their theory, the researchers showed participants pictures of White, Black, or Asian faces, while monitoring their brain activity using EEG. The researchers then relayed randomized scores to the participants, telling them whether they responded positively or negatively to the White, Black, and Asian faces.

After receiving feedback indicating that they had responded negatively toward Black faces, subjects reported significantly increased guilt, anxiety, and sadness. The increase in guilt was larger than the change in any other emotion. Their reports were confirmed by the EEG, which showed significant reduction in left-sided frontal asymmetry following feedback. A large body of literature contends that left-sided asymmetry corresponds to approach motivation. So, in this case, the participants were initially feeling the punitive effects of guilt, or withdrawal motivation.

Time Magazine CoverThe participants then completed another study in which they read a variety of magazine headlines. Interspersed among some filler headlines, were three titles pertaining to prejudice reduction (“Improving your interracial interactions,” 10 ways to reduce prejudice in everyday life,” and “Ways to eliminate your own racism in the new millennium”). The participants that were told they responded negatively toward black faces, revealed a large left-sided shift in frontal cortical activity while reading the prejudice-reduction titles, indicating approach motivation.

So, when subjects were given the opportunity for reparation, their feelings of guilt predicted their interest in prejudice-reducing behavior. Previously emotions have been considered relatively unchanging, basic, feeling states. Amodio’s research presents a new idea of emotions serving a dynamic motivational function for regulating behavior. These findings also suggest that although it feels bad, guilt plays a critical role in promoting prosocial changes in behavior, and Amodio’s research demonstrates these effects in context of reducing racial prejudice.

* * *

In a previous post, “Black History is Now,” Jon Hanson & Michael McCann discussed how shades of skin color play a surprisingly significant role in how we assess ourselves and others.

Posted in Implicit Associations, Public Policy, Social Psychology | 4 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: