Death Qualification and Jury Bias

Jury members are supposed to be carefully selected for trial juries, but can we really prevent biases from getting in the way? Some trials or lawyers call for a process known as "death qualification". This is whenever a jury member shows clear bias against the death penalty and is therefore no longer able to serve on that jury (Markus et al. 492).

Just by looking at this description of death qualification we can already begin to see where problems with this attempt at bias reduction occur. Some may argue that death qualification is effective in rooting out clear biases, while others may argue its seemingly arbitrary nature of such a "qualification". Cannot the jurors who vote in favor of the death penalty also be more biased in the opposing circumstance, more easily convicting a person based on their positive attitude towards the death penalty?

There was a recent article produced by the Journal of Applied Social Psychology in 2010 that related to the death qualification process. Since I was not able to directly read the article from their website, I instead read a blog about the Journal Article which proved very shocking to me.

The blog of course talked about the religious bias and how juries qualify based on level of religious experience (Keenetrial.com). Then, the blog proceeded to explain how death qualification also comes from gender and race. The blog describes the following about the article:

"Gender and race predicted death qualification while age and prior jury experience did not. Women and racial minorities were more likely to be excluded from juries."(Keenetrial.com)

One would normally assume that death qualification only applies to morally or religiously obligated individuals, but from the above statement we can tell that this is no longer the case. If the goal is to try to keep bias out of the jury's process of conviction, then perhaps this is the reason why this study was conducted--to see if there are any other factors that predict death qualification. Yet, while conducting this study, I think that determining these biases could seem biased themselves which can upset people who wish to serve on juries.

The rest is up to us to decide, to fill in the gaps of what we don't know and what we hope to know about death qualification. Do you think there is validity in the death qualification process? Are there any other biases you think death qualifications should consider? I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. It is very interesting and controversial!

Sources:
Markus, Kassin, and Fein. Social Psychology. 8th ed. 2008. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2011. Print.
Journal Article
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00698.x/full
Blog About Article
http://keenetrial.com/blog/2011/01/31/does-death-qualification-systematically-bias-our-juries/

Aggression and the Media

Not too long ago, one of my friends introduced me to a Lifetime movie that intrigued me. The 2011 film is called “The Blue-Eyed Butcher” and was based from the events of a trial in Texas with a woman named Susan Wright (mylifetime.com). If you have not heard of this trial, I will explain it for you in more detail. Personally, I know that I had not heard of this incident until I watched the movie.

In 2004, Susan Wright was accused of murder in the first degree for killing her husband, her defense being that his cocaine use and absence from domestic life during the night time eventually led to her stabbing him (CNN.com). You can read more about this incident at CNN.com, but for now I would like to discuss the association between the media and aggression as it relates to this incident.

Aggression and violence in the media is a big subject for many people in the United States. This movie and trial show and demonstrate a lot of aggression! (If you haven’t watched the movie, be aware that it involves much violence and aggression.) Many people debate how much aggression and violence should be shown in the media because of concern for the modeling effect it can have on social individuals like us.

The modeling effect is basically one theory of the origin of aggression when demonstration of aggression through a “model” or person demonstrating for others can develop “behaviors, attitudes, and ideas about aggression” in individuals who watch this modeling (Markus et al., 480). Even though this may not be the purpose of the media, it can still have a profound effect on aggression individuals regardless.

The media’s role, specifically the Lifetime movie, in this incident is probably not purposely intended to display this modeling effect for others, but it is very powerful and some might find this display of aggression and violence controversial. Indeed, it does seem like something to be concerned about and perhaps we should be concerned for a network such as Lifetime, but to what extent? What do you believe about the media’s role in displaying aggression and violence? Do you believe it is intentional/unintentional?

If you have not watched this show, and don’t mind a bit of blood and violence, you should give it a chance and watch it. I enjoyed the drama myself. Here is a clip below for you to preview of the film in case you are interested. Comment, subscribe, or both. Have a great Thursday everyone!

Sources:

http://www.mylifetime.com/movies/blue-eyed-butcher/about

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-03/justice/texas.susan.wright.sentence_1_wright-days-susan-wright-stab?_s=PM:CRIME

Markus, Kassin, and Fein. Social Psychology. 8th ed. 2008. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2011. Print.

Helping Others: Poverty Simulation

I had the opportunity yesterday to attend an event called a "Poverty Simulation". The purpose of the event is for people to feel what it is like to be poor by creating a simulated environment with scenarios of real situations where people are struggling to survive in their impoverished situations (specifically in the U.S.). This goes along with the chapter we read about helping others in our text.

One of the main ways I noticed that the poverty simulation goes along with Social Psychology and helping others is that of "time pressure". The simulation was set in periods of timed weeks within approximately 15 minute periods leading up to about one month of time that has passed (one hour).

Time pressure in Social Psychology states that people are less likely to help others or notice others in need when there is pressure for time (Markus et al., 413). During the simulation, people were constantly running around attempting to accomplish tasks to benefit their situation which led to less people helping each other.

However, there were some people who teamed up and helped each other out. For instance, two groups/families decided to help each other when one was evicted from their home (not real, just scenario). The reason for this is probably that the family assisting the other group and letting them stay in their home is because they were less busy and more aware and accepting of the responsibility of helping the other group.

So, from this, we can conclude that it is difficult to accept the responsibility of helping others when there are time constraints. However, it is not impossible! If you are interested in helping others there is a website below that can give you ideas and experiences of how others find creative ways of helping people in need. The website is called Random Acts of Kindness and is a very useful resource for anyone who wants help others. Check it out, leave your comments, and have a great weekend!

http://www.randomactsofkindness.org/

Sources and more information about poverty simulations:
Markus, Kassin, and Fein. Social Psychology. 8th ed. 2008. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2011. Print.
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/IdeasInAction.aspx?id=de876708-9a1e-4416-a566-3c4c7171a398

Beauty and the Beast: Society Shaping Our Self-Esteem

What is beauty?
Beauty is difficult to define because there are so many different things that we consider beautiful not only in our society but also cross-culturally. So, I searched for the definition of "beauty" and this is the first definition given at Google.com:

beau·ty

noun /ˈbyo͞otē/  beauties, plural A combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, esp. the sight

Breaking down this definition, we see that it is not one sole thing that defines beauty, but more than one quality of an individual. Also, in this definition, beauty says that it must be aesthetically pleasing to the senses. Note that "esp. the sight" is the last thing mentioned in this definition.

Social Psychologists' research has shown that beauty could have a lot to do with symmetry on the body, especially in the face of an individual, because this is where we find the majority of our social cues (Class Discussion April 4, 2012). When we socialize with others, we look for these cues to determine others' thoughts and feelings towards us; It is part of the socialization process (Discussion 4/4/12).

Beauty is one of the social factors that defines our attractions towards others (Discussion 4/4/12). In relationships and other social circumstances, we are motivated as social individuals to have a sense of belonging to carry on these relationships (Markus et al. 384).

This motive and drive can be helpful in determining how to maintain relationships, but it can also hurt our self-esteem when the qualities of beauty defined by social comparison are almost impossible to meet. Today, we have set such high standards for both men and women to define what is beautiful. We look to actors and actresses, singers, and other famous individuals to help us define what beauty should be. Sometimes these expectations are unrealistic to achieve and can bring our self-esteem down so low that it can affect our relationships with others.

My last blog about social groups showed how women are defined by society and how it affects who I am today. Considering these factors, they can reflect how I view myself compared with others and how this defines my interactions with other people. For example, it is not common to see women without makeup and so I usually wear makeup because of this standard our society has set. It can make me feel like, without makeup, I am not beautiful and motivate me even more to wear it as much as possible.

These standards affect how others "see" me or also how they interact with me. If I'm wearing makeup people might talk to me more or accept me in a social situation better. At job interviews, you have to look your best to keep up "appearances" and this can be a compromising situation to determine new behaviors because your behaviors may change because of this one social situation.

How do you determine what is beautiful? Do you believe that what society shows us about men and women and beauty is accurate?

Below is a shocking video of how our society determines what is beautiful. Watch, comment below, and have a wonderful Easter!

Collective Self-Esteem

This week's post is a guided blog from our instructor.

Identifying My Social Group:

One and also the most obvious social group or category that I am apart of is being a woman. Being part of this group helps me identify with other women where I base much of my behaviors and thoughts. Some behaviors that I exhibit that show I am apart of the social category of being a woman is wearing makeup and wearing dresses. Some thoughts or attitudes associated with being a woman are "Being a thin woman is being a beautiful woman" and "Women are the traditional housekeepers".

However, keep in mind that gender is not biology. This means that some of the things associated with being a female should not always be what identifies me as a woman, even though society sometimes tends to lean in this direction. Females have their monthly period, become pregnant, etc. but this does not mean that it is what defines a woman. Being female and being a woman are not the same to me.

Being a women tends to make me see certain people as being either a part of this social category or not being a part of it. Of course, the ingroup would be people who have behaviors and attitutes associated with being a woman and the outgroup would be people who have the behaviors and attitudes associated with being a man. When I identify myself with being a woman, I tend to sometimes have a negative attitude towards the outgroup of men. I believe this can be attributed to a longing to enhance the cohesiveness of my associated group of being a woman. Perhaps this is even due to a willingness to conform.

When I hear about other's belongingness to this group of women I tend to hear a similar pattern of attitudes or thoughts and also see similar behaviors. However, there are some that have different views about what it means to be a woman. As an example, I have provided a video that shares women's views on household work. Some are very similar and some are radically different. Notice the differences and their reasonings behind each view. (Also, notice how their behaviors are different in each case, e.g. what they are wearing, what they look like, etc.).

It is interesting that in this video you can easily see the difference in each woman's behaviors and their thoughts on the subject.

Being a member of the group of women, to me, means that I am treated a certain way by men and society but I am not limited in opportunities. The group of women today is very diverse in attitudes and behaviors. So, I am able to do more things without my self-esteem being compromised as much as it might have been when my Grandma was growing up. Also, just the idea of being a part of a global group such as this makes me feel supported in my decisions, attitudes, and behaviors when I know that there are other people I can identify with.

Over time, my connection towards this group of being a women has, in fact changed. When I was younger I did not have as strong a connection to being a woman as I do now. However, when I went to high school and college I found more people that were part of this group of women that I could identify with and spend time with. It helped me build a stronger connection to this group and helped me with my personal identity. It is difficult for me to explain the source of this change, but I can tell that it happened because I went from being a jean-wearing, tee-shirt-wearing little lady to being a nail-painting, face-painting, dress-wearing woman. Somewhere in the time between high school and college this happened and I know this because my attitudes as well as my noticeable behaviors changed.

My Collective Self-Esteem:

Membership Esteem -- I feel that I am a valuable member of the global group of women and I feel good about the contributions that I make to it. 

Private Esteem -- I evaluate this group positively and I am proud to be a part of this group.

Public Esteem -- I feel that many people evaluate this group positively but some nonmembers do not always respect this group.

Identity Esteem -- This group is an important part of my identity.

Share your comments! I would love to hear from you.

Groups and Facebook: Making Social Interaction Easier

One of the most widely used Internet websites today, Facebook, has had a profound impact on social interaction. Using Facebook has proven to be useful, mainly in facilitating social interaction in many different ways. While there are numerous ways to interact on Facebook, Facebook "groups" are very helpful when it comes to social interaction among individuals.

Being a part of a group on a social networking website can have its perks. First, these Facebook groups can help individuals find other people with common fates, identities, or sets of goals (Markus et al., 333). The fact that this website is used by so many people means that the use of these groups helps people find a lot of people quickly with things they have in common. For example, I am interested in linguistics, a very uncommon interest. However, I am still able to find multiple groups with more than one person a part of these groups who share my interest in linguistics by using Facebook groups.

Second, these individuals in the groups are very likely to have a joint membership in a social category such as sex, race, etc (Markus et al., 294). So, if I were looking to join a group with mostly women this resource would be available with the click of a mouse! It is amazing how Facebook can help us do this so easily.

Next, a Social Psychologist would tell you that a group must have direct interaction with each other over time (Markus et al., 294). Well, Facebook does help individuals with this (whether or not the individuals follow through is what helps determines their level of group membership). Facebook has a feature that helps create events for individuals who want to organize a meet-up. Also, Facebook's new video chat makes it easier to interact with friends and family over the Internet.

Facebook's features like search tools, being cost-free, its worldwide usage, event planners, and many more allow individuals to interact in groups very easily. It is amazing how technology is shaping our world today! Some people have even started grouping social interaction into a new category: Internet and technology. This is because as our resources and technology grow, so do ways in which we are able to interact with others. Something to consider: What will we think of next and how will it affect human social interaction? Comment below, subscribe, get on Facebook.

Also, enjoy this amusing video about Facebook:

Sources:
Kassin, Fein, and Markus. Social Psychology. 8th ed. 2008. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2011. Print.

Conformity

This week's post is a guided blog initiated by our instructor. It is about the chapter in our text relating to the subject of conformity in Social Psychology. Using our text, I will describe this subject below.

Conformity, compliance, and obedience together are all social influences that cause social pressure on the people they are directed towards. However, they each differ in one or more ways. Let's look at each separately.

According to the Markus, Fein, and Kassin, "conformity is the tendency for people to change their behavior to be consistent with group norms" (288). Also, compliance causes "changes in behavior that are elicited by direct requests" (268). Finally, obedience is "when the request is a command and the requester is a figure of authority" (289).

The best way to see the difference between these three social influences is by how they are measured. Conformity is measured by looking group norms, compliance by looking at direct requests, and obedience by an authority figure's influence.

However, conformity is not just limited to measuring behavior as compliance and behavior are. Conformity goes much deeper than that. Measuring conformity can give us an insight into the changes in perceptions and opinions as well as behavior, which means that we assume the internal (private conformity) changes go along with the external (public conformity), behavioral changes of conformity.

There are five distinct ways to measure the levels of conformity of an individual in social situations. The five social contexts Social Psychologists use to measure conformity are:

1. Group size
2. Awareness of norms
3. Having an ally
4. Age
5. Gender

First, when it comes to conformity it is difficult to ignore the pressure from others. Therefore, group size has an influence that is significant, but only to a point. You may have guessed that the bigger the group the more influence that group has on conformity of individuals. This is true, but there are certain scenarios where the validity of this statement can come into question. When there are individuals who are not willing to conform to the social pressures of the majority it can cause others to question the majority. This situation is what causes Social Psychologists to be careful in measuring conformity when it comes to the social pressures of group sizes.

Second, when an individual is aware of social norms, that individual is more likely to conform to the social pressures of those norms. Expectations are set by these norms and breaking the social norms have consequences.

Third, having an ally in dissent or someone else to share opinions or behaviors when a social situation arises can help measure conformity. It's like saying, "If my friends are smoking, then I can too". As individuals, we are more likely to do or think things that others are because it reduces the pressure of the situation.

Fourth, age can influence conformity whether it is similar or different than the individual(s) being pressured. You may have already heard the popular term "peer pressure". If people of similar age are causing the social pressure to conform, then the influence can be higher.

Fifth, gender groups can also influence the decisions, opinions, and behaviors you have when it comes to conformity. As a woman or man, consider what you would or would not do in certain social situations. How would you react to different social contexts? Women are more likely to conform to behaviors when it comes to style and fashion than men because of the social norms in Western society. Men are more likely to conform to sports than women, again because of these social norms. Yet, gender is not biology; meaning if you are a woman or man your conformity does not always depend on the social norm, but it is greatly influenced by it.

When it comes to conformity, it also depends on the type of society or setting of the social pressures. There are two distinct types of cultures today: individualistic and collectivistic. Individualistic culture tends to have influences of conformity that arise from the self. Collectivistic culture tends to have the greatest influences of conformity that arise from groups with a common goal.

Finally, the impact that social pressures of conformity have on people depend on three things summarized in the "Social Impact Theory". These three things are:

• strength of sources
• immediacy of sources
• number of sources

The strength of a source impacts the pressure of conformity because people with greater social influence like authority figures or people perceived to be credible in any way can increase the likelihood of someone conforming because of how these sources use their strengths.

The immediacy of sources is how close these sources are to the people being pressured by conformity. Their immediacy can make the pressure greater for the people targeted.

The number of sources is similar to what I discussed earlier about group size. The bigger the better, unless there are dissenters of course.

There is a lot of things that I wish I could have discussed in this post. I did not want to go off into tangents, though. So, if you want to discuss anything I didn't talk about but that is related to the subject of conformity, please comment below and I would be happy to discuss it with you.

Sources:

Fein, Kassin, and Markus. Social Psychology. 8th ed. 2011. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2008. Print.