Matching Items (98)
Filtering by
- Creators: Arizona State University
- Creators: Schweitzer, Nicholas
Description
A study was conducted to assess the effects of generational status on various measures of stigmatization, acculturative stress, and perceived social and interpersonal threat within the Mexican heritage population in the Southwest. The role of the fear of stigma by association, regardless of actual experiences of stigmatization, was investigated, including its relationships with acculturative stress, perceived threat, and social distancing. Exploratory analyses indicated that first generation Mexican Americans differed significantly from second generation Mexican Americans on the perception of Mexican nationals as ingroup members, the fear of stigma by association by Americans, and levels of acculturative stress. Additional analyses indicated that Mexican Americans with one parent born in Mexico and one in the United States held opinions and attitudes most similar to second generation Mexican Americans. Results from path analyses indicated that first-generation Mexican Americans were more likely than second-generation Mexican Americans to both see Mexican nationals as ingroup members and to be afraid of being stigmatized for their perceived association with them. Further, seeing Mexican nationals as in-group members resulted in less social distancing and lower perceived threat, but fear of stigma by association lead to greater perceived threat and greater acculturative stress. Implications for within- and between-group relations and research on stigma by association are discussed.
ContributorsBoyd, Brenna Margaret (Author) / Knight, George P (Thesis advisor) / Kwan, Sau (Committee member) / Neuberg, Steven (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2010
Description
This Thesis contends that if the designer of a non-biological machine (android) can establish that the machine exhibits certain specified behaviors or characteristics, then there is no principled reason to deny that the machine can be considered a legal person. The thesis also states that given a related but not necessarily identical set of characteristics, there is no principled reason to deny that the non-biological machine can make a claim to a level of moral personhood. It is the purpose of my analysis to delineate some of the specified behaviors required for each of these conditions so as to provide guidance and understanding to designers seeking to establish criteria for creation of such machines. Implicit in the stated thesis are assumptions concerning what is meant by a non-biological machine. I use analytic functionalism as a mechanism to establish a framework within which to operate. In order to develop this framework it is necessary to provide an analysis of what currently constitutes the attributes of a legal person, and to likewise examine what are the roots of the claim to moral personhood. This analysis consists of a treatment of the concept of legal personhood starting with the Greek and Roman views and tracing the line of development through the modern era. This examination then explores at a more abstract level what it means to be a person. Next, I examine law's role as a normative system, placing it within the context of the previous discussions. Then, criteria such as autonomy and intentionality are discussed in detail and are related to the over all analysis of the thesis. Following this, moral personhood is examined using the animal rights movement of the last thirty years as an argument by analogy to the question posed by the thesis. Finally, all of the above concepts are combined in a way that will provide a basis for analyzing and testing future assertions that a non-biological entity has a plausible claim for legal or moral personhood. If such an entity exhibits the type of intentionality and autonomy which humans view as the foundation of practical reason, in combination with other indicia of sentience described by "folk psychology", analytic functionalism suggests that there is no principled reason to deny the android's claim to rights.
ContributorsCalverley, David J (Author) / Armendt, Brad (Thesis advisor) / McGregor, Joan (Committee member) / Askland, Andrew (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Across three studies and two robust pilot studies, this project addressed issues surrounding prejudicial evidence and jury instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence. Specifically, this project examined a new framework for understanding how people vary in their response to prejudicial evidence, based on the morals they value, and tested the effectiveness of a novel way to phrase jury instructions to debias jurors inspired by moral foundations theory. In two experimental studies, participants read a transcript of a sexual assault (Study 1: n = 544) or an assault and battery criminal case (Study 2: n = 509). In each experiment, participants were randomly assigned to read either a case with or without prejudicial evidence. Participants exposed to prejudicial evidence were either given standard jury instructions to disregard the evidence, no instructions, or novel jury instructions inspired by moral foundations theory. Individual differences in moral foundations affected how susceptible people were to prejudicial evidence and case facts in general. This pattern emerged regardless of the type of jury instructions in most cases, suggesting that the moral foundation inspired instructions failed to help jurors disregard prejudicial evidence. The impact of people’s moral foundation endorsement has direct implications for how attorneys may phrase evidence to cater towards these moral biases and select ideal jurors during the voir dire process. To further advance people’s understanding of the effects of prejudicial evidence and jury instructions in legal settings, a third study looked at how attorneys (n = 138) perceived the prevalence and impact of prejudicial evidence in real cases and the effectiveness of jury instructions. Over three quarters of the sample (77.54%) reported having experienced prejudicial evidence in their cases and expressed concern that prejudicial evidence is influential to jurors with jury instructions being ineffective. Taken altogether, the results of this project show the potential impact moral foundation endorsement can have on case judgments and how jurors are differently influenced by prejudicial evidence. In addition, data from attorneys showing the perceived prevalent and impact of prejudicial evidence in real cases further
justifies the need to continue researching safeguards against prejudicial evidence.
ContributorsMcCowan, Kristen Marie (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Thesis advisor) / Stolzenberg, Stacia N (Committee member) / Fox, Kate A (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
Grooming, the largely nonviolent tactics used to seduce children into sexual abuse, shifts healthy adult-child relationships into patterns of abuse. Grooming provides a framework for explaining delayed disclosure, recantations, and lack of evidence in child sexual abuse cases (CSA). Yet researchers have not established how grooming behaviors are addressed during the investigation and prosecution process. Across 4 studies I explored how grooming is addressed by legal and investigative actors. Across Studies 1 and 2 I analyzed a series of 138 forensic interviews and 134 trial transcripts to establish if and how interviewers and attorneys address reports of grooming. In Study 3 I examined 31 cases of expert testimony to explore whether experts reference grooming. In Study 4 I explored, experimentally, how attorney questioning and expert testimony related to grooming can influence perceptions of child credibility and subsequent case verdicts. In forensic interviews (Study 1), grooming questions comprised less than 5% of all questioned asked and primarily related to exposure to pornography (46.8%); interviews may be missing an important opportunity to raise grooming with children. In criminal trials (Study 2), less than 2% of attorneys’ questions addressed grooming. “Tell me more” questions yielded the most productive reports of grooming from children when compared to every other question type. This suggests attorneys should consider raising grooming more often, using open ended “tell-me-more” questions when they do. In expert testimony (Study 3), grooming was referenced in 52% of cases. Expert testimony often addressed boundary violations (19.4%) with no specific reference to their source of their knowledge. Experts should consider raising grooming in a larger proportion of their cases and mentioning the source of their knowledge when they do. Finally, I found no impact of grooming education through expert testimony or attorney questioning on perceptions of child credibility or subsequent case verdicts (Study 4). The manipulation in this case may have been too weak, suggesting the need for replication. Training with these legal actors is an important avenue to educate them on grooming and how to raise grooming issues with the children they encounter.
ContributorsDenne, Emily (Author) / Stolzenberg, Stacia N. (Thesis advisor) / Neal, Tess M. S. (Committee member) / Evans, Angela D. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
For decades, researchers have found that jurors are consistently unable - or unwilling - to disregard inadmissible evidence when instructed to do so by a judge. The legal system ignores the problem entirely: judges have repeatedly affirmed that a judge’s instructions to disregard are a sufficient safeguard of defendants’ constitutional rights, regardless of whether the jury actually disregards the inadmissible evidence. This study tested four interventions derived from psychological research to identify the combination that most effectively helped jurors disregard inadmissible evidence (operationalized by lower conviction rates). It was hypothesized that the most effective interventions identified in Study 1 would yield significantly lower conviction rates when compared to traditional instructions to disregard in Study 2. The interventions were tested in Study 1 using Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) methodology to identify the optimized intervention package through regression analysis. Study 2 served as a randomized controlled trial in which treatment as usual (a judge’s instructions to disregard) was compared to the optimized intervention package. Participants were randomly assigned to either (1) be exposed to no inadmissible evidence, (2) receive inadmissible evidence and treatment as usual, (3) receive inadmissible evidence, treatment as usual and the optimized intervention package, or (4) receive the inadmissible evidence without objection. Logistic regression revealed that jurors who were given an instruction to disregard produced lower conviction rates when they also received the optimized intervention package. Interpretation, limitations, and calls to action are discussed.
ContributorsSandberg, Pamela Nicole (Author) / O'Hara, Karey L. (Thesis advisor) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Committee member) / Hall, Deborah L. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
Risk assessments are key legal tools that can inform a number of legal decisions regarding parole sentencing and predict recidivism rates. Due to assessments being
historically performed by humans, they can be prone to bias and have come under various
amounts of scrutiny. The increased capability and application of machine learning
technology has lead the justice system to incorporate algorithms and codes to increase
accuracy and reliability. This study researched laypersons’ attitudes towards these algorithms
and how they would change when exposed to an algorithm that made errors in the risk
assessment process. Participants were tasked with reading two vignettes and answering a series
of questions to assess the differences in their perceptions towards machine learning and
clinician-based risk assessments. The research findings showed that individuals lent more trust
to clinicians and had more confidence in their assessments when compared to machines, but
were not significantly more punitive when it came to attributing blame and judgement for the
consequences of an incorrect risk assessment. Participants had a significantly more positive
attitude towards clinician-based risk assessments, noting their assessments as being more
reliable, informed, and trustworthy. Participants were also asked to come to a parole decision
using the assessment of either a clinician or machine learning algorithm at the end of the study
and rate their own confidence in their decision. Results found that participants were only
significantly less confident in their decision when exposed to previous instances of risk
assessments with error, but that there was no significant difference in their confidence based
solely on who conducted the assessment.
ContributorsMa, Angeline (Author) / Schweitzer, Nicholas (Thesis advisor) / Powell, Derek (Committee member) / Smalarz, Laura (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) is a collection of more than 800 areas designated as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Act defines wilderness as an “area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Wilderness lands are supposed to be pristine examples of nature where the overseeing agency has not allowed any post-designation development. The language of the act describes land designated as wilderness as “untrammeled” by people, discounting thousands of years of human influence. It also discounts the potential effect of surrounding lands and visitors on the wilderness. The management of these lands falls to all four federal land management agencies, and they each had – and still have – their own organizational perspectives on the Wilderness Act and their agency’s role in its implementation. Although the Act provided criteria for designating and managing wilderness, concrete guidance is lacking. This ambiguity has allowed a rift to emerge between those who believe that wilderness should be actively managed and those who believe that wilderness should be preserved and left alone as much as possible. The diversity of views and agency approaches have created administrative divides between wilderness lands and other land types. In parallel, the introduction of subsequent environmental laws have placed additional legal boundaries on the land, creating parcels next to and within wilderness that are subject to different uses and requirements. This study, which marshals dozens of expert interviews and explores a series of wilderness cases across the United States, focuses on several unanticipated challenges of stewarding the NWPS in the 21st Century. These include: the impacts of public land parceling due to legal obligations; how statuary ossification affects current interpretations of the various laws bearing on wilderness lands; and ultimately how land managers and agencies – who are looking toward a future of increased anthropogenic impacts on wildlife biodiversity and endangered/threatened species on wilderness lands – approach these challenges.
ContributorsFacemire, Challie Renee (Author) / Minteer, Ben A (Thesis advisor) / Ellison, Karin (Thesis advisor) / Bradshaw, Karen (Committee member) / Hahn, Beth (Committee member) / Budruk, Megha (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
Contact tracing was deployed widely during the COVID-19 pandemic to attempt to stop the spread of SARS Co-V-2. This dissertation investigates the research on contact tracing from a scientometric perspective and looks qualitatively at how case investigators and contact tracers conducted public health practice during the pandemic. Through approaching the public health practice of contact tracing from both a broad, top-down angle, and an on the ground experiential approach, this dissertation provides insight into the issues facing contact tracing as a public health tool.
ContributorsWhite, Alexandra C. (Author) / Jehn, Megan (Thesis advisor) / Hruschka, Daniel (Committee member) / Gaughan, Monica (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
Evaluators of eyewitness evidence (e.g., judges, jurors) often must determine whether an eyewitness’s identification of a police suspect is accurate or mistaken. It has recently been argued that a particular class of variables—suspect-bias variables—pose a unique threat to the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. Unlike “general impairment” variables that generally impair eyewitness identification accuracy (e.g., poor viewing conditions, biased lineup instructions), suspect-bias variables produce a suspect-specific bias that increases the risk of confident misidentifications of innocent suspects. The goal of this research was to examine evaluators’ sensitivity to suspect-bias variables compared to general impairment variables, and to test whether sensitivity to suspect-bias differs as a function of whether the suspect-bias variable is under the control of the legal system (system suspect-bias) or outside of the legal system’s control (estimator suspect-bias). Participant-evaluators (N = 214) read eight crime vignettes paired with one of four different eyewitness variables (system suspect-bias, estimator suspect-bias, general impairment, or no-variable control) and rated the accuracy of each eyewitness. Evaluators also explained the reasoning for their accuracy rating, and their explanations were coded for mentions of procedural suggestion, eyewitness memory strength, memory contamination, and general eyewitness (un)reliability. Evaluators appear to be more sensitive to general impairment variables than to suspect-bias variables. This finding is alarming, as suspect-bias variables pose a greater threat to eyewitness reliability than general-impairment variables. Implications for the collection and evaluation of eyewitness evidence are discussed.
ContributorsKulak, Kylie (Author) / Smalarz, Laura (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Schweitzer, Nick (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
Civil juries are becoming an increasingly rare means of resolving civil disputes. One reason for this is widespread mistrust in jury decision-making do to highly publicized nuclear verdicts where verdicts do not seem to match the alleged harm suffered by a plaintiff. Critics allege that jurors are biased against defendants with deep pockets. This research aims to test whether there is evidence of so-called deep-pocket bias in juror decision-making. Previous research has compared how the wealth of defendants impacts jurors’ verdicts while other studies have compared how jurors’ verdicts are impacted when the defendant is an individual versus a corporation. The first aim is to explore the impact of defendant wealth and corporate identity on jurors’ liability verdicts and damage awards. The second aim is to explore whether the theory of dyadic morality helps to explain any potential observed deep-pocket biases. The study tested the hypothesis that perceptions of a defendant’s moral agency (in other words, their responsibility and intentionality) would predict jurors’ liability verdicts while perceptions of a defendant’s moral patiency (in other words, their vulnerability and capacity for suffering) would predict jurors’ damage awards. In a study of mock juror decision-making, results concluded that when assessing the same alleged wrongdoing and harm, jurors were more confident in a liable verdict against wealthy defendants and corporate defendants compared to poor defendants and individuals as defendants. Higher perceptions of a defendant’s moral agency did explain these effects. However, there was no evidence that defendant wealth or corporate identity influenced damage awards. Ultimately, in cases where plaintiffs portray themselves as a small and vulnerable “David” taking on a large and resourceful “Goliath,” juror decision-making on liability verdicts is likely to unfairly punish “Goliath” defendants, revealing deep-pocket biases against wealthy defendants and corporations.
ContributorsRosales, Breanna Olson (Author) / Schweitzer, Nicholas (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica (Thesis advisor) / Smalarz, Laura (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2024