DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Warmth and Competence Matter to Social Work

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why Warmth and Competence Matter to Social Work Universal Dimensions of Inequality: Why Warmth and Competence Matter to Social Work Susan T. Fiske DttfPhlDepartment of Psychology Princeton University Onl y 2Kid2 Kinds o fPf Peop le Friend or foe? With us or against? Part of the problem or the solution Warm, friendly, trustworthy, sincere OKMOK, Mayb e 4Kid4 Kinds o fPf Peop le Friend or foe? Warm,,y,y, friendly, trustworthy, sincere Able or unable? Competent, able , skillful, capable Warmth x competence 4 clusters PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCHERS. CStdPjdiCase Study: Prejudices Come in distinct types From society & stereotypes in mind Universal across culture HfHappen for idiidlindividuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination Disti nc t Types Friend or foe? = Warmth Able or unable? = Competence Stereotype Content Model (SCM) Warmth x competence Stereotype Content Model (Cu ddy, Fis ke, & Glic k, Advances, 2008; Fisk e, C u ddy, & Glic k, TiCS, 2007; Fis ke et al., JSI,1999, JPSP, 2002) Lo Competence Hi Competence Hi Warmth Pure favoritism Lo Warmth Pure antipathy Stereotype Content Model (Cu ddy, Fis ke, & Glic k, Advances, 2008; Fisk e, C u ddy, & Glic k, TiCS, 2007; Fis ke et al., JSI,1999, JPSP, 2002) Lo Competence Hi Competence Hi Warmth Ambivalence Pure favoritism Lo Warmth Pure antipathy Ambivalence Stereot ype C ont ent M od el Lo Competence Hi Competence Hi Warmth Lo Warmth poor, welfare, homeless Disgust Stereot ype C ont ent M od el Lo Competence Hi Competence Hi Warmth ingroup, allies, reference groups Pride Lo Warmth poor, welfare, homeless Disgust Stereot ype C ont ent M od el Lo Competence Hi Competence Hi Warmth older, disabled, ingroup, allies, retarded reference groups Pity Pride Lo Warmth poor, welfare, homeless Disgust Stereot ype C ont ent M od el Lo Competence Hi Competence Hi Warmth older, disabled, ingroup, allies, retarded reference groups Pity Pride Lo Warmth poor, welfare, Jews, Asians, rich , homeless professionals Disgust Envy PjdiPrejudices Come in distinct types From society & stereotypes in mind Universal across culture HfHappen for idiidlindividuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination SCM Stu dies [American] society’s opinions of groups Common ggproups nominated Rate on Warmth ((,warm, friendly, y,) sincere) Competence (competent, skillful, capable) Social structure Emotions Behavior Survey Method: Demoggpraphics (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, JPSP, 2007) N = 571 Sex: 62% female, 38% male Age: 18-85, mean 45 Reg ion: 20% NE, 24% MidW, 35% S, 21% W Edu: 7% HS-, 24% HS, 30% BA-, 39% BA+ Race: 77% White, 6% Black, 9% Hispanic Sca les & Re lia bilities Competent, capable = .81 Warm, friendly = .83 Disgust, contempt = .60 Admiration, pride = .80 Pity, sy mp athy = .71 Envious, jealous = .82 Cooperate, associate = .61 Fight, attack = .59 Help, protect = .60 Exclude, demean = .68 SCM: US Repppresentative Sample (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, JPSP, 2007) 454.5 PITY PRIDE Housewives 4 Elderly Christians Retarded Irish Middle-class Americans Disabled Black 3.5 professionals h tt Whites British Warm Jews 3 Poor blacks Asians Welfare Turks Feminists 2.5 Arabs Rich Homeless ENVY DISGUST 2 22.533.544.5 Competence U.S. Immigrants (Lee &Fiske, IJIR, 2006) 5 housewives elderly Italian Canadian Irish South 3rd generation American h Latino documented European AiAmerican Mexican African students warmt poor farm worker Indian 1st generation East European Korean German Japanese professionals Vietnamese French Russian Asian tech industry undtddocumented Middle Eastern Chinese homeless rich 1 1 5 competence PjdiPrejudices Come in distinct types From society & stereotypes in mind Universal across culture HfHappen for idiidlindividuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination PjdiPrejudices Come in distinct types From ideas of society & stereotypes in mind Status competence Competition (low) warmth Universal across culture Happen for individuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination Social Context Grouppyp Stereotype (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Adv in Exptl Soc Psy, 2008) Correlations Competence Warmth Status .77 (. 55 to . 87) .12 Competition Social Context Grouppyp Stereotype (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Adv in Exptl Soc Psy, 2008) Correlations Competence Warmth Status .77 (. 55 to . 87) .12 Competition .05 -.25 (.08 to -.48) From US, EU, Latino, & Asian samples Social Context Grouppyp Stereotype (Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, GPIR, 2009) Status Competition Competence Warmth High High High Low Low High Low Low Social Context Grouppyp Stereotype (Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, GPIR, 2009) Status Competition Competence Warmth High High 4584.58 3473.47 High Low 4.83 4.13 Low High 2.80 3.35 Low Low 3.21 3.84 PjdiPrejudices Come in distinct types From ideas of society & stereotypes in mind Status competence Competition (low) warmth Universal across culture Happen for individuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination PjdiPrejudices Come in distinct types From ideas of society & stereotypes in mind Universal across culture HfHappen for idiidlindividuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination GDtGerman Data ()(Eckes, 2002) American Students: 1932-2007 (Bergs iec ker, Les lie, Cons tan tine, & Fis ke, un der rev iew ) 1932 2007 Italian Fascists (Durante, Volpato, & Fiske, EJSP, in press) Lo Competence Hi Competence Hi Warmth Italians Aryans Lo Warmth Blacks Jews Half castes English SCM: Universal or Culture-Bound? (Cuddy, Fiske, Kwan, Glick, et al., BJSP, 2009) Warmth x competence map Collective warmth (harmony) > (individual) competence? Many groups mixed Result of multi-cultural, egalitarian values? Unnecessary in homogeneous, hierarchical cultures? Inggproup favoritism outggproup dero gation No ingroup love prejudice? SCM: Japanese data (Cuddy et al., BJSP, 2009) High Children Friends Elderly LC-HW Japanese Women Family My clubs Disabled Hometown th mm Students My co. LC-LW1 Full members Office Poor HC-LW War My univ. wrkrs Men Civil servants Odd-jobbers Entertainers HHC-LLW Professionals LC-LW2 Homeless Low Low Competence High SCM: Hong Kong data (Cuddy et al., 2009) High Christians C hildren LC-HW Elderly Foreigners Students Women th Mentally ill A sians Married mm Chinese College grads Youths MC-MW A dults War HK Blue- Singles locals Professionals Janitors collar Poor Men White-collar Filipino maids Unemployed HC-LW LC-LW Immigrants M a inlainders Rich Pakistani Low Low Competence High SCM: South Korean data (Cuddy et al., 2009) High Children Housewives Ministers LC-HW Elderly Women Blue-collar Middle class Buddhists Men Junior high Students Teachers armth Employees Protestants H C -LW 1 WW Poor Merchants Professionals Illegal immigrants LC-LW P ublic Unemployed Intellectuals functionaries Employers HC-LW2 Rich LowLow Low Competence High Inggproup Favoritism (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Adv in Exptl Soc Psy, 2008) Sample Positivity Western (2 U.S., Belgium) .29 - .49 Asian (Japan, Hong Kong, S. Korea) .02 - .18 Positivity averages across warmth & competence, which show same patterns. PjdiPrejudices Come in distinct types From ideas of society & stereotypes in mind Universal across culture But outgroup prejudices without ingroup favoritism Happen for individuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination PjdiPrejudices Come in distinct types From society & stereotypes in mind Universal across culture HfHappen for idiidlindividuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination Intergroup Perception → Person Perception (Russell & Fiske, EJSP, 2008) Individual competition & status → individual warmth & competence MthdMethods Participants: Princeton Undergrads (n=46) Cover: National Impression Formation Study on how syn thes ize in fo from differen t sources Interact & form impression of another student Background (status) “Subliminal” info Game (competition) Rate warmth & competence 2 (status) x 2 (competition) Competition Perceived Warmth (Russell & Fiske, EJSP, 2008) 7 1-9) 6.5 6 gs (Scale:gs 5.5 nn 5 rmth Rati rmth 4.5 aa W 4 Competitive Condition Non-Competitive Condition Status Perceived Competence (Russell & Fiske, EJSP, 2008) 7 6.5 g (1-9) 6 e Ratin 5.5 cc 5 4.5 mpeten Co 4 High Status Target Low Status Target Status Competence on Int elli gence In dex (SAT, GPA) 0.6 0.4 GPA) 0.2 x (SAT & ee 0 High Status 1 Low Status -0.2 ence Ind gg -0.4 Intelli -0.6 PjdiPrejudices Come in distinct types From society & stereotypes in mind Universal across culture HfHappen for idiidlindividuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination PjdiPrejudices Come in distinct types From ideas of society & stereotypes in mind Universal across culture HfHappen for idiidlindividuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination + + Pride Envy Pity Disgust 12 34 Emotion Ratings in Scanner (Harris & Fiske, Psych Science, 2006) 1 0.9 080.8 0.7 0.6 ortion 0.5 pp 0.4 Pro 0.3 0.2 010.1 0 pride envy pity disgust Emotion SCAN 101 Medial Prefrontal Cortex Social cognition, theory of mind, social affect Dispositional attributions about people (Harris, Todorov, & Fiske, NeuroImage, 2006) Not ambiguous attributions Not objects doing same actions (Harris & Fiske, Social Cognition, 2008) “Social valuation” MPFC: Social Cognition Pride Y: 55 Envy Y: 14 Pity Y: -19 Disgust: No MPFC, not
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Feminine Style in the Pursuit of Political Power
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Talk “Like a Man”: Feminine Style in the Pursuit of Political Power DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Political Science by Jennifer J. Jones Dissertation Committee: Professor Kristen Monroe, Chair Professor Marty Wattenberg Professor Michael Tesler 2017 Chapter 4 c 2016 American Political Science Association and Cambridge University Press. Reprinted with permission. All other materials c 2017 Jennifer J. Jones TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii CURRICULUM VITAE viii ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION xi 1 Introduction 1 2 Theoretical Framework and Literature Review 5 2.1 Social Identity and Its Effect on Social Cognition . 6 2.1.1 Stereotypes and Expectations . 9 2.1.2 Conceptualizing Gender in US Politics . 13 2.2 Gender and Self-Presentation in US Politics . 16 2.2.1 Masculine Norms of Interaction in Institutional Settings . 16 2.2.2 Political Stereotypes and Leadership Prototypes . 18 2.3 The Impact of Political Communication in Electoral Politics . 22 2.4 Do Women Have to Talk Like Men to Be Considered Viable Leaders? . 27 3 Methods: Words are Data 29 3.1 Approaches to Studying Language . 30 3.2 Analyzing Linguistic Style . 34 3.2.1 Gendered Communication and the Feminine/Masculine Ratio . 37 3.2.2 Comparison with Other Coding Schemes . 39 3.3 Approaches to Studying Social Perception and Attitudes . 40 3.3.1 The Link Between Linguistic Style and Implicit Associations . 42 4 The Linguistic Styles of Hillary Clinton, 1992–2013 45 4.1 The Case of Hillary Clinton .
    [Show full text]
  • The Pervasiveness and Persistence of the Elderly Stereotype ∗ Amy J
    Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 61, No. 2, 2005, pp. 267--285 This Old Stereotype: The Pervasiveness and Persistence of the Elderly Stereotype ∗ Amy J. C. Cuddy Princeton University Michael I. Norton Massachusetts Institute of Technology Susan T. Fiske Princeton University Americans stereotype elderly people as warm and incompetent, following from perceptions of them as noncompetitive and low status, respectively. This article extends existing research regarding stereotyping of older people in two ways. First, we discuss whether the mixed elderly stereotype is unique to American culture. Data from six non-U.S. countries, including three collectivist cultures, demonstrate elderly stereotypes are consistent across varied cultures. Second, we investigate the persistence of the evaluatively-mixed nature of the elderly stereotype. In an experiment, 55 college students rated less competent elderly targets (stereotype- consistent) as warmer than more competent (stereotype-inconsistent) and control elderly targets. We also discuss the type of discrimination—social exclusion—that elderly people often endure. Said the little boy, “Sometimes I drop my spoon.” Said the little old man, “I do that too.” The little boy whispered, “I wet my pants.” “I do that too,” laughed the little old man. Said the little boy, “I often cry.” The old man nodded, “So do I.” “But worst of all,” said the boy, “it seems Grown-ups don’t pay attention to me.” And he felt the warmth of the wrinkled old hand. “I know what you mean,” said the little old man. Silverstein, 1981, “The Little Boy and the Old Man” ∗ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amy Cuddy, Psychology Depart- ment, Green Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 [e-mail: [email protected]].
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Empathy in Leadership
    +(,121/,1( Citation: 19 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 133 2011-2012 Provided by: Sponsored By: Thomas Jefferson School of Law Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Tue Dec 13 13:37:36 2016 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information Implementing Grutter's Diversity Rationale: Diversity and Empathy in Leadership REBECCA K. LEE* ABSTRACT This Article examines the role of leadershipin implementing the diversity rationale affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger and argues that greater di- versity and empathy are needed for effective leadership in diverse settings. In Grutter, the Court held that the University of Michigan Law School's use of race in selecting stu- dents for admission did not violate the Constitution'sEqual Protection Clause. In so do- ing, the Court affirmed Justice Powell's diversity rationaleas expressed in an earlier case, Regents of University of California v. Bakke, in which he noted that " 'the nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure' to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples." By endorsing this diversity justifi- cation, the Grutter Court acknowledged the interdependent relationship between diversi- ty and leadership. The Court, however, did not describe the specific skills needed to lead in diverse environments and how such skills may be developed at school and afterward in the workplace.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Psychology As a Robust Science Dr Amy Orben Lent Term 2020 When
    Psychology as a Robust Science Dr Amy Orben Lent Term 2020 When: Lent Term 2020; Wednesdays 2-4pm (Weeks 0-6; 15.1.2020 – 26.2.2020), Mondays 2-4pm (Week 7; 2.3.2020) Where: Lecture Theatre, Experimental Psychology Department, Downing Site Summary: Is psychology a robust science? To answer such a question, this course will encourage you to think critically about how psychological research is conducted and how conclusions are drawn. To enable you to truly understand how psychology functions as a science, however, this course will also need to discuss how psychologists are incentivised, how they publish and how their beliefs influence the inferences they make. By engaging with such issues, this course will probe and challenge the basic features and functions of our discipline. We will uncover multiple methodological, statistical and systematic issues that could impair the robustness of scientific claims we encounter every day. We will discuss the controversy around psychology and the replicability of its results, while learning about new initiatives that are currently reinventing the basic foundations of our field. The course will equip you with some of the basic tools necessary to conduct robust psychological research fit for the 21st century. The course will be based on a mix of set readings, class discussions and lectures. Readings will include a diverse range of journal articles, reviews, editorials, blog posts, newspaper articles, commentaries, podcasts, videos, and tweets. No exams or papers will be set; but come along with a critical eye and a willingness to discuss some difficult and controversial issues. Core readings • Chris Chambers (2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Amy Cuddy: Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are | TED Talk ?Language=Zh-Tw
    Amy Cuddy: Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are | TED Talk https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are ?language=zh-tw So I want to start by offering you a free no-tech life hack1, and all it requires of you is this: that you change your posture2 for two minutes. But before I give it away3, I want to ask you to right now do a little audit4 of your body and what you're doing with your body. So how many of you are sort of making yourselves smaller? Maybe you're hunching5, crossing your legs6, maybe wrapping your ankles7. Sometimes we hold onto our arms8 like this. Sometimes we spread out9. (Laughter) I see you. So I want you to pay attention to what you're doing right now. We're going to come back to that in a few minutes, and I'm hoping that if you learn to tweak10 this a little bit, it could significantly change the way your life unfolds. So, we're really fascinated with body language, and we're particularly interested in other people's body language. You know, we're interested in, like, you know — (Laughter) — an awkward interaction, or a smile, or a contemptuous11 glance12, or maybe a very awkward wink13, or maybe even something like a handshake. Narrator: Here they are arriving at Number 10. This lucky policeman gets to shake hands with the President of the United States. Here comes the Prime Minister -- No. Amy Cuddy: So a handshake, or the lack of a handshake, can have us talking for weeks and weeks and weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetorical Analysis Essay
    Rhetorical Analysis Masse 1 Emily Masse Professor Jackman English 503.03 27 September 2017 Your Body Language May Shape Who You Are; A Rhetorical Analysis Everyone has been in a situation where they feel on top of the world, powerful, and unstoppable. Our bodies communicate that feeling by opening up, arms extended and chin high. In contrast, everyone has been in a situation where they feel miserable, powerless, and defeated. Our bodies communicate that feeling by shrinking, wrapping arms and legs together and hunching towards the ground. Science has proven time and time again that our body reflects our emotional status, but what if it can work both ways? Can the way we position our body influence our mind in how powerful we feel? In a 2012 TED Talk by Amy Cuddy, Your Body Language May Shape Who You Are, Cuddy uses strategies such as logos, ethos, pathos, media/design, and purpose to effectively argue that body language and mindset can shape who you are and your outcomes in life. Amy Cuddy is a social psychologist, lecturer, and New York Times bestselling author who studied at Princeton University. She is a professor at Harvard Business School and has focused her research on the power of nonverbal behavior and the ways in which people affect their own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Cuddy’s breakthrough achievement in the social sciences was discovering how the concept of “fake it ’till you make it” actually has profound effects on our lives. Several of her experiments involving nonverbal behavior were mentioned in Rhetorical Analysis Masse 2 this TED Talk, where participants utilized powerful body stances and weak body stances in a series of tests to determine how physical assertions affect our mentality.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth and Lies of What People Are Really Thinking
    Dedication For Lex and Stella Epigraph Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth —Falsely attributed to Marcus Aurelius (author unknown) Contents Cover Title Page Dedication Epigraph Introduction Part One Genuine Deceptions 1 Body Language Lies 2 Powerful Thinking 3 Mind Your Judgments 4 Scan for Truth Part Two Dating 5 They’re Totally Checking Me Out! 6 Playing Hard-to-Get 7 Just Feeling Sorry for Me 8 I’m Being Ghosted 9 What a Complete Psycho! 10 They Are Running the Show 11 I’m Going to Pay for That! 12 They Are So Mad at Me 13 A Lying Cheat? 14 Definitely into My Friend 15 A Match Made in Heaven? 16 They Are So Breaking Up! Part Three Friends and Family 17 Thick as Thieves 18 My New Bff? 19 Fomo 20 Control Freak 21 Too Close for Comfort 22 They’ll Never Fit in with My Family 23 House on Fire! 24 I Am Boring the Pants off Them 25 Lying Through Their Teeth 26 Persona Non Grata 27 Invisible Me Part Four Working Life 28 I Aced That Interview—So, Where’s the Job Offer? 29 They Hate My Work 30 Big Dog 31 Never Going to See Eye to Eye 32 Cold Fish 33 They’re Gonna Blow! 34 This Meeting Is a Waste of Time 35 Looks Like a Winning Team 36 So, You Think You’re the Boss 37 Hand in the Cookie Jar Summary Bonus Bluff Learn more Acknowledgments Notes About the Authors Praise for Truth & Lies Also by Mark Bowden Copyright About the Publisher Introduction WE CAN ALL RECALL EXAMPLES when our sense of what another person was thinking turned out to be the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Inclusive Leadership, Prejudice and the Brain
    Inclusive Leadership, Prejudice, and the Brain: Harnessing the Universal in Social Cognition Susan T. Fiske Department of Psychology Princeton University Only 2 Kinds of People Friend or foe? With us or against? Part of the problem or the solution Warm, friendly, trustworthy, sincere OK, Maybe 4 Kinds of People Friend or foe? Warm, friendly, trustworthy, sincere Able or unable? Competent, able, skillful, capable Warmth x competence Æ 4 clusters PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCHERS. SCM Prejudices Come in distinct types From society & stereotypes in mind Universal across culture Happen for individuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination Distinct Types Friend or foe? = Warmth Able or unable? = Competence Stereotype Content Model (SCM) Warmth x competence Stereotype Content Model (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Advances, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, TiCS, 2007; Fiske et al., JSI,1999, JPSP, 2002) Lo Competence Hi Competence Hi Warmth Pure favoritism Lo Warmth Pure antipathy Stereotype Content Model (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Advances, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, TiCS, 2007; Fiske et al., JSI,1999, JPSP, 2002) Lo Competence Hi Competence Hi Warmth Ambivalence Pure favoritism Lo Warmth Pure antipathy Ambivalence Stereotype Content Model Lo Competence Hi Competence Hi Warmth Lo Warmth poor, welfare, homeless Disgust Stereotype Content Model Lo Competence Hi Competence Hi Warmth ingroup, allies, reference groups Pride Lo Warmth poor, welfare, homeless Disgust Stereotype Content Model Lo Competence Hi Competence
    [Show full text]
  • The Mitigation of Stereotype Threat Through Embodied Cogition
    Montclair State University Montclair State University Digital Commons Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects 1-2018 The itM igation of Stereotype Threat Through Embodied Cogition Darla van Govan Montclair State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation van Govan, Darla, "The itM igation of Stereotype Threat Through Embodied Cogition" (2018). Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects. 114. https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/114 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Montclair State University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects by an authorized administrator of Montclair State University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RUNNING HEAD: MITIGATION OF STEREOTYPE THREAT 1 Abstract Stereotype threat has been well-supported by decades of research. It is a pervasive phenomenon which affects multiple social groups with both immediate and lasting consequences. Therefore, it has been of a particular importance to study strategies that may serve at mitigating the effects of stereotype threat. Women, in particular, often face stereotypes that state that women are inferior to men in certain domains, among which are mathematics, spatial reasoning, driving ability, leadership, and making financial decisions. In the current study, we evaluate whether embodied cognition can be used to mitigate the effects
    [Show full text]
  • Presence Bringing Your Boldest Self to Your Biggest Challenges Presence Attuned + Expressing Your Power
    Brian Johnson’s PhilosophersNotesTM More Wisdom in Less Time THE BIG IDEAS Presence Bringing Your Boldest Self to Your Biggest Challenges Presence Attuned + expressing your power. BY AMY CUDDY · LITTLE BROWN © 2015 · 344 PAGES Self-Affirmation Theory Gosh darnit, you’re awesome! Priming + Nudges To build your personal power. “The opposite of powerlessness must be power, right? In a sense, that’s true, but it’s not quite that simple. The research I’ve been doing for years now joins a large Expand Your Body To expand your power. body of inquiry into a quality I call presence. Presence stems from believing in and trusting yourself—your real, honest feelings, values, and abilities. That’s important, iHunch How’s yours? because if you don’t trust yourself, how can others trust you? Whether we are “I’m Excited!” talking in front of two people or five thousand, interviewing for a job, negotiating You? for a raise, or pitching a business idea to potential investors, speaking up for Boldest Version of You ourselves or speaking up for someone else, we all face daunting moments that Move like that. Today. must be met with poise if we want to feel good about ourselves and make progress in our lives. Presence gives us the power to rise to these moments.” ~ Amy Cuddy from Presence Amy Cuddy is awesome. Her TED talk on “Your Body Shapes Who You Are” is the second-most-watched TED talk in history. If you haven’t watched it yet, check it out. (#1 = Sir Ken Robinson’s on Creativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Litigation Science After the Knowledge Crisis
    42705-crn_106-3 Sheet No. 4 Side A 03/25/2021 10:13:22 \\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\106-3\CRN302.txt unknown Seq: 1 25-MAR-21 9:54 LITIGATION SCIENCE AFTER THE KNOWLEDGE CRISIS Edith Beerdsen† The knowledge crisis that has been causing turmoil in the social sciences for the past few years represents a fundamen- tal shift in scientists’ understanding of what it takes to create reliable science. This crisis, now known as the Replication Crisis, has thrown the spotlight on research practices that undermine the reliability of research results in ways that are typically invisible and cannot be remedied or made visible after the fact. There is ample reason to believe that the defects of method uncovered in the course of the Replication Crisis are at least as pervasive in litigation science as they are in aca- demic science. Yet the legal profession has failed to recognize and address them. This Article is the first to address the broad implications of the Replication Crisis for the production of scientific knowl- edge in a civil-litigation context. Drawing on insights from the Crisis, it argues that current procedural practice is simply in- capable of providing a court with the information it needs to make an accurate assessment of the reliability of scientific evidence. The Article identifies a number of core principles, drawn from the response of academic science to the Replica- tion Crisis, that can guide reforms to the treatment of scientific evidence in civil litigation. It argues that shoring up the courts’ capacity to evaluate scientific evidence requires a rethinking of 42705-crn_106-3 Sheet No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of “Fred”: Family Responsibilities Discrimination and Developments in the Law of Stereotyping and Implicit Bias
    The Evolution of “FReD”: Family Responsibilities Discrimination and Developments in the Law of Stereotyping and Implicit Bias Joan C. Williams∗ Stephanie Bornstein∗∗ Introduction When Regina Sheehan announced that she was pregnant with her third child, her supervisor exclaimed, “Oh, my God, she’s pregnant again.”1 That month, Sheehan was the only employee in her department placed into a “performance matrix” program, in which her supervisor, alone, set goals for her that she was expected to meet.2 Three months later, her department head fired her, saying, “Hopefully this will give you some time to spend at home with your children.”3 While the department head said Sheehan was fired for being confrontational, he told her co- workers: “We felt that this would be a good time for Gina to spend some time with her family.”4 Chris Schultz found himself having to care for both a mother with congestive heart problems and severe diabetes, and a father with Alzheimer’s disease.5 To help manage his burden, he asked to take leave ∗ Joan C. Williams is 1066 Foundation Chair, Distinguished Professor of Law, and the Director of the Center for WorkLife Law at University of California, Hastings College of the Law. ∗∗ Stephanie Bornstein is the Associate Director of the Center for WorkLife Law at University of California, Hastings College of the Law. The Authors wish to thank: Cynthia Calvert for her significant feedback and editing; Hillary Baker, Jennifer Baker, Amber Jones, and Lisa Mak for their diligent research assistance; Donna Adkins, Jennifer Luczkowiak, Judith Lackey, and Michael Nguyen for their invaluable assistance with the symposium conference preceding this Issue; the members of the Caregiver Bias Working Group for their significant contributions to the group and the resulting symposium conference and Issue; and the Alfred P.
    [Show full text]