Social science involvement in voir dire: Preliminary data on the effectiveness of “scientific jury selection”

The validity of what has been termed “scientific” or “systematic” jury selection (SJS) techniques is addressed using data from two actual cases; one criminal and one civil. Data from the highly publicized Joan Little trial indicated that where validity data were available for the survey approach and in-court rating of authoritarianism, these techniques measured what they purported to measure. Validation data were not available for a third technique—in-court rating of nonverbal communication. Data from the civil case indicated that the survey approach could successfully predict verdicts of mock jurors. It is concluded that while these data are suggestive of the validity of two of the techniques used in SJS, more rigorous tests are essential before conclusions can be drawn.     

Intentional response distortion during the COVID-19 pandemic

COVID-19 has abruptly and unexpectedly transformed nearly every aspect of work, including but not limited to increased unemployment rates and uncertainty regarding future job prospects. Response distortion has always been a concern given that many organizations rely on information that is self-reported by applicants regarding their potential employability (e.g., responses to self-reported personality instruments, resumes, interview responses). Drawing from the Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy (VIE) theory of motivation, we propose that the uncertainty surrounding jobs may lead to amplified distorted responses on these measures in areas where COVID-19 was most salient. In a sample of 213 working adults [~50% female, age M = 38.48], the present study shows that increases in response distortion on a measure of conscientiousness were more pronounced as a function of (a) local COVID positivity rates and (b) job type, such that frontline workers distorted their responses the most. Findings are discussed in the context of VIE theory, personality measurement, and challenges with maintaining effective selection procedures.     

How infant-directed actions enhance infants’ attention,learning, and exploration: Evidence from EEG and computational modeling

When teaching infants new actions, parents tend to modify their movements. Infants prefer these infant-directed actions (IDAs) over adult-directed actions and learn well from them. Yet, it remains unclear how parents’ action modulations capture infants’ attention. Typically, making movements larger than usual is thought to draw attention. Recent findings, however, suggest that parents might exploit movement variability to highlight actions. We hypothesized that variability in movement amplitude rather than higher amplitude is capturing infants’ attention during IDAs. Using EEG, we measured 15-month-olds’ brain activity while they were observing action demonstrations with normal, high, or variable amplitude movements. Infants’ theta power (4–5 Hz) in fronto-central channels was compared between conditions. Frontal theta was significantly higher, indicating stronger attentional engagement, in the variable compared to the other conditions. Computational modelling showed that infants’ frontal theta power was predicted best by how surprising each movement was. Thus, surprise induced by variability in movements rather than large movements alone engages infants’ attention during IDAs. Infants with higher theta power for variable movements were more likely to perform actions successfully and to explore objects novel in the context of the given goal. This highlights the brain mechanisms by which IDAs enhance infants’ attention, learning, and exploration.     

Differential specialization of the cerebral hemispheres for the perception of sameness and difference

The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Pairs of letters were presented 4 deg left or right of fixation, and Ss were asked to indicate as quickly as possible whether the letters in a pair were the same or different. Reaction times for “different” responses were faster when stimuli were in the left visual field than in the right, but reaction times for “same” responses were faster when stimuli were in the right visual field than in the left. These results may indicate that the right hemisphere is better specialized for difference detection, while the left hemisphere is better specialized for sameness detection.