In recent years, several studies have shown that brief, theory‐based social‐psychological interventions can cause large, enduring effects on important outcomes, such as school achievement and marital relationships. How are such effects possible? We propose a field‐theory model : this model distinguishes “nudge” interventions—interventions designed to change a “snapshot” in time such as a particular decision or behavior—from interventions designed to change a “movie”—core beliefs or other aspects of the self and thus people's behavior as it unfolds over time in diverse settings. Movie interventions target underlying social‐psychological processes—such as students' confidence that they belong in school or individuals' felt security in close relationships. These psychological processes can interact with naturalistic variables—such as how people interact with one another and the relationships they build—to propel intervention effects forward in time. In this model, real‐world factors can serve as proximal outcomes that catalyze long‐term effects. An important implication is that such interventions can sometimes amplify their effects over time, if the targeted recursive process “snowballs.” A second implication is that the long‐term effects of movie interventions are dependent on the context—specifically, on whether the context affords naturalistic variables that can catalyze changes in the self forward in time. To illustrate this field‐theory model , we compare it to Mortensen and Cialdini's (2010) full‐cycle model . Although both models share important features, including an emphasis on laboratory research, the latter treats forces in the world as “noise” and predicts that the effects of psychological interventions will dissipate, not strengthen with time. In addition to their applied potential, movie interventions raise profound new theoretical questions, such as how psychological processes unfold over time and do so in interaction with social contexts. Exploring these questions represents an exciting direction for future research.
Objective: Using archival and experimental methods, we tested the role that racial associations of first names play in criminal sentencing. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that Black defendants with more stereotypically Black names (e.g., Jamal) would receive more punitive sentences than Black defendants with more stereotypically White names (e.g., James). Method: In an archival study, we obtained a random sample of 296 real-world records of Black male prison inmates in Florida and asked participants to rate the extent to which each inmate's first name was stereotypically Black or stereotypically White. We then tested the extent to which racial stereotypicality was associated with sentence length, controlling for relevant legal features of each case (e.g., criminal record, severity of convicted offenses). In a follow-up experiment, participant judges assigned sentences in cases in which the Black male defendant was randomly assigned a more stereotypically Black or White name from our archival study. Results: Controlling for a wide array of factors-including criminal record-we found that inmates with more stereotypically Black versus White first names received longer sentences β = 0.09, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [0.01, 0.16]: 409 days longer for names 1 standard deviation above versus below the mean on racial stereotypicality. In our experiment, participant judges recommended significantly longer sentences to Black inmates with more stereotypically Black names above and beyond the severity of the charges or their criminal history, β = 0.07, 95% CI [0.02, 0.13]. Conclusions: Our results identify how racial associations with first names can bias consequential sentencing decisions despite the impartial aims of the legal system. More broadly, our findings illustrate how racial biases manifest in distinctions made among members of historically marginalized groups, not just between members of different groups. Public Significance StatementWe identify a pernicious yet understudied source of racial bias in criminal sentencing among Black defendants: the perceived racial-ethnic associations of offenders' first names. Our results suggest that the stereotypical associations attached to first names lead to inequitable and punitive outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.