Ixnay on the oneymay, oneyhay: what does it all mean?

From the Chicago Tribune, on the revocation of George Zimmerman's bail:

"Defendant has intentionally deceived the court with the assistance of his wife," prosecutors said in a motion to revoke Zimmerman's bond. The state relied on recorded jailhouse phone calls, in which they say Zimmerman and his wife discussed the funds "in code to hide what they were doing."

Eric Zorn invited readers to discuss the implications:

Zorn:

To some, this makes it more likely that he also lied to police about the events of the night when he shot and killed Martin.

I put about as much stock in this reasoning as I do the reasoning of those who pluck less than savory details about Martin's past -- his use of marijuana, for instance -- and say this makes it more likely that he was the kind of guy who'd double back, confront and attack a man he thought had profiled him.

The underlying argument is really about dispositional versus situational influences on behavior, and how we assess those influences. Social psychologists have racked up a mountain of evidence showing us that situational factors have far more impact on behavior than once thought. They've also shown that we are prone to a fundamental bias in the way we judge personal agency: we tend to see situational causes behind our own actions and dispositional or character causes behind the actions of others. But I think it's more complicated than that.*

At the least, we can say that we're of two minds about psychic autonomy and personal agency and that we tend, much of the time, to make attributions of agency with little or no awareness of the biases that influence our judgments.

In the Zimmerman case, those who see Zimmerman's dishonesty at the bail hearing as character-driven are more likely to believe that he lied to police about the killing of Martin. Those who lean toward a situational explanation are less likely to make that connection.

I'm reminded of an evaluation I did a while back. I had only a little information about the examinee, but one piece of information I had was quite provocative. I think that most people would react strongly to that information, but reactions would be divided: some would see the provocative information as an indicator of the examinee's good moral character and some would see it as an indication of disturbance and poor moral character. So, not only do we make biased dispositional and situational attributions, but we also tend to assume that our implicit (and sometimes explicit) psychological theories about character are correct. But that ain't necessarily so.

When the case was referred to me, my initial reaction was to judge the examinee negatively, but I'm also highly cognizant of the influence that biases can exert on an assessment. I knew going in that it would be important for my clinical interview to deal with the provocative information, but also important that I not let it define the course of the interview based on confirmation bias. In a provocative case, it's critical that I act neither as prosecutor nor defense attorney. Instead, the aim is to make sure that I have a wide sampling of dots and that I let the dots fall where they may, rather than only noticing the dots that land close to the lines of my prejudices. For a one-off, the use of an array of validated tests helps. And years of theoretical training, supervised work and clinical experience helps--a lot.

My assessment in this case ended up quite differently from what I'd expected and likely far different from what anyone would have proposed at a distance, whether they would have morally prejudged the examinee positively or negatively. Sometimes our prejudices connect the dots correctly, but quite often, they don't.

So back to George and Trayvon. It's clear that many who are sympathetic to George Zimmerman have looked for the character flaws in Trayvon Martin, while emphasizing the situational factors behind George Zimmerman's behavior on the night of the shooting. On the other hand, many who are least sympathetic to George Zimmerman have emphasized what they see as evidence of his bad character, while seeing only situational influences in Trayvon Martin's behavior. The abundance of folk psychoanalysis only adds to the sloppy stew of opinions.

So I wonder, do we have enough dots in the Zimmerman case, do we have a sufficiently representatives sampling of dots, and are the theories we're applying to connect the dots as sound as we believe them to be?

----------------------------------------------

*An aside: I wonder if the tendency among conservatives is to emphasize disposition, while liberals emphasize situational influences. Scratch that. It isn't difficult at all to think of many exceptions to that observation. Perhaps it has more to do with group identity and who plays the role of the "Other" in our minds. Perhaps dispositional influences are attributed to the Other, while situational influences are more likely attributed to those with whom we feel aligned. That would make more sense of how the differences in attributions tend to shake out in the Zimmerman-Martin case. I emphasize the word tend.

So, in our political and social judgments, are we more likely to see flawed character in our opponents and competitors, while being more likely to justify the actions of those we support by discussing the situations or contexts that influenced their actions?

Orrrrrr... do we attribute to disposition, the good acts of those with whom we sympathize or identify, while their bad acts are attributed to situations? Conversely, does the Other bear the character attributions when explaining bad acts, while good acts are deemed mere situational effects?

Comments

[democommie]

Dr. X:

I think that Zimmerman is an idiot and that he probably did kill Trayvon Martin without justification. His character is not something I can speak to. I will say that anybody who has the means to post a bond (for as much as $1.25M+ (asssuming the $135K is liquid and Bonding is 10% in FL as elsewhere) but allows their parents/grandparents to pledge their homes as security is a bit of a douchebag.

What is a bit more troubling is the news item about Zimmerman having a second passport which he did not surrender at the time of his original release from custody.

[NMissC]

The revelation about the bond hearing doesn't make me more or less likely to believe him.

My inclination is to think that he did lie to the cops, that he made what Martin did sound far worse than the actual facts, trying (almost certainly in a state of semi-panic) to justify what he'd done. His account is partially why I think that. I'm not sure that tells me much about his character-- it's essential human nature to try to shade or even warp the story in an exculpating way under these circumstances (the 911 call tells me more about him, although I'm disposed to really dislike anything that gets near vigilanteism). And my "inclination" is not remotely sufficient to say I'd convict him of manslaughter or murder. For one thing, it is completely possible that he lied to make it sound better but yet he did have a basis to defend himself. More to the point, the evidence to convict him (that negates self-defense, that points toward a conviction) is much thinner than "beyond a reasonable doubt." I'm not sure it reaches "probably"-- saying "in my gut, I think this is what went down" is a bit weaker than "this probably happened." It's an educated guess.

[Dr X]

@ NMissC

For one thing, it is completely possible that he lied to make it sound better but yet he did have a basis to defend himself

That's an interesting observation.I assume that you've encountered this many times in your work. Apart from the question of Zimmerman's honesty or dishonesty, at least two possible motivations for lying while legally innocent come to mind. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

First, there is the obvious fear of being judged guilty by others, and some concomitant pressure to build a stronger justification of one's actions.

The second possibility is that he was overcompensating for feelings of guilt, whether realistically or unrealistically based. It's about pressure to build an internal case for justification, albeit a magical case, since the lies are at least initially known to be lies by the person who lies. Over time, they could, perhaps, convince themselves the that lies are the truth.

Perhaps all of this is obvious.

[Dr. Sardonicus]

Perhaps justice will be done in this case. Perhaps not. Our system is imperfect, so we have no concrete way of knowing. Inasmuch as I am not any sort of behaviorial scientist, I cannot offer a professional opinion, one way or another, on Zimmerman's behavior. I can say one thing which ought to be obvious to anyone:

Young men or, rarely, women, who wear hooded sweatshirts and hide their faces in 80-degree weather, or at night, or both, do not instill confidence in those of us who don't. Popular culture and/or peer pressure are lame justifications, at best.

I'm not defending Zimmerman's act. And Martin may not have been looking for trouble. But the guilty finger of fate points both ways. I think so anyway.

[NMissC]

Dr. X, I can agree with everything you said, although I'm puzzling over the comment about "feelings of guilt."

This seems a hard one to me, and I have had for a few minutes trouble explaining why. I'm going to propose several decision-points:

1) Zimmerman was assaulted sufficiently to be justified in using a gun in self-defense. Crediting him with responding like you or me, I would have to admit he'd still likely feel guilt for shooting and killing a man, and that would effect how he described it. I really have trouble believing this to be the case, though-- I think the facts don't justify him resorting to lethal force.

2) Zimmerman and Martin got in a struggle that was fairly serious. Zimmerman started it, with no basis to do so, but it is unknowable whether it accelerated enough to justify Zimmerman's use of lethal force, which means Zimmerman can't be convicted of using lethal force wrongly. This is where I think things are, although the proof could go wildly differently here. Is the story "Zimmerman picked a fight?" or is it "Martin was pummeling Zimmerman, who responded to defend himself"?

3) Zimmerman acted as a vigilante and gunned Martin down.

In any of these positions, ordinary human reactions would cause Zimmerman to describe what he experienced in a way that supported his own interest, to a degree any objective observer would call distortion. That's what I'm expecting. It's not cynicism, exactly, i don't think.

Someday, you and I could have a very interesting discussion about how your profession and mine deal with client's self-presentation and the issue of truth. I've thought a lot about counseling and the problem of ratifying a client's POV (and have contempt for lawyers so wedded to that POV that they cease to be objective counselors, a problem that is really a serious problem in my profession).

It's a late hour. This discussion has exposed some issues that I've thought about a lot, and we should figure out a way to thrash them out....

[Dr X]

NMC,

That would be an interesting discussion, though a rather unwieldy one in relation to my field. The question of honesty changes depending upon the work I'm doing--formal evaluation or therapy--and, within each of those areas, there a variety conscious and unconscious motives for lies and half-lies along with the question of what I do with any patient commentary in terms of my regard for veracity.

Funny you bring this up. A couple of days ago, a defense attorney on local news was speaking in front of a courthouse about a client. I can't remember the case at the moment, but I remember that I found it very hard to believe in the innocence of the client. The attorney insisted that his is innocent in a way that sounded like he believed the client, though who knows. It occurred to me then that I've heard attorneys say that they're confident that their client will be exonerated at trial, which sounds less like a statement of the attorney's belief in actual innocence.