The Sean Bell case

On April 25, the three NYPD detectives charged in the death of Sean Bell were all acquitted. Much debate has arisen as a result of this verdict—any time 50 shots are fired at an unarmed man, questions are going to arise as to how they can still be allowed to walk the streets.

The fact that Sean Bell was black brought a new dimension to an already complicated case. The NYPD has come under scrutiny in recent years and has had trouble shedding its reputation as a racist, trigger-happy unit. After the shooting death of Amadou Diallo in 1999, incidents such as Sean Bell’s have been widely analyzed as case studies in prejudice and racism.

Following the acquittal of the three detectives, many have made calls for protests. A peaceful protest in Harlem took place two days after the verdict was announced. The Reverend Al Sharpton urged protesters to take to the streets and engage in civil disobedience, marches, and boycotts. He promised that New Yorkers would "see some mobilization they have never seen." As a representative to the Bell family, Sharpton strives to help the advancement of the black community.

As these protests unfold, the underlying assumption is that the three detectives were motivated by race when they unloaded 50 rounds on Bell and his companions on that night in November 2006. A closer examination of the situation, however, would suggest that this might be not sufficiently explain why the events of that night unfolded the way they did.

Any given action that a person carries out can be the result of internal factors, external factors, or a combination of the two. In trying to explain these actions, we make attributions, which are explanations for people’s behaviors or for events in general. Essentially, we are asking why a person acted the way they did. We must ask ourselves whether they did so because of temporary, situational conditions (external) or because of stable characteristics (internal). Did something about the situation bring about a certain behavior, or was it the person’s own personality, thoughts, and cognitive processes?

Attributions are an essential piece of social psychology because, when made correctly, they can help us predict future behaviors. Unfortunately, our attributions are not always accurate. We are very vulnerable to the actor-observer bias, which is the tendency for those involved in the situation to make external attributions and for observers to make internal attributions. When a kicker misses a field goal, he is likely to believe that the wind, the distance, and the opposing defense all combined to send the ball wide left. Meanwhile, an observing fan infers that the kicker is just plain bad at his job.

Under the heading of the actor-observer bias is the fundamental attribution error. This concept focuses on the observer side of the actor-observer bias. It maintains that we are much more likely to attribute other people’s behavior to internal factors rather than external ones.

When we discuss the Sean Bell case as a race crime, it is possible that we are making the fundamental attribution error. As it was presented in court, the evidence suggests that detectives’ motives in shooting Sean Bell were those of hatred or discrimination, but of the nature of the situation they were in. It seems that several external factors played key roles in determining the detectives’ behavior.

The detectives were present at the night club as part of an undercover operation that stemmed from complaints of guns, drugs, and prostitution. One would have to assume that such a situation would be characterized by pressure, tension, and fear. When an argument broke out outside the club and one of the men involved used the phrase, “get my gun,” the situation escalated and the detectives were immediately put on edge. And when Bell tried to flee and, in doing so, struck one of the detectives with his car, the situation quickly spiraled out of control.

While we don’t know what the each of the three detective’s internal state truly is or was at the time of the tragedy, to assume it is characterized by racism is an instance of fundamental attribution error. As in any situation, both the internal and external factors must be studied carefully before attributions can be made.

Sources: Newsday, 4/30/08; The New York Times, 4/28/08; The New York Times, 4/26/08; CNN.com, 4/26/08

Jenny McCarthy and the autism myth

Autism is a neurological disorder that affects approximately three to six out of every 1,000 children. While its cause is still unknown, scientists believe that genetics play a key role. A number have genes associated with autism have been identified, and studies suggest that some people have a genetic predisposition for the disorder. Families with one autistic child are at much greater risk of having a second child be diagnosed with autism—and among identical twins in which one is autistic, the chance of the second twin being autistic is greater than 50-50.

In 1998, an uncontrolled study of several autistic children suggested that required vaccinations administered to children could play a role in the onset of autism. Its conclusions were refuted by scientists, however, and were later retracted. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintains that there is no evidence of harm brought about such vaccinations.

Despite this, and despite overwhelming evidence that autism stems from genetics, parents of autistic children have begun pointing to vaccinations as the cause of their kids’ autism. Celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy have hopped on the bandwagon too. The actress, whose son is autistic, recently appeared on Larry King Live and held a discussion with three pediatricians who refuted her claims. Still, she managed to plant doubts in many people’s heads. Several days ago, concerned parents on Long Island approached Nassau County legislators in an effort to pass a “philosophical exemption” law that would allow some children to skip the required immunizations.

Why do these parents ignore some pieces of evidence and cling to others? Do they believe they are smarter than the scientists? Why are they willing to risk leaving their children vulnerable to contagious diseases? Is Jenny McCarthy really the person we should be relying on to provide us with scientific data? They’re all important questions that can be taken on from a social psychological perspective.

When we look at it from a social psychological standpoint, it becomes easier to understand how these parents could come to such conclusions. In any given situation, the information available to us for judgment is usually deceptive or difficult to understand. A lot of the time, it is also unrepresentative or biased in some way. Another problem is that, typically, not all the information we need to make an accurate judgment is present.

One way of collecting information is through anecdotal evidence—personal information that we gather in an unsystematic fashion. This is information is experienced and absorbed by us firsthand. While this information is highly salient and usually fairly easy to remember, this does not imply that it is accurate. In Jenny McCarthy’s case, for example, she remembers that her son was vaccinated at around the same time his autistic symptoms first appeared. In her mind, the experience of taking her child in for his vaccinations—an experience that already had a bad stigma in her mind, as it can be traumatizing for both parent and child—is directly tied to her memory of the onset of his symptoms. They both occurred around the same time, they were both bad—surely, they must be related. This type of reasoning led McCarthy to establish a causal link where there should be none. She was even quoted as saying, “I believe that parents’ anecdotal information is science-based information.” Jenny clearly had trouble waking up for her 9am social psych class.

But what first gave McCarthy the idea that these vaccinations were the cause? And why do so many parents follow her lead? One theory is the confirmation bias—the tendency to seek out information that confirms our beliefs and disregard information that refutes it. When the results of the original vaccination study first broke, McCarthy finally had the answer she was looking for—her son’s autism had been solved. Since then, she has managed to gather a following of parents who follow the same line of reasoning. It becomes considerably easier for them to ignore the scientific evidence disconfirming their beliefs when there is a plethora of information being produced—reliable or not—that supports their claims.

Sources: Newsday, 4/29/08; USA Today, 4/16/08

The Martin Tankleff case

In September 1988, Martin Tankleff’s parents were murdered in the middle of the night in their upscale Long Island home. Tankleff was an immediate suspect—detectives pointed to spite towards his parents and his desire to collect a $3 million inheritance as motives. There was little physical evidence pointing to him as the killer, but he was eventually convicted after a being the subject of an unorthodox method of interrogation.
While being questioned following the murders, a detective pretended to receive a call saying that Seymour Tankleff, Martin’s father, had awoken from his coma and had named Martin as the attacker (in reality, Seymour never recovered from his coma before dying a month later). Tankleff initially refuted the claim and said his father must have been confused. He offered to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence. After further interrogation, however, Tankleff broke down and asked the detectives if it was possible that he needed psychological help, and whether it was possible that he had committed to murders himself while “blacked out.” He then proceeded to admit to harboring feelings of resentment towards his parents, and said that these feelings led him to commit the crimes. Tankleff never signed a written confession, but he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to fifty years in prison.

Tankleff maintained his innocence throughout his time in prison. Over the next several years, he proceeded to file several appeals for a new trial. When it was revealed that evidence regarding other suspects had previously been withheld, a new trial was ordered and Tankleff was released last December, after spending 17 years behind bars. He is now awaiting a new trial.

Martin Tankleff’s release from prison brings about an obvious question: if he is truly innocent, then why did he confess to the murders? Social psychology can help answer this question by means of the topic of self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is information we know about ourselves. We obtain knowledge of ourselves through, among other things, socialization, introspection, social comparison, and feedback from others.

Unfortunately, the introspection aspect of self-knowledge can often bring about problems. In examining our own thoughts and feelings, we don’t always fully understand the reasons we do the things we do. Sometimes this introspection can complicate matters, as we might misattribute the motives behind our behaviors. We actually know much less about ourselves than we tend to believe.

Our self-knowledge is so limited, in fact, that even autobiographical information can be manipulated. Our personal memories—those which define our lives and shape who we are—are vulnerable to biases, errors, and, as in this case, confabulations. When Tankleff was told that his father had identified him as the attacker, Martin noted that his father had never lied to him. He began to rationalize the motives behind such an attack, pointing out that he felt resentment towards his parents. They were smothering him, he said, and should have allowed him to drive a nicer car. Upon further consideration, he even determined that his mother’s request that he set up a card table for her the night before the murders must have been the last straw.

If Martin Tankleff really is innocent, he perfectly illustrates the problems that come with the limits of our self-knowledge. What began as a detective’s lie was manifested into a completely false memory within Tankleff’s mind. Martin Tankleff’s case truly exemplifies just how limited our self-knowledge really is.

Sources: Newsday 4/24/08, Newsday 12/22/07, CNN.com 10/3/03, Newsday 3/9/89

Slain Navy Seal receives Medal of Honor

Last week, President Bush posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor to Petty Officer Michael A. Monsoor, who died in Iraq in September 2006. Petty Officer Monsoor, a member of the Navy Seals, was killed when he threw his body on a live grenade in order to save his comrades. Monsoor was on a rooftop with a sniper team that included two other members of the Navy Seals and three Iraqi Army solders. When the insurgents below began to attack, a grenade was lobbed onto the roof and struck Monsoor in the chest before falling at his feet. Monsoor threw himself on the grenade and absorbed the blast with his body, saving the lives of his five comrades.

Petty Officer Monsoor’s actions are a perfect example of prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior is defined as behavior that benefits others but has no obvious benefit to the individual that carries it out. Monsoor’s actions were certainly beneficial to the people around him, yet had no apparent benefit to Monsoor himself. In this case, not only was the behavior not beneficial to the person who carried it out, but it also carried with it enormous costs.

One could make the argument that Petty Officer Monsoor’s actions were motivated by pure altruism. While some believe that there is no such thing as true altruism, and that all actions are egoistic at their core, one would be hard-pressed to make that argument here. Monsoor did not dive on the grenade for his own benefit—to feel better about himself, for an adrenaline rush, or anything of that nature. The only benefiters in this situation were the five people whose lives Monsoor saved.

Batson would likely say that empathy was a key factor in Monsoor’s split-second decision. Batson’s empathy-altruism hypothesis maintains that the motivation behind some actions is truly altruistic, and that empathy is necessary for such an action to be carried out. On the battlefield, it could be assumed that each soldier has very high levels of empathy towards his fellow comrades. They have trained together and worked in unison, and are now united against a common enemy. Petty Officer Monsoor’s empathy likely played a role in triggering his truly altruistic actions. His sacrifice was an example of prosocial behavior in its rawest form.

Source: The New York Times, 4/9/08