Toward a psychology of harm reduction.

This article discusses 3 different strategies for dealing with the harmful consequences of drug use and other risky behaviors: We can discourage people from engaging in the behavior (prevalence reduction), we can encourage people to reduce the frequency or extent of the behavior (quantity reduction), or we can try to reduce the harmful consequences of the behavior when it occurs (harm reduction). These strategies are not mutually exclusive; this article offers a framework for integrating them. The framework is useful for examining frequent claims that harm reduction "sends the wrong message." Opposition to harm reduction is based in part on a recognition of potential trade-offs among the strategies, but it is also fueled by several more symbolic psychological factors. Strategies for successfully integrating prevalence reduction, quantity reduction, and harm reduction are explored. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups.

The relative susceptibility of individuals and groups to systematic judgmental biases is considered. An overview of the relevant empirical literature reveals no clear or general pattern. However, a theoretical analysis employing J. H. Davis's (1973) social decision scheme (SDS) model reveals that the relative magnitude of individual and group bias depends upon several factors, including group size, initial individual judgment, the magnitude of bias among individuals, the type of bias, and most of all, the group-judgment process. It is concluded that there can be no simple answer to the question, "Which are more biased, individuals or groups?," but the SDS model offers a framework for specifying some of the conditions under which individuals are both more and less biased than groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency.

Investigators have frequently noted a leniency bias in mock jury research, in which deliberation appears to induce greater leniency in criminal mock jurors. One manifestation of this bias, the asymmetry effect, suggests that proacquittal factions are more influential than proconviction factions of comparable size. A meta-analysis indicated that these asymmetry effects are reliable across a variety of experimental contexts. Exp I examined the possibility that the leniency bias is restricted to the typical college-student subject population. The decisions of college-student and community mock jurors in groups beginning deliberation with equal faction sizes (viz., 2:2) were compared. The magnitude of the asymmetry effect did not differ between the two populations. In Exp II, Ss received either reasonable-doubt or preponderance-of-evidence instructions. After providing initial verdict preferences, some Ss deliberated in groups composed with an initial 2:2 split, whereas other Ss privately generated arguments for each verdict option. A significant asymmetry was found for groups in the reasonable-doubt condition, but group verdicts were symmetrical under the preponderance-of-evidence instructions. Shifts toward leniency in individual verdict preferences occurred for group members, but not for subjects who performed the argument-generation task. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation.

612 undergraduates in 15 same-sex groups of 3, 6, or 12 Ss participated in mock jury deliberations over 9 armed robbery cases, and both individual and group verdicts were obtained, to test the predictions that larger juries would hang more often, particularly for close cases, and that secret polling would lead to fewer hung juries than open polling. It is asserted that failures to confirm these predictions in previous studies were probably due to inadequate sample sizes or to insufficiently close cases; the present study minimized these problems. Social decision scheme and social transition scheme analyses permitted comparisons of the decision-making processes of the different-sized mock juries, and jury groups used either secret written ballots or a show of hands for polling. Results show that, as group size increased, the observed probability of a hung jury significantly increased. No process differences between 6- and 12-person groups were detected, but 3-person groups exhibited several process differences in comparison to both larger groups. When cases were close, the likelihood of a hung jury for typically sized juries was found to be lower when the group was polled by secret ballot than when a show-of-hands was used. (49 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What harm reduction is and isn't.

Replies to the comments by D. Cadogan (see record 1999-11644-010) and K. Resnicow and E. Drucker (see record 1999-11644-011) on the present author's article (see record 1998-11971-003) which examined 3 strategies for dealing with the harmful consequences of drug use and risky behaviors. The author clarifies some misunderstandings and highlights recent developments in the psychology of harm reduction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Drugs and the law: A psychological analysis of drug prohibition.

There is an ongoing American policy debate about the appropriate legal status for psychoactive drugs. Prohibition, decriminalization, and legalization positions are all premised on assumptions about the behavioral effects of drug laws. What is actually known and not known about these effects is reviewed. Rational-choice models of legal compliance suggest that criminalization reduces use through restricted drug availability, increased drug prices, and the deterrent effect of the risk of punishment. Research on these effects illustrates the need for a more realistic perspective that acknowledges the limitations of human rationality and the importance of moral reasoning and informal social control factors. There are at least 7 different mechanisms by which the law influences drug use, some of which are unintended and counterproductive. This framework is used to explore the potential behavioral effects of decriminalization and legalization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Suspicion in the psychological laboratory: Kelman's prophecy revisited.

Describes the spontaneous occurrence, during an experimental session, of an epileptic seizure experienced by 1 S. Three of the remaining 5 Ss suspected the seizure was part of the experiment; implications are discussed in terms of H. C. Kelman's (see record 1967-03722-001) suggestion that the frequent use of deception in social psychological experimentation creates Ss who enter the laboratory expecting to be deceived and are unlikely to react to the experimental context in a natural way. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)