More Like this

1. Online movements reflect ongoing deliberation

   https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.19.608669  

   Calalo, Jan A; Ngo, Truc T; Sullivan, Seth R; Strand, Katy; Buggeln, John H; Lokesh, Rakshith; Roth, Adam M; Carter, Michael J; Kurtzer, Isaac L; Cashaback, Joshua GA (August 2024, bioRxiv)

   ABSTRACT From navigating a crowded hallway to skiing down a treacherous hill, humans are constantly making decisions while moving. Insightful past work has provided a glimpse of decision deliberation at the moment of movement onset. Yet it is unknown whether ongoing deliberation can be expressed during movement, following movement onset and prior to any decision. Here we tested the idea that an ongoing deliberation continually influences motor processes—prior to a decision—directing online movements. Over three experiments, we manipulated evidence to influence deliberation during movement. The deliberation process was manipulated by having participants observe evidence in the form of tokens that moved into a left or right target. Supporting our hypothesis we found that lateral hand movements reflected deliberation, prior to a decision. We also found that a deliberation urgency signal, which more heavily weighs later evidence, was fundamental to predicting decisions and explains past movement behaviour in a new light. Our paradigm promotes the expression of ongoing deliberation through movement, providing a powerful new window into understanding the interplay between decision and action. 

   more » « less
2. Citizen deliberation in the context of Uruguay's first National Water Plan

   https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2021.199  

   Lázaro, Marila; Bortagaray, Isabel; Trimble, Micaela; Zurbriggen, Cristina (April 2021, Water Policy)

   Abstract As part of the formulation of the first National Water Plan (NWP) in Uruguay, a mini-public process called ‘Citizen Deliberation on Water (Deci Agua)’ was developed in 2016. While the draft of the plan was being discussed in the formal arenas of water governance (Basin Commissions and Regional Water Resources Councils), a University research team (led by the authors), in coordination with the national water authority, adapted the mechanism of consensus conferences in order to incorporate the citizens’ visions and to contribute to public understanding of the NWP challenges. This article analyses the main aspects of the developed participation strategy and discusses them regarding a set of quality criteria used to evaluate deliberative processes. Although the final version of the NWP (passed by decree in 2017) incorporated some of the contributions of the Citizen Panel, an in-depth analysis of the scope of the deliberative process of Deci Agua allows us to delve into some key aspects related to the quality of participation processes and the challenges. A mixed approach that combines stakeholder participation and lay citizens is novel and desirable in water governance since it increases the scope of participation, deepens the legitimacy of decision-making and improves the public debate. 

   more » « less
3. Juror Scientific Reasoning Skills and Discussion of Scientific Evidence During Deliberation

   McCowan, K. (March 2020, Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract We investigate the link between individual differences in science reasoning skills and mock jurors’ deliberation behavior; specifically, how much they talk about the scientific evidence presented in a complicated, ecologically valid case during deliberation. Consistent with our preregistered hypothesis, mock jurors strong in scientific reasoning discussed the scientific evidence more during deliberation than those with weaker science reasoning skills. Summary With increasing frequency, legal disputes involve complex scientific information (Faigman et al., 2014; Federal Judicial Center, 2011; National Research Council, 2009). Yet people often have trouble consuming scientific information effectively (McAuliff et al., 2009; National Science Board, 2014; Resnick et al., 2016). Individual differences in reasoning styles and skills can affect how people comprehend complex evidence (e.g., Hans, Kaye, Dann, Farley, Alberston, 2011; McAuliff & Kovera, 2008). Recently, scholars have highlighted the importance of studying group deliberation contexts as well as individual decision contexts (Salerno & Diamond, 2010; Kovera, 2017). If individual differences influence how jurors understand scientific evidence, it invites questions about how these individual differences may affect the way jurors discuss science during group deliberations. The purpose of the current study was to examine how individual differences in the way people process scientific information affects the extent to which jurors discuss scientific evidence during deliberations. Methods We preregistered the data collection plan, sample size, and hypotheses on the Open Science Framework. Jury-eligible community participants (303 jurors across 50 juries) from Phoenix, AZ (Mage=37.4, SD=16.9; 58.8% female; 51.5% White, 23.7% Latinx, 9.9% African-American, 4.3% Asian) were paid $55 for a 3-hour mock jury study. Participants completed a set of individual questionnaires related to science reasoning skills and attitudes toward science prior to watching a 45-minute mock armed-robbery trial. The trial included various pieces of evidence and testimony, including forensic experts testifying about mitochondrial DNA evidence (mtDNA; based on Hans et al. 2011 materials). Participants were then given 45 minutes to deliberate. The deliberations were video recorded and transcribed to text for analysis. We analyzed the deliberation content for discussions related to the scientific evidence presented during trial. We hypothesized that those with stronger scientific and numeric reasoning skills, higher need for cognition, and more positive views towards science would discuss scientific evidence more than their counterparts during deliberation. Measures We measured Attitudes Toward Science (ATS) with indices of scientific promise and scientific reservations (Hans et al., 2011; originally developed by the National Science Board, 2004; 2006). We used Drummond and Fischhoff’s (2015) Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS) to measure scientific reasoning skills. Weller et al.’s (2012) Numeracy Scale (WNS) measured proficiency in reasoning with quantitative information. The NFC-Short Form (Cacioppo et al., 1984) measured need for cognition. Coding We identified verbal utterances related to the scientific evidence presented in court. For instance, references to DNA evidence in general (e.g. nuclear DNA being more conclusive than mtDNA), the database that was used to compare the DNA sample (e.g. the database size, how representative it was), exclusion rates (e.g. how many other people could not be excluded as a possible match), and the forensic DNA experts (e.g. how credible they were perceived). We used word count to operationalize the extent to which each juror discussed scientific information. First we calculated the total word count for each complete jury deliberation transcript. Based on the above coding scheme we determined the number of words each juror spent discussing scientific information. To compare across juries, we wanted to account for the differing length of deliberation; thus, we calculated each juror’s scientific deliberation word count as a proportion of their jury’s total word count. Results On average, jurors discussed the science for about 4% of their total deliberation (SD=4%, range 0-22%). We regressed proportion of the deliberation jurors spend discussing scientific information on the four individual difference measures (i.e., SRS, NFC, WNS, ATS). Using the adjusted R-squared, the measures significantly accounted for 5.5% of the variability in scientific information deliberation discussion, SE=0.04, F(4, 199)=3.93, p=0.004. When controlling for all other variables in the model, the Scientific Reasoning Scale was the only measure that remained significant, b=0.003, SE=0.001, t(203)=2.02, p=0.045. To analyze how much variability each measure accounted for, we performed a stepwise regression, with NFC entered at step 1, ATS entered at step 2, WNS entered at step 3, and SRS entered at step 4. At step 1, NFC accounted for 2.4% of the variability, F(1, 202)=5.95, p=0.02. At step 2, ATS did not significantly account for any additional variability. At step 3, WNS accounted for an additional 2.4% of variability, ΔF(1, 200)=5.02, p=0.03. Finally, at step 4, SRS significantly accounted for an additional 1.9% of variability in scientific information discussion, ΔF(1, 199)=4.06, p=0.045, total adjusted R-squared of 0.055. Discussion This study provides additional support for previous findings that scientific reasoning skills affect the way jurors comprehend and use scientific evidence. It expands on previous findings by suggesting that these individual differences also impact the way scientific evidence is discussed during juror deliberations. In addition, this study advances the literature by identifying Scientific Reasoning Skills as a potentially more robust explanatory individual differences variable than more well-studied constructs like Need for Cognition in jury research. Our next steps for this research, which we plan to present at AP-LS as part of this presentation, incudes further analysis of the deliberation content (e.g., not just the mention of, but the accuracy of the references to scientific evidence in discussion). We are currently coding this data with a software program called Noldus Observer XT, which will allow us to present more sophisticated results from this data during the presentation. Learning Objective: Participants will be able to describe how individual differences in scientific reasoning skills affect how much jurors discuss scientific evidence during deliberation. 

   more » « less
4. Friction Surfacing From Radial Surface of A6063 Aluminum Alloy Consumable Tool Onto A36 Carbon Steel

   Seidi, E.; Miller, S. (January 2020, Proceedings of the ASME 2020 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition)

   Friction surfacing is an advanced technique to create solid-state deposition of wide range of materials onto a similar or dissimilar material substrate. This paper describes the study of a novel method to deposit material onto a substrate by friction surfacing. In the friction surfacing technique, the heat is generated entirely by friction. This metallic deposition technique consists of a rotating consumable tool that rubs against the surface of the substrate, and due to the frictional heat and forging generated between the tool and substrate, material is deposited onto the substrate. The material transferred from the consumable tool to the substrate occurs from the side of the tool, while in the conventional friction surfacing method, the material transfer happens from the end of the tool. In this investigation, the single and double-pass deposition of A6063 aluminum alloy onto an A36 carbon steel substrate was successfully carried out. To study the influence of the process parameters on the friction depositions, the substrate was divided into three sections, while the applying forces were varied in each section. Process parameters such as tool rotational speeds, table traverse speeds and normal force were experimented. A customized JET JMD-18 milling machine was used to carry out the experiments. The influence of process parameters on the material deposition was characterized by means of roughness tester and optical microscope. The results of the study reveal that this novel method is capable to create an ultra-thin and smooth metallic deposition with excellent coverage. The material consumption during the single and double-pass deposition was evaluated, and the coating cross-section was assessed using the optical microscope. 

   more » « less
5. Thinking, good and bad? Deliberative thinking and the singularity effect in charitable giving.

   Moche, Hajdi; Gordon-Hecker, Tom; Kogut, Tehila; Vastfjall, Daniel (January 2022, Judgment and decision making)

   Can deliberation increase charitable giving when giving is impulsive (i.e., a one-time small gift in response to an immediate appeal)? We conduct two studies in Israel and Sweden to compare two forms of deliberation, unguided and guided, in their ability to decrease the singularity effect (i.e., giving more to one than many victims), often evident in impulsive giving. Under unguided deliberation, participants were instructed to simply think hard before making a donation decision whereas participants in the guided deliberation condition were asked to think how much different prespecified decision attributes should influence their decision. We find that both types of deliberation reduce the singularity effect, as people no longer value the single victim higher than the group of victims. Importantly, this is driven by donations being decreased under deliberation only to the single victim, but not the group of victims. Thus, deliberation affects donations negatively by overshadowing the affective response, especially in situations in which affect is greatest (i.e., to a single victim). Last, the results show that neither type of deliberation significantly reversed the singularity effect, as people did not help the group significantly more than the single victim. This means that deliberate thinking decreased the overall willingness to help, leading to a lower overall valuation of people in need. 

   more » « less