After reading the article, I learned the difference between high and low self-monitor as well as the traits. The trait of self-monitor includes an individual regulating their behavior to accommodate their surrounding in any events. For example, one might strategize and be observed in social events to fit in the situation. There are two type of self-monitor high and low monitors. Each have their own traits. High self-monitors will change their opinion or belief so they can adapt to their surroundings. I believe this is what make a good actor or trail lawyers as the article describe as well. Which completely make sense now, a trial lawyer will need to manage his internal feelings so it will not interfere with his external situation which for him will be a court …show more content…
room full of jury he needs to accommodate. A trial lawyer will evaluate his behavior to make his client feel comfortable which will reproduce positive results such as more cases, more client due to his likeness. Actors, lawyers, managers have different personas which makes flexible it easier for them to mold into any environment they are in. We can’t have low self-monitor manager or lawyer that will maintain his own opinion or behavior regardless of the setting. It is important to have high self- monitor managers as they need to be liked by other to have a successful business. We need high-self monitor lawyers or individual so they side and adapt to our belief or behavior.
A high self-monitors will be useful for events like this since they will plan and pay attention to details. This is one of their advantage. Low self-monitor individual won’t make good trial lawyers or manager, since they are not concern of other well-being or being formal. These individual will stand by their belief and will not tailor their behavior to fit the current social situation .One advantage for low self-monitors, being that they are consistent with themselves, they will act the same in most social events. Which I believe it’s important, you will be able to bond with them knowing them being themselves and not just to fit in the scene. I think it’s great how they will say it how they see it, which can be both helpful and harmful. After taking the self-monitoring scale test, my results showed I am a low self-monitor individual. Which I agree, I will not conform to the norms of society which is where it lead to the bad part of being low self-monitor. I will not compromise myself to a certain situation to make other comfortable, I will probably do otherwise. I can make a situation awkward or face
rejection.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
There are many things to learn from this article written by Donald Baer, Montrose Wolf, and Todd Risley. It is a very informing article in which you can learn about the current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. The seven dimensions mentioned are: applied, behavioral, analytic, technological, conceptually systematic, effective, and generality.
When 12 million citizens are arrested each year, this invites a great deal of stress into the lives of public defenders who are responsible for 180 to 200 cases at a time. I personally would never put myself in a work environment which lead my hair to fall out and anxiety to take over because my life was being threatened. The realization that people exist like that is daunting. One element that struck me most in the film was when Williams’ co-worker, Brandy Alexander, spoke about representing people who admit to the crime. I had a hard time processing how a father would pride himself in raping his own daughter. I actually rewound the movie because I thought my ears deceived me at the fact he would do it again given the opportunity. Representing a case in that capacity would break me mentally. It was well said that defenders must “go at war with the system even when the client is guilty”.
Does personality determine behavior? Phelps (2015) dived into this discussion in his article by reviewing the perspectives of personality, how psychology relates to behavior and the idea of self, and further, how behaviorists define personality and all of its components. Phelps (2015) compares and contrasts the common beliefs of personality and the view of self as attributed to personality theorists with those characterized by behavioral theorists. A typical understanding of personality is one that defines it as an internal substance that drives behavior, and therefore, by seeking to understand a person's personality we can almost assume their actions (Phelps, 2015). Behavioral theorists, on the other hand, do not lean on vague internal conditions to explain behavior, but rather they evaluate a person's past and present settings to define behavior, according to Phelps (2015). The conclusion is that behaviorists' perspectives on these topics are far more parsimonious in nature and most popular views of personality speak to a more internal and far-reaching position rather than the behavior itself (Phelps, 2015). Likewise, Phelps (2015) addresses the issue of meeting specific criteria for discerning whether a theoretical viewpoint is valid in helping us understand people. He continued to remark that behaviorists' stances meet a large portion of the criteria as presented by Gordon Allport (Phelps, 2015). For example, they have less assumptions, they are consistent, and not to mention, they are testable and falsifiable, Phelps (2015) supports. In my opinion and critical review, this article is useful because it provides an unbiased assessment of a variety of personality theories and definitions of personality and the self. Likewise, it is simple and easy to understand, thus qualifying it as parsimonious. Overall, I think the article did its ultimate job of evaluating different perspectives and
One of the main factors in wrongful convictions, tunnel vision, has been recognized by psychologist as a human tendency to quickly convict a suspect so that society feels safe. Although tunnel vision is seen as a natural instinct it can convict innocent individuals and weaken the criminal justice system . Jerome Frank, a judge in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals explored the causes of wrongful convictions and noted that in 36 cases tunnel vision was a significant factor in the conviction of innocent individuals. As demonstrated, tunnel vision is a prevalent factor and may affect cases resulting in judges and juries convicting wrong suspects. However, the human tendency towards tunnel vision is a distinctive feature of an individuals psychological characteristics. Psychologist view tunnel vision as the product of cognitive biases. These natural biases explain why tunnel vision is common even amongst respected legal enforcers and honest justice systems. Although tunnel vision is a common natural tendency, it can be altered and lead to the conviction of innocent individuals.In situations when a high profile case is
Jurors opinions can be influenced by an emotional testimony. Deborah W. Denno’s article Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, and the Criminal Justice System is the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law’s publication of a panel at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. The panel had three goals: “examine the interrelationship between neuroscience and substantive criminal law; to incorporate criminal procedure more directly into the examination in a way that past investigations have not done; and to scrutinize cognitive bias in decision-making,” (Denno
The criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent.
Weiss, M. S. (2005). A Study of Public Defender Motivations. In Public Defenders: Pragmatic and Political Motivations to Represent the Indigent (pp. 1-10). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/
It is with great pride and enthusiasm that I write to you today to express my intentions towards my future endeavors once graduating from your humble establishment with a degree in applied behavioral analysis. My intentions are to graduate from Saint Joseph 's University with a degree in applied behavioral analysis, then to proceed onto the next step in my career as a behavior specialist councilor, where I can help families through creating concrete goals and plans and models to measure these goals, as well as to ensure that parents are supplied with the resources required and an efficient team to help them.
Self-presentation deals with the social self, while dispositions deal with the nature of the social self. Self-presentation is presenting to others the person that we want them to believe that we are. Dispositions, on the other hand, are the internal factors that make up who we really are, including traits of neuroticism, which is described as anxious and emotionally unstable and impulsive. It appears that much of the public and political arena is baffled at Senator John McGee’s unusual behavior. What would cause him to behave the way he did and what factors came into play the night that lead to his arrest? In our research of Senator John McGee we will see signs of neuroticism exemplified in his disposition through his risky and impulsive behavior. We will also see self-presentation demonstrated as he tries to “save face” when he is arrested for grand auto theft and a DUI.
Applied behavior Analysis (ABA) is the scientific application of set principals of operant behavior that branch off of the behaviorism philosophical approach of behavior. The core principals of Applied Behavior Analysis are to target an individual’s behavior for change that has a real life application for the individual. Moreover, of Applied Behavior Analysis seeks to discover the environmental variables that influence the individual behavior while simultaneously demonstrates a functional relationship between the manipulated environmental behavior and the target behavior.
Spellman, B., & Busey, T. (2010). EMERGING TRENDS IN PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW RESEARCH: An editorial overview. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 141-141-2.
Some people say that by watching the court system in action, what once was very unknown and unfamiliar, has now become familiar and useful in helping people become more knowledgeable of what happens inside courtrooms. Most people have not been in a courtrooms and only have the perspective that T.V. gives to them. Now they are able to see what really goes on and now can better understand and relate.
“Self-concept consists of knowledge, views and evaluation of the self, ranging from miscellaneous facts of personal history to the identity that gives a sense of purpose and coherence to life” (McCrae and Costa, 1996). With self-concept, we learn who we are by observing ourselves and using our cognitive processes to judge and evaluate our behaviour. However, with self-regulation, we are able to use this knowledge and judgment and apply it to future situations and so predicts behaviour and says a lot about our personality. If we are willing to cognitively analyse past situations and apply it effectively to future situations, this means we are changing our behaviour, thus changing our