The Ecological Validity Essay Example

The Ecological Validity Paper Pennington and Hastie believed that jurors’ will construct a story to make sense of evidence and then return the verdict that has the ‘best fit’ with their story. P and H investigated whether the order of testimony had an effect on the jurors’ decisions. The sample used in this study consisted of 130 students from the University of Chicago.  The two story-telling strategies investigated in this study are; story order and witness order. Story order is when the Lawyers present evidence in the sequence that events occurred, and witness order is when lawyers present witnesses in the sequence they believe is most likely to persuade the jury (may not be the sequence in which the events occurred, also the benefits of primacy and recency effects are taken into account. Primacy effect is when for example out of a list of 10 words you are most likely to remember the first word; whereas the recency effect claims you are most likely to remember the last word. The study was a laboratory experiment, using independent groups design, with ps acting as jurors in a mock trial. The IV was the order of testimony and the DV was the verdict given. In individual cubicles ps listened to a tape recording of the stimulus trial and then responded to written questions. They were told to reach either a guilty or not guilty verdict on a murder charge. Ps were allocated to one of four conditions. In each condition, the same evidence was presented by the defence and prosecution, only the order of presentation changed (witness or story order). We will write a custom essay sample on The Ecological Validity specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on The Ecological Validity specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on The Ecological Validity specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The Results of the study showed that the prosecution were most likely to win (78% of guilty verdict) when they used story order and defence used witness order. Similarly, the defence were most likely to win when they used story order and the prosecution used witness order (only 31% guilty verdict).  Pennington and Hastie concluded that order of testimony does affect juror’s decisions. In particular, jurors are more easily persuaded by ‘story order’ than ‘witness order’. P and H also suggested that the reason why 80% of criminal court cases return guilty verdicts in the US is because prosecution lawyers tend to use story order and defence lawyers tend to use witness order. Lawyers use a variety of different techniques in order to persuade a jury, into convincing their client’s innocence. Various studies have been conducted into investigating the best techniques for persuading a jury, but the main issue with many of these studies is that they l ack ecological validity. The most common method used in studies investigating persuading a jury, is a laboratory experiment in the form of a mock trial. Mock trials are often used because, people outside of the jury are not allowed into the jury room due to confidentiality of the legal process. One of the main issues with the use of mock trials is that participants often make an individual decision concerning the verdict of the trial, and are sometimes even asked to give a rating of their belief of the defendant’s guilt. For example in Edwards and Bryan, both of these issues occur, each individual participant gives a verdict as well as a number of ratings concerning their beliefs about the defendant’s guilt or innocence and their views about an appropriate sentence. As in a real court case the jury is only asked to give a verdict of guilty of innocent, which is made in a group decision, the study lacks ecological validity. Another problem with using mock trials is that there is a lack of consequence, meaning the result/verdict given by the participants has no effect on the trial, as in Pennington and Hastie’s study on the effect of order of testimony on jurors’ decisions. Due to the lack of pressure of wrongfully committing someone of a crime/vice versa as well as the lack of emotional stress associated with serving on a jury in a court room. The study is said to lack ecological validity as it cannot be applied to the real world. Mock trials often present the evidence in various ways, for instance in Pennington and Hastie’s study, the evidence is presented to the participants in individual cubicles, where they listen to a tape recording of the stimulus trial. Another form in which evidence is presented is in Cutler, ps are shown a videotaped robbery trial and in Edwards and Bryan, ps are given a transcript of an actual murder trial in California. Although in Edwards and Bran the transcript is taken from an actual case, the study is still lacking in ecological validity as it is a very different way of gathering data on the trial through a transcript or videotape than it being presented by a lawyer in court. Often small unrepresentative samples are used due to the use of opportunity sampling. For example in Edwards and Bryan 74 university students are used, as they are all students, the sample is unrepresentative of a typical jury and therefore lowing the ecological validity of the study.  Another way in which persuading a jury, can be investigated is via â€Å"shadow jury†, this is an alternative to mock trials, and consists of a group of participants who â€Å"shadow† i.e. sit in on a case/trial and at the end come to a verdict themselves, and seeing if their opinions are conclusive with the juror’s. Although there are certain advantages to this method such as an improved ecological validity as the participants receive the same amount of evidence as a real jury, presented in a real manner. However the study still lacks ecological validity due to the lack of consequences, i.e. no pressure of wrongfully committing an innocent person and vice versa.  Overall research into persuading a jury is often very lacking in ecological validity due to the laboratory method often used in the form of a mock trial. As these studies have a very low ecological validity, the studies lack applicability to the real world and have low validity in results.

ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization. Business Conflict

ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization. Business Conflict Introduction Business conflicts are inevitable. Conflicts may range from small disagreements to big and costly disagreements. Sometimes, if left unattended, minor conflicts may easily become major conflicts, thereby creating devastating consequences for the parties involved.Advertising We will write a custom article sample on ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization. Business Conflict specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Businesses may suffer reputational damage, time and resource wastage, and the loss of future investment opportunities (among other ramifications) from business conflicts (Davis, 2012). To avoid these consequences, many businesses prefer to avoid conflict altogether, as opposed to solving them. However, some businesses are unsuccessful in doing so. The Trump Organization is one such entity that has failed to avoid conflict in the last decade. This article delves into the intrigues of a recently concluded dispute between th e organization and New York-based licensing firm, ALM Unlimited. This paper explains the details of the conflict, including the cost of the conflict, the resolution of the conflict, and the undertones of the disagreement. The Case Informed of its role in helping the flamboyant real estate developer, Donald Trump, to secure a lucrative clothing contract with Phillips-Van Heusen (PVH) Company, ALM Unlimited named the Trump Organization in a lawsuit for unlawful termination of remittances to its organization (Clarke, 2013). In its defense, the Trump Organization claimed it had wrongfully remitted payments to ALM Unlimited. The company also said its payment to ALM Unlimited was supposed to be a one-off payment (McCoy, 2011). Moreover, according to Donald Trump, ALM Unlimited played a minimal role in helping the Trump Organization to secure the multimillion-dollar contract with PVH. In his submissions at a New York court, Donald Trump revealed that his company had received above $3,000,0 00 in royalties from the contentious deal (Clarke, 2013).Advertising Looking for article on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Cost of the Conflict The cost of conflict is the amount of money a party aims to gain or lose from a business conflict. However, Davis (2012) says that when businesses are in conflict, the cost of the conflict often transcends the amount of money quoted in lawsuits, or the fees paid out to the lawyers. Instead, he says, â€Å"The financial and emotional effects, wasted time, and lost productivity of businesses and individuals contribute to the overall costs of conflict† (Davis, 2012, p. 32). An overexposure of conflict may further lead to more damages, especially when the warring parties have to do business with other companies. Observers have said that the conflict between the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited transcends the cost of litigation (McCoy, 2011). They argue that the Trump Organization largely bases its success from the strength of the â€Å"Trump† brand. Therefore, an overexposure of the brand to business conflict paints a bad picture for the company because it hurts the business. McCoy (2011) affirms this fact when he says overexposure is bad for business because other organizations will be hesitant to do business with a defamed brand. Despite the merit of these arguments, this paper acknowledges the importance of understanding conflict on a case-by-case basis. Stated differently, the business conflict between the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited presents unique dynamics that inform its cost of conflict. Concisely, based on the arguments advanced by the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited, the amount of contention was about $75,000 annually. This is the cost of the conflict. This figure comes from the amount of money paid by the Trump organization to ALM Unlimited (since the two parties started business). In detail, since the Trump organization entered into the clothing business with Phillips-Van Heusen, it has paid about $350,000 to ALM. The organization made these payments between 2004 and 2008 when it stopped the payments (this has been a four-year stretch).Advertising We will write a custom article sample on ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization. Business Conflict specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Based on calculations of the amount received by ALM international over the four-year stretch, the company wanted periodical payments of $75,000 annually. Resolution of Conflict Businesses choose to resolve conflicts in different ways. Some choose to resolve conflicts through personal agreements (business-to-business agreements); others choose to identify an arbitrator to mediate the conflict, while many businesses seek a legal solution to conflict resolution. The conflict between the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited ended through a legal solu tion. A Supreme Court judge, based in New York, ruled that the Trump Organization had no case to answer in the above-mentioned business conflict (Clarke, 2013). The judge sidestepped a sitting jury, which heard the case for close to a week, by issuing a direct order that dismissed the case because of lack of sufficient evidence to show that the two organizations had a binding contract. This ruling ended the four-year conflict. Conclusion It is often difficult to predict the ramifications of business conflicts, or their end. However, for ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization, their conflict was resolved through legal means, without any serious ramifications for any of the parties. The resolution of conflict through the courts should however be regarded as a last resort for doing so because less expensive and expeditious methods exist for solving such conflicts (outside courts). Arbitration is one example of an inexpensive and expeditious process for solving business conflicts. Non etheless, regardless of the nature or magnitude of business conflicts, they should be resolved expeditiously because delaying the conflict resolution process only worsens the outcome. References Clarke, K. (2013). The Donald Triumphs at Trial over Clothing Royalties. Web. Davis, P. (2012). A model for strategy implementation and conflict resolution in the franchise business. Strategy Leadership, 40(5), 32 – 38.Advertising Looking for article on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More McCoy, K. (2011). Donald Trump Faces Lawsuits over Business Deals. Web.