ILNews

DTCI: Perception and psychology shape interactions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI-Tyra-Kevin.jpgMy friend, colleague, sometime-adversary and fellow DTCI board member, Phil Kalamaros, recently wrote a thought-provoking column regarding civility (Indiana Lawyer, May 8, 2013). As I understood Phil’s point, as much as “civility” is a worthy goal, the more important goal is for all of us to avoid the kinds of egregious behaviors that may provoke an “uncivil” response.

I’d like to take Phil’s column a step further and consider how perception and psychology shape interactions in general, and interactions among adverse lawyers in particular. An op-ed piece in the New York Times by Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert, “He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn’t” (nytimes.com, July 24, 2006), is very enlightening in this regard.

Gilbert explained two principles of human interaction leading to conflict. First, people tend to focus on the consequences of another person’s negative behavior, but when they themselves behave badly, they focus only on their reasons for behaving that way. That is “[f]irst, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people’s actions, but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others.”

As a result, it is human nature for a person to disregard why the other person engaged in certain behavior, and only consider the negative effect of that behavior. Meanwhile, that same person will focus more on why he engaged in certain behavior (typically along the lines of “Well, he started it!”) more than the effect his behavior will have on others.

Gilbert described a study in which volunteers played the roles of world leaders debating whether to initiate a nuclear strike. When later shown transcripts of his own statements, the participant naturally remembered what had led him to say them, but when shown transcripts of the other person’s statements, the participant naturally remembered how he himself responded to them.

Gilbert’s second principle was that the retaliating person tends to escalate the retaliation while believing the retaliation is proportionate to the provocation.

A study demonstrating this second principle hooked up pairs of volunteers to a machine that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer’s fingers. The researcher began by exerting pressure on the first volunteer’s finger, then asked the first volunteer to exert the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer. The researcher then asked the second volunteer to exert on the first volunteer’s finger the same amount of pressure he had just experienced.

Although each volunteer made a good-faith effort to apply equal pressure, the pressure each volunteer exerted was consistently 40 percent greater than the pressure the volunteer had just experienced. Gilbert described this as “a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received.”

He concludes that “[t]his leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.”

So how can we apply these lessons to how we interact with others, and how we might live up to our obligation to be civil lawyers?

Under the professor’s analysis, we have to admit that civility is a matter of swimming upstream against human nature. It requires an understanding of our own natures as well as that of others. Simply resolving to be “civil” is not enough if we do not recognize these “neurological quirks.”

I therefore suggest that whenever any of us encounters behavior by an opponent we find upsetting and even offensive, we should attempt to do two things that perhaps do not come naturally.

First, take a minute to try to understand why your opponent engaged in this behavior. Was there some provocation or some other explanation (whether it truly justifies the behavior) that puts the behavior in a more reasonable perspective, and therefore perhaps less offensive? Certainly, the end result of your analysis may be that there is no justification at all, and your opponent is simply a jerk. But you may be surprised at the number of instances in which the behavior does not seem so bad after you engaged in this exercise.

Second, take another minute to consider the effect and proportionality of your response to your opponent’s behavior, and indeed whether you should respond at all. Just as you may still conclude from the first analysis that your opponent’s behavior was that of an inexcusable jerk, it is also possible you may conclude in this analysis that your opponent’s behavior was so outrageous that it requires a pointed response, especially if your opponent’s behavior prejudices your case. But, again, you may be surprised at the number of instances in which you consciously temper your response and thereby advance the cause of civility.•

__________

Kevin C. Tyra is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana and the principal of The Tyra Law Firm P.C. in Indianapolis. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT