The Myth of Choice_ Personal Responsibility in a World of Limits - Kent Greenfield [93]
12. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (Orion Pictures Corp. 1991).
13. Benedict Carey, Brain Injury Said to Affect Moral Choices, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 22, 2007.
14. J.J. Thompson, The Trolley Problem, 94 YALE L. J. 1395 (1985). Another accessible treatment of the trolley car problem is in MICHAEL SANDEL, JUSTICE: WHAT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO? (2009).
15. Carey, supra. See also Nikhil Swaminathan, Kill One to Save Many? Brain Damage Makes Decision Easier, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Mar. 21, 2007.
16. For a host of resources on the Whitman killings, see the Whitman Archives of the Austin Statesman, available at http://www.statesman.com.
17. Rosen, supra.
18. Robin Nixon, The Bikini Effect Makes Men Impulsive, LiveScience.com, June 10, 2008; Bram Van Den Bergh, Siegfried Dewitte & Luk Warlop, Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Choice, 35 J. OF CONSUMER RESEARCH 85, 85–97 (2008).
19. Marcus, supra, at 75–77.
20. See Brian Knutson et al., Neural Predictors of Purchases, 53 NEURON, Jan. 4, 2007, 147–56. For a description of the results, see John Tierney, The Voices in My Head Say “Buy It!” Why Argue?, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 16, 2007. See also Scott Rick, Cynthia Cryder & George F. Loewenstein, Tightwads and Spendthrifts (June 28, 2007), available at http://ssrn.com; Alain Dagher, Shopping Centers in the Brain, NEURON (Previews) 7–8, Jan. 4, 2007.
21. Tierney, supra.
22. See Knutson, supra (“Together, these findings suggest that activation of distinct brain regions related to anticipation of gain and loss precedes and can be used to predict purchasing decisions.”)
23. Marcus, supra, at 8. Original study is M. G. Haselton & D. M. Buss, Error Management Theory: A New Perspective on Biases in Cross-Sex Mind Reading, 78 J. OF PERSONALITY AND SOC. PSYCHOL. 81 (2000).
24. Stephanie Saul, Gimme an Rx! Cheerleaders Pep Up Drug Sales, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 28, 2005.
25. Marcus, supra, at 49–50.
26. Raymond S. Nickerson, Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises, REV. OF GEN. PSYCHOL. 175 (1998).
27. Murray Webster, Jr. & James E. Driskell, Jr., Beauty as Status, 89 AMER. J. OF SOCIOLOGY, 140–65 (Jul., 1983). See also Carl Senior & Michael J. R. Butler et al., Interviewing Strategies in the Face of Beauty: A Psychophysiological Investigation into the Job Negotiation Process, 1118 ANNALS OF THE N.Y. ACAD. OF SCIENCES, 142–62 (Nov. 2007) (finding that the attractiveness of interviewees can significantly bias outcome in hiring practices, showing a clear distinction between the attractive and average-looking interviewees in terms of high- and low-status job packages offered); NANCY ETCOFF, SURVIVAL OF THE PRETTIEST: THE SCIENCE OF BEAUTY (1999); Carey, supra, at 42; for more on the halo effect, see Richard E. Nisbett & Timothy DeCamp Wilson, The Halo Effect: Evidence for Unconscious Alteration of Judgments, 35 J. OF PERSONALITY AND SOC. PSYCHOL. 250, 250–56 (1977); Daniel S. Hamermesh & Jeff E. Biddle, Beauty and the Labor Market, 84 AMER. ECON. REV. 1174, 1174–94 (Dec. 1994); Jessica Bennett, The Beauty Advantage, NEWSWEEK, July 19, 2010 (“Asked to rank employee attributes in order of importance . . . [hiring] managers placed looks above education: of nine character traits, it came in third, below experience (No. 1) and confidence (No. 2) but above ‘where a candidate went to school’ (No. 4).”); Stephen Ceci & Justin Gunnell, When Emotionality Trumps Reason, forthcoming in BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AND THE LAW, summary available at http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May10/AttractivenessStudy.html (finding that unattractive defendants tend