Four experiments examined the hypothesis that perspective taking with a defendant would lead to greater empathy, which would mediate lowered perceptions of culpability, with lowered culpability mediating a lower probability of guilt and recidivism. Experiments 1 and 2 established that perspective taking leads to a lower probability of guilty verdicts and recidivism, mediated by a decreased perception of the defendant's culpability. Experiment 2 showed that it does so by increasing empathy. Experiment 3 showed that perspective taking also heightens the perception of culpability through increased empathy for the victim. Experiment 4 showed that decreased culpability is in part driven by leniency, which is also a function of empathy. We tie our findings into other research investigating links between empathy and perspective taking.

To conduct sound research on organizational teams while overcoming the difficulties inherent in studying teams in situ, it is essential for researchers to consider all possible methodologies at their disposal. However, in the science of teams, published research is primarily driven by a positivist paradigm and quantitative methodology. This research offers an important perspective but fails to capitalize on the wide array of paradigms and methodologies outside of this perspective. Accordingly, we advocate for a pluralistic approach to studying real-world teams that utilizes qualitative methodologies to complement and enhance quantitative findings. We summarize philosophical assumptions, research paradigms, and qualitative methodologies not commonly used in research on teams. We then highlight existing qualitative research within several exemplar topic areas (team conflict, membership change, team adaptation, shared leadership, and inclusion in teams) and offer propositions for how qualitative methodologies can be used to develop a better understanding of real teams in organizations.

Background Trust in healthcare providers is associated with important outcomes, but has primarily been assessed in the outpatient setting. It is largely unknown how hospitalized patients conceptualize trust in their providers. Objective To examine the dimensionality of a measure of trust in the inpatient setting. Design Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Participants Hospitalized patients ( N = 1756; 76% response rate) across six hospitals in the midwestern USA. The sample was randomly split such that approximately one half was used in the EFA, and the other half in the CFA. Main Measures The Trust in Physician Scale, adapted for inpatient care. Key Results Based on the Kaiser-Guttman criterion and parallel analysis, EFAs were inconclusive, indicating that trust may be comprised of either one or two factors in this sample. In follow-up CFAs, a 2-factor model fit best based on a chi-squared difference test (Δχ 2 = 151.48(1), p < .001) and a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) difference test (CFI difference = .03). The overall fit for the 2-factor CFA model was good (χ 2 = 293.56, df = 43, p < .01; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .081 [90% confidence interval = .072–.090]; TLI = .93; SRMR = .04). Items loaded onto two factors related to cognitive (i.e., whether patients view providers as competent) and affective (i.e., whether patients view that providers care for them) dimensions of trust. Conclusions While measures of trust in the outpatient setting have been validated as unidimensional, in the inpatient setting, trust appears to be composed of two factors: cognitive and affective trust. This provides initial evidence that inpatient providers may need to work to ensure patients see them as both competent and caring in order to gain their trust.

No abstract

No abstract