Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Repeatedly seeing headlines of wrongdoing reduces perception of moral offense

A study recently published in Psychological Science reveals that when people repeatedly encounter headlines about corporate wrongdoing, they view the wrongdoing as less unethical and are more likely to believe the headlines are true. Social media can cause scandalous news to go viral in an instant, and the resharing of provocative headlines ensures people repeatedly encounter these scandals. To test the effects of this repetition on moral judgement, researchers at Vanderbilt Peabody College of education and human development and the London Business School sent text messages to study participants with news headlines about corporate misconduct. The study occurred over the course of 15 days as participants engaged in their daily routines. “We often think about social media and the current digital media landscape as increasing our anger and moral outrage, but in this case, repeated exposures to corporate wrongdoings actually made people slightly less outraged about the moral offense,” said Lisa Fazio, associate professor of psychology and human development. “When we repeatedly see news of the latest viral wrongdoing on social media, we often encounter it passively, at random times of the day, and while we might be distracted by other tasks. In our research, we show that even passing encounters can shape our thoughts and emotional reactions,” said Raunak Pillai, the study’s first author and a psychology doctoral student in Fazio’s Building Knowledge Lab. The researchers found that participants rated repeated headlines of wrongdoing as significantly less unethical than new headlines–a phenomenon known as the moral repetition effect–and that participants’ anger diminished when they encountered wrongdoings described in repeated headlines versus new headlines. The less anger they felt, the less unethical they judged the wrongdoing. Likewise, wrongdoings in repeated headlines verses new headlines were rated as less unusual, which also led to judging the wrongdoing as less unethical. That said, the effect size of repetition on moral judgement diminished as participants encountered more headlines; in other words, the effects were larger from the first to the second encounter as compared to the 15th to 16th encounter. As the number of repetitions increased, the effect on moral judgement became progressively smaller. Additionally, the more frequently participants viewed a headline, the truer they thought it was (known as the illusory-truth effect). After the initial views of headlines, participants’ truth ratings rose sharply and then plateaued, suggesting that the first few encounters with a headline have the most impact on peoples’ beliefs. The findings also suggest that perceptions of misconduct as true may elicit a more lenient moral judgment, but the authors say more research is needed to confirm this effect. “The more we hear about a wrongdoing, the more we may believe it—but the less we may care,” the authors write. Fazio and Pillai collaborated with Daniel Effron, Ph.D., from the London Business School on this study.

When Our Feelings Become Physical: Understanding Our Bodily Responses To Emotion

Alicia Walf is a neuroscientist and senior lecturer at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute whose research interests are fueled by the broad question: Why are there individual differences in stress? This question led to studying hormones' actions for growth and plasticity in the brain and body. She has since refined her pursuit to include consideration of body, brain, and mind relationships as they relate to memory, perception, social cognition, and emotions. Dr. Walf has taken a cross-species and cross-discipline approach in her work. Dr. Walf’s studies of the effects and mechanisms of stress and well-being often occur in the “wild,” such as in architectural built environments, artistic installations, interactions with technology, contemplative practices, conference rooms, and classrooms. Here, Walf examines what we know and what we have yet to learn about the physical manifestations of our emotions. Over 100 years ago, the earliest ponderings of how feelings are reflected in our body were described. Also, several decades ago, the first personality associated with an intense stress response was Type A personality. This personality type is characterized by quickness to anger and competitive drive as well as the negative consequences of chronic stress on the cardiovascular system. Recent work in mice shows that increasing heart rate produces an anxiety-like state (Hsueh et al., 2023, Nature). Now, a focus is trying to link changes in the body with feelings to brain mechanisms. Even after all of these years of study, we do not fully understand if there is a signature bodily response associated with specific feelings. For example, both anger and love (and other feelings that have been studied like jealousy) are associated with changes in the body that look indistinguishable from stress. The heart beat quickens, the eyes widen and the pupils become larger, blood rushes to the muscles and surface of the body. As surface body temperature and blood flow rises with these changes, a blush may become apparent on our cheeks. Indeed, a study showed that people have similar responses in describing which areas of the body are activated or deactivated in different emotional states; that is, where they feel these emotions in their body (Nummenmaa et al., 2013, PNAS). In this study, people said that love most greatly activated the head and trunk, whereas anger’s activation of the body was more focused on the head, arms, and chest. We can agree that love and anger – and all the strong feelings we have – mentally feel quite different from each other and we also have different behaviors. Those differences are likely due to a cognitive component, or how we assess the current situation in relation to what we know and our past experiences. Neuroscientists would argue that there are likely different brain circuits active in an angry and love state (and others), but those precise mechanisms are yet to be figured out. To date, we understand that feelings of love activate a reward pathway. Neurochemical differences may also play a role. For example, release of dopamine in this reward pathway and oxytocin in areas involved in social bonding are tied to love. The challenge of understanding the links between these expressions of emotions in the body to the mechanisms in our brain remains. Walf is available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

UConn Expert Weighs In On 'What Drives a Black Mass Shooter?'

“We would be missing a critical moment," says Dr. Wizdom Powell, "for us to look at the systems that we have set up and ask ourselves, are we serving every person who has a mental health need well, and if we’re not, what are we going to do about it?” Director of the Health Disparities Institute and associate professor of psychiatry at UConn Health, Dr. Powell studies the impact of modern racism and gender norms on African American male health outcomes and healthcare inequities. In a recent interview with the Amsterdam News following a mass shooting incident involving an alleged Black suspect, Dr. Powell weighed in the ways in which implicit racism can frame how law enforcement classifies shootings, the importance of deconstructing harmful racial and gender stereotypes, and the delivery of mental health services to communities and individuals in need: “When you call something gang violence, I think people’s empathy goes down to zero because they think those people are killing themselves,” said Powell. “You know, it’s their problem. Nevermind the victims.” Powell said that in the event of a mass shooting incident there is usually a “sympathy” conveyed for a person as a “complicated human” as opposed to a person of color who was involved in a gang shooting. “When do you get a full picture of that person? Who they were as a child, all of the traumas they experienced, their lack of resources,” said Powell. Powell thinks there’s a conflation in general between individuals who are mentally ill and those who commit mass shootings. She said mass shootings are a massive public health crisis with many factors contributing, with mental illness being one of many. ********** Powell said that the emotionality or interior lives of Black men are always spoken about with an undue amount of concentrated attention on their anger. She strives to deconstruct the stereotype of the ‘angry Black male.’ She said that there is a prevailing presumption that anger is somehow bad or pathological when it’s actually a legitimate response to emotional suffering and injustice. So when an incident that fits the stereotype of the ‘angry Black male’ occurs, people hyper focus on it because it confirms their bias. “I think there is a disproportionality in our reporting about these incidents by race,” said Powell, “we also tend to paint the picture of these shooters more sympathetically, when the shooters are non-Hispanic white males as opposed to males from other socially marginalized groups.” In the 1960s, said Powell, there was a shift in the way that the field of psychology and psychiatry viewed Black men and their symptomatology while civil rights protests were erupting around the country. Prior to the ’60s “middle class, white housewives” were diagnosed with schizophrenia more often, but there was a sharp uptick among Black males afterwards. “Again, reminiscent of an earlier time where Black people’s quest for liberation was pathologized,” said Powell. Powell said that health and science is still at the “tip of the iceberg” in identifying symptoms of depression in Black men. She said her studies have found that societal racism or experiencing racism or secondary traumas of racial reckoning is definitively at the root of Black and Brown male depression. Dr. Powell is available to speak with media – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

A Highly Skilled Healthcare Workforce Could Be in Jeopardy From COVID-19

While all healthcare professionals have stepped up during the COVID-19 pandemic and are essential to providing quality care, registered nurses are with patients 24/7 and provide essential, consistent surveillance, often being the first to take immediate action and alert colleagues in order to save patients. “I cannot stress enough that it is not about beds and space, it is about having a high-quality and properly educated workforce to care for the patients in those beds and spaces,” says Donna Havens, PhD, RN, FAAN, Connelly Endowed Dean and Professor of the M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing, who adds that the process depends on a highly skilled workforce. Though in some cases, because of the growing shortage across the nation during the pandemic, members of the workforce may not have the skills or experience to care for patients in the settings in which they may have been placed during the pandemic. Nurses who typically work in one particular clinical setting, e.g., pediatrics, may now be asked to provide care to adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with very little education, if any, regarding the particulars of caring for this population. This may impact the quality of care—as well as increase distress and burnout among the workforce. The number of hospitalized patients is growing exponentially each day, and the healthcare workforce is expressing growing concern, distress, disappointment and anger about the numerous issues and challenges within the healthcare settings—as well as in regard to the general population disregarding healthcare experts’ and scientists’ guidance to adhere to practices that will mitigate the spread of the virus. Media coverage is articulating the workforce’s dismay and their calls for help—because they are tired, burned out and facing a struggle to go to work. While some traveling healthcare professionals, who practice by accepting assignments as temporary reinforcements across the country, were being sent to hot spots earlier in the pandemic, there are so many hot spots across the country today that this may no longer be a solution to ameliorate the shortage of quality care providers. Havens and colleagues at Villanova’s M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing launched a national 20-year study in May—the CHAMPS study—to explore the emotional and physical wellbeing of the healthcare workforce and those who support care. Their early findings document high levels of depression, stress and sleep issues. “Not only is the healthcare workforce growing tired, distressed and burned out, but many are also becoming ill themselves—many dying of COVID-19. This is demoralizing and severely impacts the number available to provide care. Some of the respondents from the CHAMPS study describe caring for healthcare colleagues who died from COVID while they were caring for them.” The World Health Organization designated 2020 as the Year of the Nurse and Midwife, and 2020 is also the 200th birthday of Florence Nightingale, who founded the nursing profession. “How ironic that during this time, nurses find themselves working in surge hospitals in tents, basketball arenas, parking garages and so forth, just as Nightingale’s early career was spent implementing processes to improve sanitation and hygiene,” says Havens.

Finding Joy Through the Holiday Season - Ways for families to feel the familiar in unfamiliar times

Sandra M. Chafouleas, Ph.D. recently wrote a piece for Psychology Today that aims to help families as we enter the holiday season: The typical holiday season can bring forth any number of emotions, from anger and sadness to joy and awe. Family traditions – those repeated and symbolically meaningful holiday rituals – play a big role in shaping your feelings throughout the season. Families traditions can buffer conflicts, boost positive feelings, and bring people closer together. The pandemic is bringing an atypical holiday season this year, presenting change in the things we do, the way we do them, and who we do them with. We may miss out on getting together in person with family and friends, traveling to cherished places, or taking part in our traditional celebrations. Forced upon us, these unfamiliar changes can evoke feelings of loss and frustration. As a very unfamiliar holiday season approaches, we can still find ways to bring familiarity and predictability — and the sense of comfort that goes with that — with some adaptations to our family traditions. In her piece, Dr. Chafouleas, a licensed psychologist and Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor in the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut, offers advice for ways to adapt family traditions and help restore a sense of well-being while embracing the unfamiliar — and uncomfortable —differences in the holidays this year. Dr. Chafouleas is available to speak with media regarding this subject - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

Volunteers receiving government aid while unemployed face scrutiny, bias from public

With the worldwide spike in unemployment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, many people may turn to volunteerism as a way to pass their newly found free time. But new research suggests that volunteers who also receive government aid are often judged negatively as "wasting time" that could be used to find paid employment. "We found that aid recipients are scrutinized to a greater extent than those who are working, including the underemployed, with observers demonstrating a strong bias toward believing that aid recipients should be using their time to pursue employment opportunities above all else," said Jenny Olson, an assistant professor of marketing at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business and corresponding author of the research forthcoming in the International Journal of Research in Marketing. "This is beyond education, personal leisure, and spending time with family and friends. "As a result, they are given less latitude in how they use their time, and can even be seen as more moral for choosing not to engage in prosocial behaviors, when such behaviors take time away from gaining paid employment," Olson added. "The simple act of volunteering among aid recipients -- versus not mentioning volunteering -- not only shapes judgments of the individual aid recipients, but this information can also impact views toward federal tax policy more broadly." Although volunteering is a positive activity that partially combats the negative stereotype of a welfare beneficiary, Olson and her colleagues found that it also sparks anger among observing consumers, with aid recipients being perceived as being "less moral for choosing to volunteer." Factors that minimize these judgments include being perceived as taking strides toward gaining employment via education and being perceived as unable to work. Other co-authors of the paper, "How Income Shapes Moral Judgments of Prosocial Behavior," are Andrea Morales of Arizona State University, Brent McFerran of Simon Fraser University in Canada and Darren Dahl of the University of British Columbia. The research was supported in part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. According to a 2019 report from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, public spending on government assistance averaged more than 20 percent across 36 countries in 2018. Many countries -- including those in Asia, Europe, and the Americas -- have seen a rise in the number of people receiving benefits over the years, a total now reaching into the billions. The extent to which the welfare state is supported depends, in no small part, on public sentiment. Previous research has shown that support for government spending on welfare programs is directly related to how the voting public perceives the beneficiaries. This is the first paper to document a link between prosocial behavior and support for federal spending on welfare programs. "Given that individuals perceive opportunity costs for their own time, it stands to reason that they perceive them for others as well," Olson said. "Because government programs are supported by 'their' taxpayer dollars, observers often feel justified in suggesting how aid recipients spend their time." The research shows that consumers prefer different patterns of tax redistribution as a function of viewing aid recipients making nonfinancial choices. Specifically, consumers support allocating fewer tax dollars toward supporting government assistance programs after hearing about an aid recipient who volunteers his time. Researchers conducted nine studies across three countries. They randomly presented participants with scenarios about hypothetical aid recipients and asked them to offer judgment about how the recipients used their time, such as engaging in volunteer activities or sending out resumes. Participants were asked how they viewed target individuals on a morality index and how they felt about them emotionally. For interviews with Jenny Olson, contact George Vlahakis at 812-855-0846 or vlahakis@iu.edu.

In this Era of Fake News and Alternate FactsExperts are King

There’s nothing new about fake news. Satirical media outlets such as The Onion have been around for a decade giving us a good laugh. But somewhere in the past 12 months, something changed for the worse. The wool that was being pulled over people’s eyes wasn’t so obvious anymore. Satire and bad humour were replaced by visceral accusations, conspiracies, and smear campaigns. How did we get to this point, and what can be done to stem the tide? A sure sign that we had a problem was a development that was apparent in the last presidential election. New voices were on the national scene branding our traditional media outlets as biased, and elitist. We saw the phrase “mainstream media” become a bigger part of the conversation. Now we have to contend with “fake news.” Unlike traditional journalism fake news outlets deliberately spew wrong information. In an effort to get a story out, mistakes will happen. But in the world of fake news there is no retraction or correction of these mistakes — even when they are exposed as blatantly untrue. Further damage ensues when social media then acts as an enabler as fake news articles get amplified to millions of people, who are clicking away, feeding advertising revenues to these publishers. No matter what your political stripe or where you stood regarding the recent US election, fake news was rampant on both sides spreading false information, invoking anger, and deceiving the public. More recently, a fresher version of fake news has emerged as “Alternate Facts.” A term made famous by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway as she defended the statements made by Press Secretary Sean Spicer who lectured and insisted that the crowd present for President Trump’s swearing-in was “the largest audience ever to It seems that the whole nature of the game has changed almost overnight. Even the White House press gallery isn’t immune to these developments. This week’s Saturday Night Live sketch brilliantly sums up the aversive relationship that we’re seeing develop between the media and the new administration. (Note: For the record, the photo at the bottom is NOT a C-SPAN broadcast. It’s a comedy sketch. It did not really happen. This is NOT Sean Spicer in the photo below — it’s an actor portrayal). Perhaps most ironic for me is how believable fake news can appear to be. A friend of mine, a former investigative journalist commented that “given the outright absurdity of the actual “real” news cycle,” it’s getting hard for people to sort fact from fiction.” Perhaps this says as much about society as it does about media. So Where Does All This Leave Us? Some say the solution is as simple as removing the bias from our news media. The problem is, I know quite a few (real) journalists and they are serious about reporting facts. They work in newsrooms and report the news, they tell stories, but gathering and checking facts are what define them. As they work to a set of professional standards and deliver real information. However, we’re witnessing a massive change in the way that ideas are shaped and communicated to the public. Sadly, the traditional avenues of information flow and the mutual respect that even democratic nation states have had with the media appears to be eroding. There is also a disturbing undercurrent of thought that traditional news organizations are biased, and every outlet is always serving a hidden agenda. Recent events have prompted the need for news organizations to brief their journalists on how to govern themselves in these very “interesting times.” John Daniszewski, Vice President for Standards for Associated Press in a recent blog post called for clarity regarding the definition of the so-called “alt-right.” “We should not limit ourselves to letting such groups define themselves, and instead should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them,” writes Daniszewski. Other news organizations are looking at recent events and taking the opportunity to internally brief their journalists. In a recent message to staff, Reuters Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler wrote about covering President Trump the Reuters way: “The first 12 days of the Trump presidency (yes, that’s all it’s been!) have been memorable for all — and especially challenging for us in the news business. It’s not every day that a U.S. president calls journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth” or that his chief strategist dubs the media “the opposition party.” It’s hardly surprising that the air is thick with questions and theories about how to cover the new Administration. So what is the Reuters answer? To oppose the administration? To appease it? To boycott its briefings? To use our platform to rally support for the media? All these ideas are out there, and they may be right for some news operations, but they don’t make sense for Reuters. We already know what to do because we do it every day, and we do it all over the world. To state the obvious, Reuters is a global news organization that reports independently and fairly in more than 100 countries, including many in which the media is unwelcome and frequently under attack. We don’t know yet how sharp the Trump administration’s attacks will be over time or to what extent those attacks will be accompanied by legal restrictions on our news-gathering. But we do know that we must follow the same rules that govern our work anywhere.” Adler goes on to provide a set of rules for the Reuters team that I think are very wise, especially given the current environment. Do’s: Cover what matters in people’s lives and provide them the facts they need to make better decisions. Become ever-more resourceful: If one door to information closes, open another one. Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources. Get out into the country and learn more about how people live, what they think, what helps and hurts them, and how the government and its actions appear to them, not to us. Keep the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles close at hand, remembering that “the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved.” Don’ts: Never be intimidated, but: Don’t pick unnecessary fights or make the story about us. We may care about the inside baseball but the public generally doesn’t and might not be on our side even if it did. Don’t vent publicly about what might be understandable day-to-day frustration. In countless other countries, we keep our own counsel so we can do our reporting without being suspected of personal animus. We need to do that in the U.S., too. Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment: It’s an opportunity for us to practice the skills we’ve learned in much tougher places around the world and to lead by example — and therefore to provide the freshest, most useful, and most illuminating information and insight of any news organization anywhere. Winning back the public trust — Why Experts Matter Perhaps a way to help reverse this trend is to ask more of our experts within our organizations, and get them to contribute more to these important conversations. It’s about getting our academics, physicians, professionals, and leaders in their respective fields to contribute more to help the media present a more balanced set of perspectives in ways that engage the public. In this new era, it appears that many experts are invisible to the media on a range of big issues such as climate change, economic data, security, crime and healthcare policy. Opinions — not always informed opinions — are taken as fact. People without qualifications are being asked to speak on topics that require years of study, research, and experience. This is why, now more than ever, we need to see a return of intelligence and knowledge to present true facts. Credible Experts Matter Credible sources are vital in helping ensure the proper degree of research has been done. Published work, peer-reviewed studies, as well as policy that has been developed and practised all play key roles in determining an actual expert. Proven credibility cuts through rhetoric. It promotes the delivery and flow of facts as opposed to feeding only one side of a debate. Being Approachable Matters We have to agree that the current sentiment that many have toward traditional institutions and their experts is that they are not providing enough practical information of benefit to the public. The term “ivory tower” comes up frequently to describe environments such as universities and think tanks. While we need these environments of intellectual pursuit they cannot be seen as disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. Transparency Matters Do you know where your information is actually coming from? The flow of money into the development of fake news and so-called “experts” who are pushing agendas is tremendous. We’ve seen it recently with the sugar industry — much like the tobacco industry who literally wrote the book on manipulating and re-wrapping expertise and research in the middle of the last century — setting ideas on nutrition back decades. The market is crying out for a more consistent way to discover and evaluate the credibility of experts. We need a quick and trusted way to review their education, background, publications as well as their affiliations. We need to be able to conduct a front-line background check before we give them the platform to share their perspectives on television, radio, or in print. We need to vet the expert before they reach an audience that relies on the information being communicated to form opinions and make critical decisions that affect their lives. Local News Matters Local media is shrinking. Newsrooms are currently being threatened by constant shifts in both consumption and business models. If we are to promote accurate information and win the war on actual facts, we must make it easier for local journalists to do their jobs. Mainstream media still carries a lot of weight, especially online and television where the nightly news reaches a massive audience. Though the ratings are large, the subject matter doesn’t always resonate with viewers at home. We need to do a much better job helping local media get better access to the experts in our organisations so they can localise issues and tell stories, and do it in ways that everyone can understand. For example, a story on national unemployment numbers has a different context in San Francisco than it does in Flint, Michigan. Climate change is impacting Miami a lot differently than it is in the Great Lake states. In the end, all news is local. Speed Matters News is increasingly a speed game. With social media, a 24-hour news cycle, and the race to be first, time is of the essence. But in this game, haste may not only make waste, the truth may be a casualty as well. Most recently Fox News reported on a violent shooting at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada. Six people were killed by a lone gunman. Fox News reported that the suspect was of Moroccan origin — that was false. The shooter was in fact of Canadian origin. It wasn’t until the Canadian Prime Minister’s office requested a retraction that Fox walked the story back…but it took almost two full days. In true Canadian fashion, Kate Purchase, Communications Director for Prime Minister Trudeau thanked Fox News. In the meantime, wrong information was shared across multiple platforms and seen by millions of people. This is when having your experts prepared, media-trained, and trusted internally to speak with media is key. In times of emergency and chaos, it may be the words, advice and perspective of a high-level expert that can calm a nervous public, or at the very least, clearly explain a situation and its outcomes with accuracy and trust. So Why Should This Matter to You? If you are focused on building your market visibility and brand reputation, making your organization’s experts more discoverable and responsive to media is as much a function of good public relations as it is a public service. In these days of fake news, alternate facts, and unclear agendas, an unbiased and objective point of view presented by a credible expert may be one of the few remaining pillars of integrity we have left. Experts bring credibility, reliability, and an elevated level of perspective and advice that the public can trust. It’s up to all of us to ensure our thought leaders rise above the fray and help rebuild the trust that is essential to building a civil society. How is your organization working with its experts to respond to these challenges? I’m particularly interested in speaking with communications and media relations professionals in higher education, healthcare and professional services as our team conducts more research in this area. Let us know what you think by sharing below. I read every comment. 

Is Trump's Administration Anxious to Unleash U.S. Military Might? International Security Scholar Shares His Thoughts

In his letter to Kim Jong Un and related statements, President Trump made not-so-veiled threats regarding U.S. military capabilities. Thus, many are asking: Is the Trump Administration, staffed with former military officers in prominent cabinet positions, chomping at the bit to unleash America’s military might? International security scholar Peter Campbell, Ph.D., is watching the situation. “Trump's cancellation gives both sides opportunity to claim that they pursued all diplomatic means. The conflict now enters a more dangerous phase because an opportunity to step back from the brink has been lost and diplomatic efforts have been somewhat discredited,” he said. “Trump’s comments regarding superior U.S. nuclear capability might be interpreted as a precursor to escalation, although the letter's tone was much less inflammatory than his earlier rhetoric.” Campbell said history – and, ironically, Trump’s staff of former U.S. military leaders in key positions – sides with those who prefer diplomacy over force. “The prominent role of former military officers has caused some to worry that the Administration is anxious to go to battle. This idea is problematic because it does not take into account that U.S. military leaders have often been more hesitant than their civilian superiors to use force,” he said. “As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote of his Cold War experiences under Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush: ‘In more than 20 years of attending meetings in the Situation Room, my experience was that the biggest doves in Washington wear uniforms.’ This makes sense because military officers often have an intimate understanding of how the decision to use force leads to major uncertainty and is plagued with often insurmountable friction and the fog of war. Gates observed: ‘Our military leaders have seen too many half-baked ideas for the use of military force advanced in the Situation Room by hairy-chested civilians who have never seen combat or fired a gun in anger.’ Thus, the fact that Trump has former military officers in his inner circle should decrease, rather than increase, fears of an ill-conceived use of military force to resolve this crisis. Secretary of Defense James Mattis made explicit mention of the key role diplomats are playing in the unfolding crisis. Numerous commentators have pointed out the immense influence that Mattis has in the current administration. This should calm rather than incite fears of a military solution." Source: