We did test to see whether cognitive fatigue could be causing the poor performance, but participants asked to brainstorm about other things before unscrambling the sentences did just fine. HBR: So they weren’t just distracted? Or tired from too much thinking? They might not have been aware of this shift in their mindset while working, but they were less motivated, so they put in less effort, which hurt their results. Those who had been asked to think through backup plans reported that they wanted the cash less than others. We saw this in our third study, in which we surveyed participants about how much they wanted the promised reward of $1. We think that when achieving a goal requires work, not luck, making a backup plan can hurt performance by reducing the desire for that goal. Shin: That was our hypothesis, and it proved true not only in this study but in follow-up experiments that took the same approach but offered people different rewards-saved time or an extra dollar in their pockets. The Challenge: When we think about what we’ll do if we fail to achieve our goals, are we less likely to succeed? Can backup plans backfire? Professor Shin, defend your research. People prompted to think about those backup plans unscrambled significantly fewer sentences, on average, than people who hadn’t been asked to formulate a plan B.
Before receiving the text to work on, half the participants were asked to think about different ways they could obtain free food on campus should they fail to earn the snack. Timely arrival of the maid prevented more harm,” the high court noted in its verdict.The Study: Jihae Shin of Wisconsin School of Business and her coauthor, Katherine Milkman of Wharton, gave 160 university students a sentence-unscrambling task and promised an energy bar to those who performed it well. “She begged for mercy, but it had no impact upon him. The prosecutor had also contended that the convict had attempted to strangulate her, by throttling her neck with a pillow and mobile charger and when he did not succeed because of the victim’s resistance, he raped her.
It said the trial court’s sentence order was “based upon fair reasoning and no sound reasons exist to modify it”.Īccording to the prosecution, the convict had gained entry to the victim’s house on June 24, 2014, on the pretext of having water and under the influence of alcohol he followed the “unsuspecting” victim to the first floor of the house and taking advantage of the fact that she was alone, he had “executed his nefarious plan.” Possibility of the appellant to be doing the horrible crime at someone’s behest cannot be ruled out,” the high court noted in its judgement. During the crime, he claimed that it was due to revenge against her father-in-law. He was well aware that the prosecutrix (victim) was alone at her residence. In the early hours of morning he had consumed liquor. The appellant (convict) had pre-planned to commit the crime. Rejecting his plea, the court said that the man had betrayed the trust of the victim and “exhibited animal instinct at the time of commission of the crime”. He had, however, sought modification of his sentence on the ground that he has to support his family. His conviction was affirmed by the high court after he gave up his challenge to the findings of the trial court.
The trial court had awarded 10 years to the convict for the offence of rape and seven years for attempting to murder the victim, who had assisted him in getting a job and also used to teach his kids. “Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could no longer endure under such serious threat,” the court said. “It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed. New Delhi: Undue sympathy towards convicts by awarding inadequate jail term “undermines public confidence in efficacy of law”, the Delhi High Court has said while upholding a 10-year term awarded by a trial court to a man for raping and trying to kill his ex-employer’s daughter-in-law.ĭismissing the 45-year-old man’s plea for reduction of his punishment, Justice S P Garg said that awarding inadequate sentences is a “serious threat” society which it would not be able to endure.