Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY > 4. PSYCHOLOGY + THE COURTROOM > Flashcards

4. PSYCHOLOGY + THE COURTROOM Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

What factors influence Jury’s version

A

Attractiveness of suspect
Techniques of lawyer
Previous convictions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Witness Confidence:
Penrod + Cutler
Aim

A

Does witness confidence affect jury decision?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Penrod + Cutler

Method

A

Mock trial

Lab

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Penrod + Cutler

Design

A

Independent

Varying levels of confidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Penrod + Cutler

Sample

A

Undergraduates
People eligible for jury service
Experience of jury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Penrod + Cutler

Procedure

A

Watched video trial of robbery
Eye witness had key role
Witness= either 80 or 100% confident

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Penrod + Cutler

Results

A

Witness confidence only variable that altered guilty verdict
100% confidence= increases guilty verdict

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What do findings from Penrod + Cutler suggest

A

Witness confidence affects jury decision- confident = believed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Pros of Penrod + Cutler

A

Lab study- standardised
Controlled
Representative sample- increased population validity= generalisable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Cons of Penrod + Cutler

A

Reduced ecological validit, aware its a mock trial
Demand characteristics- reduced through independent
No qualitative data

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Attractiveness of defendant + plaintiff (victim)
Castellow et al
Aim

A

Does attractiveness affect jury decision

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Castellow

Method

A

Mock trial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Castellow

Design

A

Independent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Castellow

Procedure

A

Mock jurors read trial summary of male employers sexual harassment
Shown photos of defendant (employer) and plaintiff (victim)
Secretary + boss= attractive
Sec= att, boss= unatt
Sec= unatt, boss= att
Sec + boss= unatt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Castellow

Results

A

More guilty verdict if attractive secretary/ ugly boss= 83%

41% guilty verdict for unatt sec/att boss

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What do findings from Castellow suggest

A

Juries make judgement based on appearance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Attractiveness
Dion et al
Attributional bias

A

Beautiful= good, good looking people have personality to match

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Dion

Halo effect

A

If a person displays one good characteristic they will have others too

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Attractiveness
Signal + Ostrove
Aim

A

Attractiveness of defendant on jury’s decision depends in type of crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Signal + Ostrove

Sample

A

120 college students

Males + females (defendant)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Signal + Ostrove

Method

A

Mock trial

Lab

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Signal + Ostrove

Procedure

A

IV- type of crime, burglary or fraud
Attractive, unattractive or physical appearance not mentioned= control group
Asked to recommend punishment (sentence length)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Signal + Ostrove

Design

A

Independent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Signal + Ostrove

Results

A 
Attractive people seem to be treated more leniently, as pjerceived as less dangerous 
//jury condemn defendant if beauty takes advantage (e.g. fraud)
Fraud- att= 5.45, unatt= 4.35, control= 4.35
Burglary- att= 2.8, unatt= 5..2, control= 5.1
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Research into Jury decision making
Majority influence
Asch
Aim

A

Will a person give a wrong answer in the face of an obviously correct answer just because others do

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Asch

Sample

A

123 make college students

Paid $3

27
Q

Asch

Procedure

A 
Told it was a study on perception 
DECEIVED 
Tested in groups of 7-9
Shown 2 cards
-standard line
-3 lines of varying lengths
Task- match standard line ti another line 
Apart from P, everyone else told to give wrong answer
28
Q

Asch

Results

A

32% of subjects conformed to the group

Reduced to 5% if a stooge gives right answer

29
Q

What do finds from Asch suggest

A

Some people are willing to conform rather than stick to their own opinion

30
Q

Useful applications from Asch

A

Jurors should vote in isolation/by secret ballot

31
Q

Minority influence

Moscovici

A

Slide show of different colours, confederate says green when it’d actually blue

32
Q

What do findings from Moscovici suggest

A

Consistent minority can affect the judgement made by majority

33
Q

Psychological reasons behind Moscovici’s research

A
  1. disrupts majority norm + produces uncertainty + doubt 2. conveys existence of alternatives
  2. demonstrates certainty and an unshakeable commitment to particular point of view
34
Q

Key research
Accents + context on guilty perception
Dixon
Aim

A

Predicted the Birmingham accent suspect would receive a higher rating of guilt than standard British accented suspect
Race or type would make a difference?

35
Q

Dixon

Sample

A

119 white students (mostly female)
Uni of Worcester
People who grew up I Birmingham were excluded

36
Q

Dixon Method

A

Independent, lab

37
Q

Dixon

Procedure

A

3 IVs- accent, race, crime type
Armed robbery or cheque fraud
1. 2 min recorded convo, based on transcripts of interview from Brum station (1995)
2. standard accented student in 40s= investigator
3. suspect (20s) Brum or standard accent
4. on tape- pleaded innocence
5. race manipulated by officers description of suspects
6. besides from IVs procedure stayed the same

38
Q

Dixon

Results

A

Significant effect of accent attribution of guilt
Brummie= higher
Brummie, black + armed robbery= increased guilt

39
Q

What do findings from Dixon suggest

A

Written statements

40
Q

Pros of Dixon

A 
Increased control 
Standardised 
Reduced DC (independent)
Quantitative data 
Useful applications- don't speak
41
Q

Cons of Dixon

A

Reduced ecological validity (no consequences)
Reduced population validity
Reduced qualitative data
Lab= DC?

42
Q

Is Dixons research is socially sensitive

A

Highlighted stereotypes + bias
Excluded people from research
Useful applications

43
Q

Dixons research isn’t socially sensitive

A

Counterbalance + educate jurors
Exclude bias
Depends how we implement info

44
Q

Application
Strategies to influence jury decision making
Story telling in court
Story order=

A

Lawyers present evidence in the sequence the events occurred

45
Q

Witness order

A

Lawyers present witnesses in order they think will most influence the juror (best till last)

46
Q

Pennington + Hastie
Order of testimony
Aim

A

Are jurors more easily persuaded by story or witness order

47
Q

Pennington + Hastie

Method

A

Mock murder trial

48
Q

Pennington + Hastie

Design

A

Independent

49
Q

Pennington + Hastie

Sample

A

130 Chicago uni students (paid)

50
Q

Pennington + Hastie

Procedure

A

Lawyers varied order of evidence across 4 conditions:

  1. both story
  2. both witness
  3. defence (story), prosecutes (witness)
  4. defence (witness), prosecutor (story)
51
Q

Pennington + Hastie

Results

A

Defences used story order= 31% guilty verdict

Prosecution used story order= 78% guilty verdict

52
Q

What do findings from Pennington + Hastie suggest

A

All lawyers should use story order because it is easier for jurors to understand the case

53
Q

Pennington + Hastie

Pros of methodology

A

Standardised (replicable)
Controlled (C+E)
Quantitative data

54
Q

Pennington + Hastie

Cons of methodology

A

Lacks ecological validity (can’t generalise)
DC- independent= reduced, being paid
No qualitative data
Unethical

55
Q

Pennington + Hastie

Pros of research

A

Useful applications- story order

No order effects- independent

56
Q

Pennington + Hastier

Cons of research

A

Low population validity (students)

Cant generalise to other cases- e.g. robbery

57
Q

Application
Expert witness
Cutler
Aim

A

Can expert witness influence a jury

58
Q

Cutler

Method

A

Mock murder trial

59
Q

Cutler

Design

A

Independent

60
Q

Cutler

Sample

A

538 undergraduate psych students

Expert informed student jurors about what makes a good/bad witness

61
Q

Cutler

‘good’ witness

A

Offender not disguised

Offender does not have weapon

62
Q

Cutler

‘bad’ witness

A

Wearing mask

Has weapon

63
Q

Cutler

Results

A

When WIC are good= more guilty verdicts- increased more when expert witness explains why WIC are good
Jurors rated themselves more confident after listening to expert

64
Q

What do findings from Cutler suggest

A

Expert witnesses should be used by lawyers to persuade jurors + increase their confidence in their verdict

CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions