4. PSYCHOLOGY + THE COURTROOM Flashcards
What factors influence Jury’s version
Attractiveness of suspect
Techniques of lawyer
Previous convictions
Witness Confidence:
Penrod + Cutler
Aim
Does witness confidence affect jury decision?
Penrod + Cutler
Method
Mock trial
Lab
Penrod + Cutler
Design
Independent
Varying levels of confidence
Penrod + Cutler
Sample
Undergraduates
People eligible for jury service
Experience of jury
Penrod + Cutler
Procedure
Watched video trial of robbery
Eye witness had key role
Witness= either 80 or 100% confident
Penrod + Cutler
Results
Witness confidence only variable that altered guilty verdict
100% confidence= increases guilty verdict
What do findings from Penrod + Cutler suggest
Witness confidence affects jury decision- confident = believed
Pros of Penrod + Cutler
Lab study- standardised
Controlled
Representative sample- increased population validity= generalisable
Cons of Penrod + Cutler
Reduced ecological validit, aware its a mock trial
Demand characteristics- reduced through independent
No qualitative data
Attractiveness of defendant + plaintiff (victim)
Castellow et al
Aim
Does attractiveness affect jury decision
Castellow
Method
Mock trial
Castellow
Design
Independent
Castellow
Procedure
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
Castellow
Results
More guilty verdict if attractive secretary/ ugly boss= 83%
41% guilty verdict for unatt sec/att boss
What do findings from Castellow suggest
Juries make judgement based on appearance
Attractiveness
Dion et al
Attributional bias
Beautiful= good, good looking people have personality to match
Dion
Halo effect
If a person displays one good characteristic they will have others too
Attractiveness
Signal + Ostrove
Aim
Attractiveness of defendant on jury’s decision depends in type of crime
Signal + Ostrove
Sample
120 college students
Males + females (defendant)
Signal + Ostrove
Method
Mock trial
Lab
Signal + Ostrove
Procedure
IV- type of crime, burglary or fraud
Attractive, unattractive or physical appearance not mentioned= control group
Asked to recommend punishment (sentence length)
Signal + Ostrove
Design
Independent
Signal + Ostrove
Results
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
Research into Jury decision making
Majority influence
Asch
Aim
Will a person give a wrong answer in the face of an obviously correct answer just because others do
Asch
Sample
123 make college students
Paid $3
Asch
Procedure
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
Asch
Results
32% of subjects conformed to the group
Reduced to 5% if a stooge gives right answer
What do finds from Asch suggest
Some people are willing to conform rather than stick to their own opinion
Useful applications from Asch
Jurors should vote in isolation/by secret ballot
Minority influence
Moscovici
Slide show of different colours, confederate says green when it’d actually blue
What do findings from Moscovici suggest
Consistent minority can affect the judgement made by majority
Psychological reasons behind Moscovici’s research
- disrupts majority norm + produces uncertainty + doubt 2. conveys existence of alternatives
- demonstrates certainty and an unshakeable commitment to particular point of view
Key research
Accents + context on guilty perception
Dixon
Aim
Predicted the Birmingham accent suspect would receive a higher rating of guilt than standard British accented suspect
Race or type would make a difference?
Dixon
Sample
119 white students (mostly female)
Uni of Worcester
People who grew up I Birmingham were excluded
Dixon Method
Independent, lab
Dixon
Procedure
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
Dixon
Results
Significant effect of accent attribution of guilt
Brummie= higher
Brummie, black + armed robbery= increased guilt
What do findings from Dixon suggest
Written statements
Pros of Dixon
Increased control Standardised Reduced DC (independent) Quantitative data Useful applications- don't speak
Cons of Dixon
Reduced ecological validity (no consequences)
Reduced population validity
Reduced qualitative data
Lab= DC?
Is Dixons research is socially sensitive
Highlighted stereotypes + bias
Excluded people from research
Useful applications
Dixons research isn’t socially sensitive
Counterbalance + educate jurors
Exclude bias
Depends how we implement info
Application
Strategies to influence jury decision making
Story telling in court
Story order=
Lawyers present evidence in the sequence the events occurred
Witness order
Lawyers present witnesses in order they think will most influence the juror (best till last)
Pennington + Hastie
Order of testimony
Aim
Are jurors more easily persuaded by story or witness order
Pennington + Hastie
Method
Mock murder trial
Pennington + Hastie
Design
Independent
Pennington + Hastie
Sample
130 Chicago uni students (paid)
Pennington + Hastie
Procedure
Lawyers varied order of evidence across 4 conditions:
- both story
- both witness
- defence (story), prosecutes (witness)
- defence (witness), prosecutor (story)
Pennington + Hastie
Results
Defences used story order= 31% guilty verdict
Prosecution used story order= 78% guilty verdict
What do findings from Pennington + Hastie suggest
All lawyers should use story order because it is easier for jurors to understand the case
Pennington + Hastie
Pros of methodology
Standardised (replicable)
Controlled (C+E)
Quantitative data
Pennington + Hastie
Cons of methodology
Lacks ecological validity (can’t generalise)
DC- independent= reduced, being paid
No qualitative data
Unethical
Pennington + Hastie
Pros of research
Useful applications- story order
No order effects- independent
Pennington + Hastier
Cons of research
Low population validity (students)
Cant generalise to other cases- e.g. robbery
Application
Expert witness
Cutler
Aim
Can expert witness influence a jury
Cutler
Method
Mock murder trial
Cutler
Design
Independent
Cutler
Sample
538 undergraduate psych students
Expert informed student jurors about what makes a good/bad witness
Cutler
‘good’ witness
Offender not disguised
Offender does not have weapon
Cutler
‘bad’ witness
Wearing mask
Has weapon
Cutler
Results
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
What do findings from Cutler suggest
Expert witnesses should be used by lawyers to persuade jurors + increase their confidence in their verdict
