Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY > 4. PSYCHOLOGY + THE COURTROOM > Flashcards

4. PSYCHOLOGY + THE COURTROOM 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
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
26
Asch | Sample
123 make college students | Paid $3
27
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 ```
28
Asch | Results
32% of subjects conformed to the group | Reduced to 5% if a stooge gives right answer
29
What do finds from Asch suggest
Some people are willing to conform rather than stick to their own opinion
30
Useful applications from Asch
Jurors should vote in isolation/by secret ballot
31
Minority influence | Moscovici
Slide show of different colours, confederate says green when it'd actually blue
32
What do findings from Moscovici suggest
Consistent minority can affect the judgement made by majority
33
Psychological reasons behind Moscovici's research
1. disrupts majority norm + produces uncertainty + doubt 2. conveys existence of alternatives 3. demonstrates certainty and an unshakeable commitment to particular point of view
34
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?
35
Dixon | Sample
119 white students (mostly female) Uni of Worcester People who grew up I Birmingham were excluded
36
Dixon Method
Independent, lab
37
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
38
Dixon | Results
Significant effect of accent attribution of guilt Brummie= higher Brummie, black + armed robbery= increased guilt
39
What do findings from Dixon suggest
Written statements
40
Pros of Dixon
``` Increased control Standardised Reduced DC (independent) Quantitative data Useful applications- don't speak ```
41
Cons of Dixon
Reduced ecological validity (no consequences) Reduced population validity Reduced qualitative data Lab= DC?
42
Is Dixons research is socially sensitive
Highlighted stereotypes + bias Excluded people from research Useful applications
43
Dixons research isn't socially sensitive
Counterbalance + educate jurors Exclude bias Depends how we implement info
44
Application Strategies to influence jury decision making Story telling in court Story order=
Lawyers present evidence in the sequence the events occurred
45
Witness order
Lawyers present witnesses in order they think will most influence the juror (best till last)
46
Pennington + Hastie Order of testimony Aim
Are jurors more easily persuaded by story or witness order
47
Pennington + Hastie | Method
Mock murder trial
48
Pennington + Hastie | Design
Independent
49
Pennington + Hastie | Sample
130 Chicago uni students (paid)
50
Pennington + Hastie | Procedure
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
Pennington + Hastie | Results
Defences used story order= 31% guilty verdict | Prosecution used story order= 78% guilty verdict
52
What do findings from Pennington + Hastie suggest
All lawyers should use story order because it is easier for jurors to understand the case
53
Pennington + Hastie | Pros of methodology
Standardised (replicable) Controlled (C+E) Quantitative data
54
Pennington + Hastie | Cons of methodology
Lacks ecological validity (can't generalise) DC- independent= reduced, being paid No qualitative data Unethical
55
Pennington + Hastie | Pros of research
Useful applications- story order | No order effects- independent
56
Pennington + Hastier | Cons of research
Low population validity (students) | Cant generalise to other cases- e.g. robbery
57
Application Expert witness Cutler Aim
Can expert witness influence a jury
58
Cutler | Method
Mock murder trial
59
Cutler | Design
Independent
60
Cutler | Sample
538 undergraduate psych students | Expert informed student jurors about what makes a good/bad witness
61
Cutler | 'good' witness
Offender not disguised | Offender does not have weapon
62
Cutler | 'bad' witness
Wearing mask | Has weapon
63
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
64
What do findings from Cutler suggest
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.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions