Chapter 7 - Group Influence In and Outside Courtroom Flashcards
define group
two or more people who interac with and influence each other
define co-actors
a group of people working simultaneously and individually on a noncompetitive task
define social facilitation
strengthening of dominant responses owing to the presence of others
define evaluation apprehension
concern for how others are evaluating us
define social loafing
tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts towards a common goal than when they are individually accountable
define free-ride
benefiting from the group, but giving little in return
define deindivduation
loss of self-awarness and evaluation apprehension, occurs in group situations that foster anonymity and draw attention away from the individual
-group size
- physical anonymity
- arousing and distracting bahviours
- diminished self-awareness
define polarization
group-produced enhancement of members pre-existing tendencies, a strengthening of the members average tendency, not split within the group
define pluralistic ignorance
a false impression of how other people are thinking, feeling, or responding
define group think
the tendency for groups, in the process of decision making, to suppress dissenting cognition in the interest of ensuring harmony within the group
- an illusion of invulnerability
- unquestioned belief in the groups morality
- rationalization
- stereotyped view of opponent
- conformity pressure
- sefl-censorship
- illusion of unanimity
- mindguards
define leadership
the process by which certain group members motivate and guide the group
How persuasive is an eyewitness testimony?
In an experiemnt done with a fake roberry, the most convicining evidence was when they just had an eyewitness and circumstantial evidence. As soon as you hear an eyewitness, you are more likely to believe them, especially if you hear them first. Only when you introduced another opposing eyewitness, the amount juree will believe the first witness decrease , but only a little bit. Doesnt have much affect.
How accurate is an eyewitness?
They will alwasy be unreliable to some extent. Shown with the stage robbery in a law classroom, people were all over the place with their description of the man, leading us to believe that no one really know, as both incorrect and correct people were believe majority of the time.
- traivail evidence: should make us doubt more because they are focusing on the random stuff, but give us more confidence to believe them
- confidence inn the witness: creates more confidence in the jury
How does your memory get reconstructed?
Schemas: preconceptions about people or object will bias the way new info is interpreted
Retelling: change the way you tell a story depending on who it is too, the more you tell a story one way, the more you will believe it
Feedback: confirming (when they confirm you made the right choice) and disconfirming
define the misinformation effect
adding incorrect info into your memory. depending on the way that phrases are worded when trying to get that info back, if can alter the way that we see the story occurring in our head.
define false memories
if people are told that they were lost in a s tore as a kid, and kept hearing this, they will eventually create the memory in their mind to believe it. the less detail there is, the more likely you are to create that false memory
define imagination inflation
visualising something and actually perceiving it activates similar brain areas
how do we judge if someone is lying or not?
face: large expression vs small
body: fidgety and restless movement (showing that they are uncomfy)
voice: rise in pitch, increase speed hesitations (getting nervy)
- the harder the lie, the more nervous you will be causing you to become more uncomfortable and do more fo these things
how can attractiveness influence a jury?
- we tend to assume pretty people are inherently good
- the more criminal like features someone has (crooked nose, unattractive, small eyes), the more it will fit our idea of a criminal
are people good at understanding statistics?
no! people will believe stats even if its a 1 in a million chance, even thought that chance is so slim and possibly prosecuting an innocent person
what are the 3 group influences?
1) minority influence: if you have 1 jury member that opposes the group and sticks to it, it can affect the whole group and make everyone which (works best when swaying to innocence)
2) group polarization: when people all talk about their opinions together, opinions will become strong and can cause them to give a more severe sentence
3) leniency: when data is not very incriminating, jury is more likely to be more lenient when it comes to letting them go free
