Crim topic 4: psychology and the courtroom

Question 1

Dixon

Answer 1

Role of accents and context in perceptions of guilt

Question 2

Dixon: aims

Answer 2

.To test hypothesis that Brummie suspects recive higher rating of guilt than standard accent
.To see whther race and type of crime affect guilt likelihood

Question 3

Dixon: sample

Answer 3

119 white undergraduates
Uni of Worcester
mean age 25
anyone who grew up in Birmingham excluded

Question 4

Dixon: procedure

Answer 4

.listen to 2 min recorded conversation between:
male in 40s with standard accent (police officer) and male in 20s (susoect who was able to switch between normal and Brummie accent)
.suspect pleads innocent in all versions
.participants rate on 7 point bi polar scale of innocent to guilty

Question 5

Dixon: IVs

Answer 5

Brummie vs standard accent
armed robbery (blue collar) vs cheque fraud (white collar)
white vs black

Question 6

Dixon: results

Answer 6

.Brummie accent rated higher for guilt than standard

.highest guilt rating: Brummie, Black, Blue collar

Question 7

Dixon: conclusions

Answer 7

Some accents are deemed guiltier than others e.g Brummie

Question 8

Penrod and Cutler

Answer 8

witness confidence

Question 9

Penrod and Cutler: procedure

Answer 9

.Participants shown one of 2 videos of mock trials for a robbery
.witness was either 100% or 80% confident about identification
.participants (mock jurors) rated whether they though suspect was guilty or not

Question 10

Penrod and Cutler: IV and DV

Answer 10

IV: 80% or 100% confident
DV: did they find suspect guilty or not

Question 11

Penrod and Cutler: sample

Answer 11

undergraduate students and experienced jurors

Question 12

Penrod and Cultler: results

Answer 12

.when witness 80% confident - suspect guilty 60% of the time
.when witness 100% confident - suspect guilty 67% of the time

Question 13

Penrod and Cutler: conclusions

Answer 13

The more confident a witness is, the more likely jurors are to be persuaded

Question 14

Castellow

Answer 14

attractiveness

Question 15

Cattellow: aim

Answer 15

to investigate whether defendant’s appearance will affect judgements about their personality

Question 16

Castellow: procedure

Answer 16

.mock jury asked to read trial summary of 23 y/o receptionist accusing male employer of sexual harassment (sexual remarks)
.Then shown pictures of each of them and asked to decide whether they were guilty or not

Question 17

Castellow: results

Answer 17

attractive, attractive: 71%
attractive, unattractive defendant: 83%
unattractive, attractive defendant: 41%
unattractive, unattractive: 69%

Question 18

Castellow: suggestion

Answer 18

appearance can affect judgements of guilt

Question 19

Pennington and Hastie

Answer 19

Story order

Question 20

Pennington and Hastie: background

Answer 20

previous research suggested people may remember info at the beginning and end better than in the middle (primacy/recency effect)

Question 21

Pennington and Hastie: aim

Answer 21

To investigate whether presenting evidence in story or witness order is more effective

Question 22

Pennington and Hastie: results

Answer 22

defence order/prosecution order

story / witness = 31%
witness / story = 78%

story order more persuasive

Question 23

Pennington and Hastie: suggestion

Answer 23

easier for juror to construct a story when evidence is presented in the order events occurred

Question 24

Broeder

Answer 24

inadmissible evidence

Question 25

Broeder: aim

Answer 25

To investigate whether evidence being ruled as inadmissible by the judge affects jurors response

Question 26

Breoder: sample

Answer 26

participants already on a trial who had agreed to take part in this mock trial

Question 27

Broeder: procedure

Answer 27

.participants listened to tapes of evidence from previous trial
.30 experimental juries listened to case of a woman injured by a man driving recklessly
.Driver either claimed to have liability insurance or no liability insurance
.some trials this was determined as inadmissible by the judge

Question 28

Broeder: results

Answer 28

no insurance - $33,000 awarded
insurance - $37,000 awarded
had insurance, then jury told to disregard - $46,000 awarded

Question 29

Broeder: suggestion

Answer 29

supports reactance theory (boomerang effect)

being told not to do something makes people react to assert their freedom and independence