Criminal Psychology - Psychology and The Courtroom (Cognitive) - Asked in 2022

Question 1

Background;

Answer 1

The Halo effect:
Making the assumption that ‘what is beautiful is good’ and assuming that if a person displays one good characteristic, then they will have other positive characteristics.

Penrod and Cutler (1995):
Jurors in a mock trial were given evidence by a female eye witness of a robbery via video-tape recording.
Participants who heard the witness was 100% confident gave guilty verdicts to the robber 67% of the time.
Participants who heard the witness was 80% confident gave guilty verdicts to the robber 60% of the time.

Therefore the more confident a witness was, the more the jurors were persuaded. This could be due to the fact that confidence is associated with truthfulness. When someone is confident we attribute them as being knowledgeable and reliable, when someone is nervous and shy, you may attribute this as unreliable or feel that they are lying.

Question 2

Key Research;

Answer 2

The Key Research by Dixon et al. aimed to investigate whether a ‘Brummie’ suspect would elicit stronger attributions of guilt than a standard accent. The sample consisted of 119 white undergraduate Psychology students from the University of Worcester. The procedure went like this: Lab experiment, IVs = Accent (Birmingham/Standard), Race (black / white), Type of crime (armed robbery/fraud). DV = Participants attribution of guilt - score on a 7 point scale. Ps listened to a 2-minute recorded transcript (based on a real case). The conversation was between a middle-aged inspector and young suspect. The results showed that Brummie suspect was rated as more guilty (moderate strength). A conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that A range of social and psychological factors can influence perception of a suspect’ guilt: including accent, race, and type of crime.

Question 3

Applications;

Answer 3

Expert Witness:
Loftus (1980) All participants read a violent version of a crime. Half the juries read an experts testimony, and the other half did not.

Expert testimony included: people are less accurate at recognising members of another race and that stress, presence of a weapon and the fact the witness had been drinking were factors known to interfere with accurate identification. Therefore, the expert was defending the accused.

Results show that the Expert testimony promoted more discussion and it appeared to increase doubt about the defendant’s guilt, whereas those with no expert gave more guilty verdicts.

Castello (1990) Keeping up appearances:
As the research suggests that jurors may judge by appearance, defendants should be advised to dress formally for court and by neatly groomed with no visible tattoos. The aim is to give a good first impression and avoid negative judgement

Witness familirisation techniques:
Lawyers may help the witness build confidence in court by using witness familarisation. This is when the lawyer will explain to them what will happen in court, describe the roles of those present. They can also suggest strategies for dealing with cross-examination questions by doing a mock cross-examination to prepare them.