Criminal topic 4 - Psychology and the courtroom

Question 1

Background - Dion

Answer 1

• that there is an attributional bias - only at personal and not situational
• tend to believe someone is attractive to look at their personality will match - ‘halo effect’
• people may be persuaded in court that they aren’t guilty because of appearance
• The opposite of this is the ‘horns effect’ - people will be stigmatised by this label

Question 2

Background -Penrod and Cutler

Answer 2

aim: conducted mock trial in the lab, to measure confidence in witness
sample: three groups - students, people eligible for jury service, experience as a juror
procedure:
- watched a videotape of a robbery, an eyewitness had to identify the defendant.
- witnesses testified either 100% or 80% confidence had identified the robber
results:
- variable of witness confidence had a significant difference in scores
- those exposed to witnesses who were 100% confident were more likely to say the defendant was guilty than those exposed to witnesses at 80%
- 100% - 67% guilty
- 80% - 60% guilty

Question 3

Background - Sigall and Ostrove - aim, sample and procedure

Answer 3

aim: The effect of the attractiveness of the defendent on jury decisions depends on the type of crime the accused of
sample: mock trial - lab, 120 college students read account on crime defendant was female
procedure:
- IV - a type of crime - burglary, fraud, whether described as attractive or unattractive or wasn’t mentioned in the control group
- randomly assigned and equal of female and male
- hypothesised that in crime where beauty was irrelevant, defendent would be treated more leniently

Question 4

Background - Sigall and Ostrove - results and conclusions

Answer 4

Results:
- account of a crime that the defendant was guilty
- participants had to recommend a sentence from 1 - 15 years in jail
Fraud - attractive - 5.45
fraud - unattractive - 4.35
fraud - control - 4.35
burglary - attractive - 2.8
burglary - unattractive - 5.2
burglary - control - 5.1
conclusions:
- supported cognitive explanation of attractiveness on decision - being treated more leniently
- however jury condemn the defendant it taking beauty to take advantage in case of fraud

Question 5

Key research - Dixon - aim, sample

Answer 5

aim: that Brummie suspects would receive a higher rating on guilt than the standard British accent and if the type of crime would make a difference
IV’s:
1. accent - Brummie or standard English
2. Race - black or white suspect
3. crime type - blue collar or white collar
sample:
119 white students at Worcester University
- those who were from Birmingham were excluded
- required to participate for degree

Question 6

Key research - Dixon - procedure

Answer 6

• listened to 2 min recording of an interview that took place in Birmingham police in 1995
• control - the role of suspect played by a student in their 20s and speaking in either a Brummie or standard accent
• on tape, the suspect highlighted the IVs which applied to the condition
• completed two sets of rating scales:
• guilty rating of 7 point from innocent to guilty
• rated suspects more generally by completing speech evaluation instrument to measure superiority, attractiveness and dynamism

Question 7

Key research - Dixon - results and conclusions

Answer 7

Results:
- significant effect on suspects’ accent of guilt, Brummie rated higher - 4.27 mean rating
- black suspect, blue crime and Brummie receiving higher guilt ratings than other conditions
conclusions:
- accents influence jury decisions and other attributes such as crime and race can also have an influence
- speech evaluation instrument - only significant difference was superiority - Brummie rated lower based on the class system

Question 8

Key research - Dixon - evaluation

Answer 8

Strengths:
- high control - 95% could identify the region of Brummie accent
- speech instrument had high internal reliability
weaknesses:
- low ecological validity - tape recording, not representative of real courtroom
- psychology undergraduates used - less representative of the wider population
- socially sensitive research - discrimination of accent, race and crime
- lack of right to withdraw as had to for degree
- deterministic
debate:
interaction of individual and situational

Question 9

Application - order of evidence summary

Answer 9

• Story order (chronologically) - should be clearer to understand and more persuasive
• witness order - lawyers present witnesses in the order they think will most influence the jury

Question 10

Application - Pennington and Hastie - aim and sample

Answer 10

aim: use of story summaries of evidence of true causes of the final verdict decisions and the extent to which story order affects confidence in those decisions
sample:
- 130 university students from Northwestern and Chicago University - paid for participation
- allocated to one of four conditions:
- prosecution items in story order and defence in witness order
- story and story order
- witness and story order
- witness and witness order

Question 11

Application - P&H - procedure

Answer 11

• participants listened to stimulus trial recordings and responded to written questions
• participants were told to reach guilty or not status against the murder charge of the defendant - asked to rate confidence on 5 point scale
• auditory recording of 39 pieces of evidence that defendants were guilty and 39 that were innocent
• the evidence was either in story order or witness order

Question 12

Application - P&H - results and conclusions

Answer 12

Results:
percentage of participants choosing guilty verdict:
- story and witness - 78%
- Story and story - 59%
- witness and story - 31%
- witness and witness - 63%
Mean percentage of guilty verdict:
- prosecution items in story order - 69%
- prosecution items in witness - 47%
- defence in story - 45%
- defence in witness - 70%
conclusions:
- greater confidence in story order.
- least confident were those who heard two witness order condition

Question 13

Application - expert witness strategy summary

Answer 13

Use of an expert witness - who can give other evidence such as biological - PET scans
- to influence the jury into thinking that the defendant isn’t wholly responsible for their actions and get a different sentence

Question 14

Application - Cutler - aim and sample

Answer 14

aim:
- whether the presence of an expert witness would affect jurors decision making
sample: 538 students given extra credit - groups of between 2 - 8 pts
IV’s:
1. witness identifying condition (good/poor)
2. witness confidence (good/poor)
3. expert opinion expressed (high/low)
4. form of expert testimony (descriptive/ statistical

Question 15

Application - Cutler - procedure

Answer 15

1. good robber didn’t have a gun or disguise - 2 days delay in witness providing identification
   - poor had gun and disguise - 14-day delay
2. good witnesses claimed to be 100% confident, poor only 80%
3. rated on a scale from 0 - 25. low was given in poor witness groups and high in good witness groups
4. descriptive - language to describe the accuracy of testimony, statistical - was more likely to baffle the jury
   - then participants completed a questionnaire on the DV’S:
   - guilty or not
   - confidence in the verdict
   - the memory of the trial
   - expert psychologists’ testimony

Question 16

Application - Cutler - results and conclusions

Answer 16

Results:
- more guilty when witness identification was good, this increased with descriptive
- confidence was more in good witness. also, witnesses claiming to be 100% confident
- 85% of jurors remembered trial accuracy and memory were good and recalled correctly what the expert had said about weapons, disguises and delays in identification
Conclusions:
- expert testimony improved jurors’ knowledge - affecting accuracy and more attention to conditions
- no evidence to suggest jurors were sceptical about eyewitnesses based on psychologists’ testimony