factors influencing jury decision making Flashcards
who investigated the effects of pre-trial publicity ?
Nancy steblay et al. (2009)
how many ppts were in Nancy steblay et al. (2009) ?
5,755
what type of study did Nancy steblay et al. (2009) conduct ?
meta-analysis
how many studies did Nancy steblay et al. (2009) analyse ?
44
what role did the ppts in Nancy steblay et al. (2009) play ?
mock-jurors
what was the independent variable of Nancy steblay et al. (2009) ?
whether the mock-jury was fed pre-trial publicity before the trial or not
what was the dependent variable of Nancy steblay et al. (2009) ?
the number of jurors who found the defendant guilty or not guilty
what were the findings of Nancy steblay et al. (2009) ?
those exposed to pre-trial publicity were significantly more likely to reach a guilty verdict (59%)
what percentage of the control group gave a guilty verdict in Nancy steblay et al. (2009) ?
45%
name two variables detected in Nancy steblay et al. (2009) that enhanced the effect of pre-trial publicity ?
1) if delay between judgement and pre-trial publicity is larger
2) the type of crime - pre-trial publicity effect was strongest with crimes of murder or sexual assault
what belief does the data from Nancy steblay et al. (2009) support ?
it supports the belief that pre-trial publicity leads people to be more likely to reach a guilty judgement, especially when related to certain other conditions like the type of crime
based on what was concluded in Nancy steblay et al. (2009), what do researchers suggest as a remedy ?
to hold trails that attract a lot of pre-trail publicity in foreign locations
what else can be taken from Nancy steblay et al. (2009), from the cognitive perspective ?
the study offers an explanation for how pre-trial publicity affects jurors - it creates schemas in the minds of the jurors which then become difficult to shift, and then the more publicity there is, the more these schemas become entrenched
who investigated the effects of attractiveness in trials ?
abwender and hough (2001)
what did abwender and hough (2001) find in terms of females ?
females found the attractive female defendants not guilty and the unattractive female defendants guilty
what did abwender and hough (2001) find in terms of males ?
males found the attractive male defendants guilty and unattractive defendants not guilty
how many ppts were there in abwender and hough (2001) ?
207 - 129 women and 78 men
what was the case that the ppts were asked to give a sentence on in abwender and hough (2001) ?
they were asked to recommend a sentence for an imaginary case of a drunk driver who drove recklessly and killed a pedestrian
who investigated the effects of accent in trials ?
Dixon et al. (2002)
what did Dixon et al. (2002) investigate ?
they investigated the effect of regional accents on the attribution of guilt in the UK
what was the procedure in Dixon et al. (2002) ?
he played a recorded conversation between a male suspect and a male policemen to the ppts
how many ppt were there in Dixon et al. (2002) ?
119
what was the independent variable of Dixon et al. (2002) ?
whether the ppts heard a Birmingham accent or a ‘standard’ accent
what were the findings of Dixon et al. (2002) ?
ratings of guilty were significantly higher in relation to the Birmingham accent - suggesting that accent is another factor that affects jury decision making
who investigated the affects of race in trials ?
Bradbury and Williams (2013)
what did Bradbury and Williams (2013) do ?
analysed data from real criminal cases
what did they find in Bradbury and Williams (2013) ?
found that juries that comprised predominantly of white or hispanic jurors were more likely to convict a black defendant - however, rate of guilty verdict was lower for predominantly hispanic juries, compared to predominantly white juries
what factor was found to exacerbate a guilty verdict in Bradbury and Williams (2013)?
when the black defendant was on trial for an illegal drug charge
what did pfeifer and ogloff (1991) investigate ?
they also investigated the effect of race in trials
what did pfeifer and ogloff (1991) do ?
got ppts to read a transcript of a trial in which the race of the victim and defendant varied
what were the ppts of pfeifer and ogloff (1991) asked to do ?
rate the guilt of the defendant
what were the findings of pfeifer and ogloff (1991) ?
the results replicated earlier studies which found that ppts overwhelmingly rated black defendants guiltier than white defendants, especially if the victim was white
what is a strength of the research used to investigate factors influencing jury decision making ?
it is ethical research
what do most studies that investigate factors influencing jury decision and pre-trial publicity making involve ?
they involve mock juries and ‘imaginary’ cases
what is the evaluation of using ‘imaginary’ cases and mock juries in this research ?
it may be less ecologically valid - but it does allow researchers to manipulate variables in a way that would not be considered practical or ethical in a real trial
what is the exception to the research in this area in terms of using ‘imaginary’ cases and mock juries ?
Bradbury and Williams (2013) used data from real trials - however, it was secondary data and so it did not interfere with the trials (still ethical in that regard) but extra-legal factors could be analysed
what is weakness with this research (criticism) ?
other untested factors may influence real juries - although awender and Hough investigated several characteristics of the defendant in their study, there may be other important influences
what other untested influences might there be (3) ?
1) whether certain jurors have personal experience of the offence
2) whether there are charismatic leaders within the jury that sway the others’ opinions
3) whether the characteristics of the jurors matchers the characteristics of the defendant (creating greater possibility of empathy)
why is it bad not to recognise these possible untested factors ?
because it may limit the usefulness of mock or even real jury research
what is another weakness of this research (criticism 2) ?
the results are often inconsistent
what is an example of inconsistent results ?
Marc Patry (2008) found that mock jurors who discussed the case were more likely to find the defendant guilty (opposite findings of abwender and hough)
what does the opposing evidence of Marc Patry (2008) suggest ?
the effects of attractiveness on the decision-making process may vary depending on other factors, which makes making firm conclusions difficult
what is the application of this research ?
it has implications in real criminal trials
how can these studies be applied to real-life applications ?
studies underline that jury members are human beings who could be subjected to biases that impact on their neutrality of the verdict
how can we take the data from these studies, to improve juror’s neutrality ?
jurors should be reminded by the judge or court officials of the need to remain impartial - not to let extra-legal factors influence their decision
what is example of the application ?
in the Pfeifer and Ogloff study, when they told the ppts that they had to find the defendant guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, the racial bias disappeared.
therefore, what could these studies do that is helpful to society ?
the knowledge of jury bias may reduce the miscarriages of justice in the future
