Jury Decision Making 2 Flashcards
What are the persuasion models?
Heuristic-Systematic model of information processing (chaiken and trope, 1999)
Elaboration likelihood model (petty and cacioppo, 1986)
Epsteins cognitive experimental self theory
What is heuristic processing?
Use pre-existing judgement rules
Minimal cognitive effort
Availability, accessibility and applicability
More likely to agree with experts
What is systematic processing?
Comprehensive and analytic cognitive processing of relevant information.
Cognitive effort
Focus on message content, not its source
What’s better - heuristic or systematic?
Ideally like jurors to use the systematic processing of the information
How does the elaboration likelihood model work
Persuasive message = central route or peripheral route
Central =
Audience - motivated, analytical
Processing - high effort; evaluate message
Persuasion - lasting change in attitude
Peripheral =
Audience - not motivated, not analytical
Processing - low effort, persuaded by cues outside of message
Persuasion - temporary change in attitude
Why is ELM good?
Takes info processing one step further, linking it to persuasion
Often used in advertising
Summary of peripheral / heuristic processing
Unmotivated or incapable of evaluating argument
Use a mental short cut or heuristic
Summary of central / systematic processing?
Motivated to understand and evaluate the argument
What did Baguley (2017) find?
Jurors influence by expert credentials in cases with complex expert testimony and technical language but not in cases with simple nontechnical testimony.
What is the Epstein’s cognitive experimental self theory?
Thinking involves two pathways/mindsets, operating in parallel
What are the stages of Epstein’s cognitive experimental self theory?
Human information processing = rational info processing pathway or experimental ‘’’’’’
Rational - based on analysis, logic and fact. Effortful. - use formal evidence to make decision
Experiential - based on learned experience and emotion. Effortless. - use non-evidential factors to make decision.
What are general processes in criminal decision making?
Confirmation bias
Feature positive effect
What is confirmation bias?
Favour incriminating over exonerating evidence
Searching for, interpreting, favouring and recalling information in a way that confirms one pre-existing beliefs
E.g. witness placing defendant at crime scene vs witness providing an alibi
What is feature positive effect?
Give more emphasis to the finding of evidence about events than the failure to secure evidence
E.g. finding DNA evidence vs not finding any
Emotions displayed by victim?
Emotionally controlled
Emotionally numb
Emotionally expressive
What is emotionally controlled?
Responds to the questions in a straightforward and matter of fact way, as if describing neutral events
What is emotionally numb?
Timid and nervous self-presentation
What is emotionally expressive?
Crying several times, with choked, trembling speech
What are heuristics?
Simple, efficient rules used to form judgements and make decisions
Mental shortcuts
Work well but can lead to cognitive biases
What are representativeness heuristics?
Using categories
High representativeness = very similar to the prototype of the category
What extra-evidential info will be processed by the heuristic/peripheral/experiential route?
Defendant attractiveness
Defendant ethnicity/ancestry and gender
Defendant socio-economic status
Display of emotion
How are physically attractive defendants treated differently?
Jurors more lenient towards attractive defendant (Sigall & Ostrove, 1975)
If defendant was unattractive, experiential thinkers convicted more often than rational thinkers (Gunnell & Ceci, 2010)
Attractive defendants received harsher punishments in cases of negligent homicide and swindling
What did Jones and Fitness (2008) find?
Ppts exposed to descriptions of criminals experienced disgust
Jurors high on disgust sensitivity were biased towards conviction and recommending lengthy sentences.
What’s the similarity principle?
People prefer others who are similar to them
Mock jurors give fewer guilty verdicts when the defendant resembles their background, ethnicity and beliefs
Jurors can also react negatively if the defendant is similar to them and has acted shamefully (Kerr at al., 1995)
What is the similarity-leniency hypothesis?
Jurors similar to the defendant, less likely to convict
How did Kerr et al. (1995) test the similarity-leniency hypothesis?
Varied race of defendant/juror ands strength of evidence
If evidence weak or moderate, racially similar jurors less likely to convict
BUT (boomerang effect) similar jurors occasionally harsher (black sheep effect) - threat to positive image.
- especially when evidence strong
- especially when in minority group
What’s the black sheep effect?
Similar jurors occasionally harsher - threat to positive image
Issues with jury size and composition?
6 person
- minority views less likely to be represented
- or less likely to have an ally
- minority may feel greater pressure to conform
12 person
- deliberate longer
- recall evidence more accurately
- generate more arguments
- more representative of the community
- hang more often
Who is represented in the jury?
Men over represented
POC underrepresented
Perspectives of women and POC are minimised
Are random electoral roll samples representative of the population?
No Non-registration tends to be higher for: - ethnic minorities - 20-24 year olds - those living in rented accommodation
What are the advantages and disadvantages of unanimous decision rule?
Hangs twice as often Evidence driven Take more time examining the evidence Jurors feel more satisfied Minority views are heard more
What are the advantages and disadvantages of majority decision rule?
Takes votes earlier
More driven to reach a verdict
Spend more time voting
Minority group members are not heard as often
What are the deliberation styles?
Verdict-driven
Evidence-driven
What are verdict-driven deliberation?
Start deliberation with an initial verdict poll
Deliberation is dominated by statements of verdicts preference
Creates adversarial factions preoccupied with winning the point and silencing the dissenters
Involves fewer speaking ppts
What are evidence-driven deliberations?
Start deliberation by discussing evidence
Later ballot of juror verdicts
Emphasises group story construction
Seeks to produce a collective representation
What did Waller et al. (2011) look into?
12 (not so) angry men
Does jury size matter
Social/group dynamic
Natural conversational limits - large groups >4 spontaneously split
Implications for 12 person jury
- subgroup dominates discussion?
- representativeness of decision?
What did Waller et al (2011) do?
Mock jury paradigm
120 UG students
40 min video of murder trial
Required to reach verdict in their groups
- subdivided: (A) small groups, (B) normal jury seating
Self-report measures
- contribution A>B
- Inhibition A<b></b>
What are jury room persuasions?
Social or normative influence
Cognitive or informational influence
What is social or normative influence?
Influencing others according to existing relations
we feel we must conform to the positive expectations of others
What is cognitive or informational influence?
Influencing by means of actual facts
we feel we must accept info from another as evidence of reality
What is group polarisation?
Tendency for group discussions to produce more extreme group decisions than the mean of members pre-discussion opinions.
What did Myers’s and Kaplan (1976) find?
Found group polarisation in mock juries
After discussing low guilt cases, subjects were more extreme in their judgments of innocence and more lenient in recommended punishment
After discussing high guilt cases shifted toward harsher judgments of guilt and punishment
How do persuasive arguments influence group polarisation?
Stasser, Kerr and Davis, 1980
Majority of arguments likely to be repeated/heard more often, better elaborated (minority less).
Familiarity breeds ‘liking’ - zajonc (1968), mere exposure effect = eventually give in to repeated concepts.
So polarisation influenced by arguments presented, desire to be correct
How do normative influence affect group polarisation?
Influence based on a individuals desire to be accepted by, and affiliated with others
Need for social approval (Schacter, 1951)
So polarisation influenced by group members perceptions of self relative to other group members, desire to belong
What is groupthink?
Groups can follow poor decision making procedures, resulting in poor decisions
The desire to reach unanimous agreement overrides the motivation to adopt proper rational decision making procedures.
Tends to occur in high status, highly cohesive groups.
- members suppress personal doubt
- open disagreement is stifled by other group members
Can reduce decision quality
What are groupthink symptoms?
Might is right
Closed mindedness
Uniformity pressure
What is might is right?
Illusion of invulnerability (excessive optimism, increased risk-taking).
Illusions of morality (losing sight of individual morals, discounting warnings).
What is closed mindedness?
Rationalisation (justify rather than re-appraise)
Stereotyping opponents (underestimate argument, character attacks)
What is uniformity pressure?
Illusion of unanimity (majority view assumed to be universal)
Conformity pressure (pressure not to express arguments against group views)
Self-censorship (withhold misgivings strengthen impression of unanimity)
Mind guards (cults, etc - certain members protect the group and the leader from problematic/contradictory information)
What is conformity?
Matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours to group norms
Asch’s 1951 study show people conform to group majority even when this majority is blatantly wrong.
What is minority influence?
How minorities influence majorities?
- consistency
- confidence
- defections from the majority
(persistent/confident minority punctures illusions of unanimity. Defections more influential than persistence)
Change of decision vs change of decision process
- doing what’s right as a group as an argument more than the right decision.
Devils advocate
- make opinions against the majority to create a false sense of assurance in the final verdict and promote individualistic thinking
