Reaching A Verdict

Question 0

What methodology did Pennington Nd Hastie use?

Answer 0

Lab experiment

Question 1

What is the aim of Pennington and Hastie’s study?

Answer 1

To investigate whether or not story evidence summaries are true causes of the final verdict decisions and to what extent to which story order affects confidence in those decisions.

Question 2

Who were the participants in Pennington and Hastie’s study?

Answer 2

130 students from Northwestern University and Chicago University. They were paid and allocated to one of 4 conditions.

Question 3

What was the procedure of Pennington and Hastie’s study?

Answer 3

Participants were allocated to one of four conditions. They all listened to a tape recording of a fictional trial using actors. The participants were then asked to respond to written questions and asked to reach a verdict on a murder charge and asked to rate their confidence in their decision on a 5 point scale. Participants did not interact with each other. The defence items comprised of 39 not guilty pieces of evidence and the prosecution item comprised of 39 guilty pieces of evidence.

Question 4

What were the results of Pennington and Hastie’s study?

Answer 4

Story order is the most effective way of presenting evidence as it is easier ti make sense of the story when it is presented in chronological order.

Question 5

What is the aim of Loftus’ study?

Answer 5

To investigate the influence on jurors of expert testimony about eyewitness identification.

Question 6

What methodology did Loftus use?

Answer 6

2 Lab experiments, independent measures.

Question 7

Who were the participants in Loftus’ study?

Answer 7

1- 240 students from the University of Washington

2- 120 students from the university of Washington.

Question 8

What is the procedure of experiment one in Loftus’ study?

Answer 8

Experiment 1- participants were randomly allocated to one of four conditions. Half read the expert psychological terminology introduced by the defence, half did not. Within each condition, half read the violent version of the crime. Expert testimony included information indicating that people are less good at recognising crime members of another race.

Question 9

What were the results of experiment one in Loftus’ study?

Answer 9

Expert testimony reduced guilty verdicts by 19%

Question 10

What was the procedure of experiment two in Loftus’ study?

Answer 10

all participants read the violent version of the crime. They were put into groups of 6 and asked to deliberate for 30 minutes and reach a group verdict. Half read the expert testimony, half did not. Researchers timed the amount of time participants spent discussing eyewitness testimony.

Question 11

What were the results of experiment 2 in Loftus’ study?

Answer 11

The presence of an expert testimony caused juries to spend on average 3 minutes longer discussing eyewitness testimony than without expert testimony.

Question 12

What was the conclusion of Loftus’ study?

Answer 12

The presence of an expert witness decreases the possibility of a guilty verdict because jurors have more knowledge and are able to make a more a informed decision, taking longer to discuss the verdict, taking more aspects into considerationz

Question 13

What was the aim of Pickel’s study?

Answer 13

To investigate the influence on jurors of testimony ruled inadmissible by a judge.

Question 14

What methodology did Pickel’s study use?

Answer 14

Lab experiment.

Question 15

What was the procedure of Pickel’s study?

Answer 15

The participants listening to an audio recording of a fictional trial for theft. At one point in the trial, witness refers to defence having previous convictions which is objected as inadmissible evidence.

Question 16

Explain the groups in Pickel’s study?

Answer 16

1- judge allows evidence
2- judge overrules evidence with legal explanation
3- judge overrules evidence with no legal explanation.
4- the control group heard no inadmissible evidence.

Question 17

What were the results of Pickel’s study?

Answer 17

Mock jurors who heard the critical evidence ruled inadmissible with no legal explanation were able to ignore the evidence whereas where an explanation was given, the evidence seem to influence their decision. None of the participants believe that the evidence influence their decision.

Question 18

What was the conclusion of Pickel’s study?

Answer 18

Reactance theory- the more attention is brought to the evidence, the less likely you are to be able to ignore it.

Question 19

What is the aim of Castellow’s study?

Answer 19

To investigate using a mock trial simulation the effects of physical attractiveness of the defendant and plaintiff on jury decision making.

Question 20

What was the methodology of Castellow’s study?

Answer 20

Lab experiment

Question 21

Who were the participants in Castellow’s study?

Answer 21

Psychology undergraduates from

The University of East Carolina.

Question 22

What is the procedure of Castellow’s study?

Answer 22

Participants read a summary of a mock trial in which a young secretary accused her boss of sexual harassment. They were shown previously rated pictures of the victim and defendant. The dependent variable was measured by the guilty verdict. Participants were asked to rate the defendant and victim on 11 bipolar scales such as dull-exciting then grouped into one of four conditions.

Question 23

What were the results of Castellow’s study?

Answer 23

The unattractive defendant received more guilty verdicts that the attractive defendant.

Question 24

What is the conclusion of Castellow’s study?

Answer 24

The attractiveness of a defendant/ plaintiff effects the jury verdict.

Question 25

What was the aim of Penrod and Cutler’s study?

Answer 25

To examine several factors including confidence that jurors might consider when evaluating eyewitness identification evidence.

Question 26

Who were the participants of Penrod and Cutler’s study?

Answer 26

129 eligible and experienced jurors as well as students from Wisconsin.

Question 27

What was the procedure of Penrod and Cutler’s study?

Answer 27

Participants viewed a videotaped trial that involved eyewitness identifying an armed robber. The dependant was whether the robber was guilty or not. This was recorded on a questionnaire. Ten IVs were manipulated that were associated with the crime and the identification including weapon focus and confidence.

Question 28

What were the results of Penrod and Cutler’s study?

Answer 28

Witness confidence was the only statistically significant effect of the IVs. Cutler et al later looked at the relation between witness confidence and their actual accuracy. The correlations across 9 studies all together was 0-0.2. This is a very week significance.

Question 29

What is the conclusion of Penrod and Cutler’s study?

Answer 29

Witness confidence has the most significant effect on jury making decisions. There is none- little correlation between confidence and accuracy.

Question 30

What is the aim of Ross’s study?

Answer 30

To find out if the use of protective shields and videotaped testimony increases the likelihood of a guilty verdict.

Question 31

What is the methodology of Ross’ study?

Answer 31

A mock trial based on an actual court transcript. Actors played the parts of the witnesses.

Question 32

What was the procedure of Ross’ study?

Answer 32

Participants were allocated to 3 groups
1- control condition
2- screen condition 
3- video condition.  
Apart from the child witnesses the films wee all the same. A father had been accused of touching his child in a sexual nature.

Question 33

Who were the participants in Ross’ study?

Answer 33

300 college students, half male, half female taking a psychology course. Split into 3 groups.

Question 34

What were the results of Ross’ study?

Answer 34

There was no difference between the groups therefore these methods can be used to prevent distress of children in confidence knowing that the jury decision making process is not affected.

Question 35

What is the aim of Hastie’s study?

Answer 35

To examine the stage a jury goes through to reach a verdict.

Question 36

What was Hastie conclude?

Answer 36

There are three stages
1- orientation period: jurors are relaxed and have an open discussion.
2- open confrontation: debate turns fierce. Jurors focus on small details. There is intense pressure. Minorities start to conform.
3- reconciliation: group decision is established. Humour is used to release tension.

Question 37

What was the aim of Asch’s study?

Answer 37

To investigate the effects of conformity to a majority when the task in unambiguous.

Question 38

What is the methodology of Asch’s study?

Answer 38

Lab experiment

Question 39

What is the procedure of Asch’s study?

Answer 39

A participant sat at a table with 6 confederates. They were shown a card with a single line on it and another carf with 3 lines of different length. They were asked to match the length of the original line. The confederates gave blatantly incorrect responses.

Question 40

What were the results of Asch’s study?

Answer 40

32% conformity was found.

Question 41

What is the aim of Nameth and Watchler’s study?

Answer 41

To investigate the influence of perceived autonomy (choosing where to sit at the table) and consistency on minority influence.

Question 42

Who were the participants of Nemeth’s study?

Answer 42

5 groups of student participants.

Question 43

What was the procedure of Nemeth’s study?

Answer 43

Participants made an individual decision about how much compensation they should award a victim for an injury. They were then taken to a room where there is a long rectangular table. In condition A, the confederate sits at the head of the table. In condition B the experimenter told everyone where to sit. They then decided the amount of compensation. In condition A, the confederate chose a particularly low figure.

Question 44

What were the results of Nemeth’s study?

Answer 44

The confederate had much more influence in the first condition.

Question 45

What is the conclusion of Nemeth’s study?

Answer 45

Minority influence can have an effect in jury decision as long as they act confidently, autonomously and consistently