Reaching A Verdict - Witness Apeal

Question 0

What was the aim of Castellow’s study?

Answer 0

To test the hypothesis that an attractive defendant is less likely to be seen as guilty. Secondly, when the witness is attractive, the defendant is more likely to be found guilty. Finally to look for any gender differences in jury verdicts depending on attractiveness.

Question 1

What was the study on attractiveness of the defendant?

Answer 1

Castellow, the effects of physical attractiveness on jury verdicts

Question 2

What was the method of Castellow’s study?

Answer 2

A laboratory experiment using the mock-trial format. It used an independent measures design.

Question 3

Who were the participants in Castellow’s study?

Answer 3

71 male and 74 female students who participated for extra credit in their introductory psychology classes at East Carolina University.

Question 4

What was the procedure of Castellow’s study?

Answer 4

Participants were told they would be reading a sexual harassment case and would gave yo answer questions on it. With the case were attached photographs of the victim and defendant previously categorised by a panel on a scale of 1 (very unattractive) to 9 (very attractive). The dependant variable was measured by the answer to the question ‘do you think Mr Radford is guilty of sexual harassment?’ Towards the end of the case booklet they were given, participants were asked to rate the defendant and the victim on 11 bipolar scales such as dull-exciting, nervous-calm, warm-cold.

Question 5

What were the results of Castellow’s study?

Answer 5

Analysis of the ratings revealed that physically attractive defendants and victims were rated positively on other personality variables as well. When the defendant was attractive, guilty verdicts were found 56% of the time against 76% of the time for an unattractive defendant. When the victim was attractive, the guilty verdict followed 77% of the time with 55% for the unattractive victim. No significant gender differences were found and both sexes were equally influenced by appearance.

Question 6

What were the conclusions of Castellow’s study?

Answer 6

Although the findings come from a mock trial, when applied in the courtroom it seems that appearance does indeed have a powerful effect, and this finding has been supported by much other research. A defendant would be well advised to make the best of their appearance when appearing in court.

Question 7

What was the study on witness confidence?

Answer 7

The effect of witness confidence on jurors’ assessment of eyewitness evidence

Question 8

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

Answer 8

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

Question 9

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

Answer 9

An experiment using a mock trial scenario. Independent measures design.

Question 10

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

Answer 10

Undergraduates, eligible and experienced jurors.

Question 11

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

Answer 11

A videotaped trial of a robbery was presented in which eyewitness identification played a key role. The witness testified that she was eith 80 or 100% confident that she had identified to robber. Nine other variables, all at both high and low level, were introduced into the film. Participants experienced either the high or low condition variables on a random basis and after watching the film they were asked to decide whether the robber was guilty or not.

Question 12

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

Answer 12

Witness confidence is the only statistically significant effect of the variables under the conditions of the mock trial. In a further nine studies, cutler looked at the relation between confidence and accuracy. The correlations across the nine studies between the two variables were 0.00 to 0.20, which is very weak.

Question 13

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

Answer 13

The evidence in the field is consistent in showing that confidence is a poor predictor of witness accuracy. It also shows that juror’s trust in it is u diminished, even if the judge advises the jury to be wary of it in their summing up.

Question 14

Which was the study on the impact of protective shields and videotape testimony on conviction rates?

Answer 14

Ross

Question 15

What were the aims of Ross’ study?

Answer 15

1. To find out if the use of protective shields and videotaped testimony increases the likelihood of a guilty verdict
2. To investigate the effect of protective devices on jury reaction to testimony - do they experience credibility inflation or deflation?

Question 16

What was the method of Ross’ study?

Answer 16

A mock trial based on an actual court transcript. A professional film crew recorded actors playing the roles in the case. Three versions were created: an open court with the child in full view, the child behind a 4 x 6 ft screen and the child’s testimony coming from a video link.

Question 17

Who were the participants of Ross’ study?

Answer 17

300 college students (150 male/150 female) from an introductory psychology class, the majority white middle class. They were told it was a study on psychology and the law. 100 students assigned to each condition.

Question 18

What was the procedure of Ross’ study?

Answer 18

Participants watched one of the 3 versions of the 2 hour film of a court case of alleged abuse which had the child’s father as the accused defendant, and the mother, two expert witnesses, on for either side and the child herself taking part as witnesses. The alleged abuse was a single touch that took place at bath time and the case was to judge whether it was innocent or sexual in nature. The judge issued a statement before the screen or video was used to direct the jury not to imply guilt by their use. After the case, the participants gave the verdicts and rated the credibility of the child witness in certain aspects of her story. They also rated the defendant on a variety of dimensions of his credibility.

Question 19

What were the results of Ross’ study?

Answer 19

The guilty verdicts showed no significant differences between conditions. However there was a significant difference between make and female participants - 58% females to 38% males found the defendant guilty. The jury’s perception of the credibility of the defendant did not differ across the three conditions, although once again there was a gender difference (more females rated less credible than males). The same pattern emerged for the credibility of the witness, with no difference across the three conditions but a very significant difference between genders.

Question 20

What were the conclusions of Ross’ study?

Answer 20

The results suggest that the defendant is not more at risk of protective devices are used, with the video condition slightly less likely to produce a conviction. When the case is allowed to run its full course and the judges warnings are in place, there is no disadvantage to the defendant.

Question 21

What happened in experiment 2 or Ross’ study?

Answer 21

All remained the same as before but the tape was stopped immediately after the child testified. The results showed a clear difference, with participants in the open court condition far more likely to convict and this time the effect of gender was not significant. The effect on the credibility of the witness remained at no significant difference between conditions.