Topic 4 - Psychology in the Courtroom

Question 1

Key Research

Answer 1

Dixon et al (2002) - Role of accent and context in perceptions of guilt

Question 2

Aim

Answer 2

To test the hypothesis that a brummie-accented suspect would recieve a higher rating of guilty than a suspect with a standard (queen’s english).

Does the suspects’ race or type of crime affect this

Question 3

Sample

Answer 3

119 white undergraduates (Worcester)
Brummie Accented students excluded

Question 4

Procedure

Answer 4

• P’s listened to a two-minute recorded conversation based on the transcript of an interview that took place in Birmingham Police Station (1995).
• The Police interviewer had a standard accent whilst the suspect was played by a student that was a ‘natural code switcher’ (Brummie + Standard Accent)
• P’s given a 7 point bipolar scale = Guilty - Innocent

Question 5

IVs

Answer 5

Accent - Brummie or Standard

Type of Crime - 1. Armed Robbery (Blue Collar) + 2. Cheque Fraud

The Race of Suspect was altered by the police officers description of the suspect - White or Black

Question 6

Results

Answer 6

Accent had a significant effect on the participant’s attribution of guilt
Brummie-accented susepect was rated higher on the scale of guilt
The Brummie-accented, black suspect who had committed blue-collar crimes.

Question 7

Penrod + Cutler

Answer 7

Lab experiment - Independent Measures

P’s (Undergrads + experienced jurors) shown one video of a robbery case at trial.

The witness was either - 80% confident or 100% confident of their suspect identification

Results -
80% condition = 60% guilty
100% condition = 67% guilty

Question 8

Sigall + Ostrove

Answer 8

Attractiveness of the defendant

120 college students - equal gender split
Read an account of a crime where the defendant was female.

IV - Burgulary or Swindling

It was predicted that she would be given a harsher sentence for swindling - using her beauty for crime

Mean sentence given -
Swindling (attractive ) = 5.45 years
Burgulary (attractive) = 2.8 years

The jurors were more lenient on the attractive burgular than the attractive swindler

Question 9

Pennington + Hastie

Answer 9

Story Order = Where the lawyer presents evidence in chronological order.

Witness order = Lawyers present witnesses in the sequence they believe will most likely affect the jury. eg. best first.

Results
Pros + Def use story = 59% guilty
Def = Witness / Pros = Story = 78% guilty

Story order is very persuasive when only used by one side.

Question 10

Simmons + Chabris

Answer 10

Inattentional blindess = 46%

Used to discredit witness testimony by saying the witness was not paying attention

Increased liklihood of seeing unexpected event if

Opaque video
Easy task
Similar colour (Black / gorilla)
Usual event (umbrealla)

Question 11

Application - Influencing a jury

Answer 11

1. Be attractive - Sigall + Ostrove
2. Be mindful of other evidence order - P+H
3. Be confident - Penrod + Cutler