HideShow resource information

Persuading a jury- Pennington and Hastie (order te

  • Lab experiment 130 students
  • Tape recording of stimulus trial
  • 4 conditions: 39 proescution items in story order, 39 prosecution items in witness order, 39 defence items in story order, 39 defence items in witness order
  • Story order= more confidence and more guilty verdicts (59%)
  • Defence items in story order- guilty verdict of 31%
1 of 9

Persuading a jury- Cutler (expert witness)

  • Mock trail 538 undergraduates
  • Videotaped robbery trial 
  • 4 IVS: Witness Identifying Conditions (4), witness confidence, form of testimony, expert opinion
  • Juror verdicts= WIC good= more guilty verdicts
  • Juror memory- 85% correctly recalled and 50% recalled the 4 stages of memory
  • Juror confidence= good WIC= more confidence in accuracy
  • Expert testimony improved jurors knowledge 
2 of 9

Persuading a jury- Pickel (inadmissible evidence)

  • Critical evidence introduced by accident
  • 236 Ball State Uni psychology students
  • Audiotape and questionnaire- asked to make decisions
  • Heard critical evidence and had no explanation- were able to follow instructions and ignore evidence
  • Heard critical evidence and had explanation- weren't able to disregard the evidence
  • Calling on inadmissible evidence makes it more important to the jury 
3 of 9

Witness appeal- Castlellow (attractiveness)

  • Is an attractive defendant less likely to be found guilty?
  • 71 Males and 74 Females from East Carolina University
  • Attractiveness rated on scale of 1-9 (9 being really attractive)
  • 11 bipolar scales e.g. dull- exciting
  • Attractive defendant found guilty 56%
  • Unattractive defendant found guilty 76%
  • Attractive victim- guilty verdict of 77%
  • Unattractive victim- guilty verdict of 55%
  • Apperance does have an influence 
4 of 9

Witness appeal- Penrod and Cutler (witness confide

  • Videotaped trail of a robbery
  • Witness either statyed that she was 80% sure she identified the robber correctly or 100% sure
  • High or low condition variables
  • Confidence is a poor predictor of witness accuracy
5 of 9

Witness appeal- Ross (shields and children)

  • Mock trial
  • 300 college students, 100 students per condition
  • 1 of 3 versions of the 2 hour film of a court case
  • Guilty verdicts show no significant differences between conditions
  • There were gender differences- Female- guilty verdict of 58.6%, Male guilty verdict of 38.6% 
  • Defendent isn't at more risk if protective devices are used
  • Video conditions slightly less likely to produce a conviction 
6 of 9

Reaching a verdict- Hastie (stages in decision mak

  • Orientation period- relaxed and open discussion
  • Open confrontation- fierce debate
  • Reconcilliation- smooth over conflicts
7 of 9

Reaching a verdict- Asch (majority influence)

  • A naive participant to be asked questions (which line is the longest?), a stooge will deviate
  • Individuals conformed to the stooges 32% of the time
  • When one stooge changes their answer, the conformity drops to 5%
  • When there are more than 3 stooges, there is no difference to the conformity effect
8 of 9

Reaching a verdict- Nemeth and Wachtler (minority

  • Influence of percied autonomy 
  • Lab experiment
  • Groups of 5 participants to decide amount of compensation
  • Condition 1- Stooge chooses seat at head of the table, and is deviant in offering $300 compensation (others typically say $20000)
  • Condition 2- experimenter chooses the seats and the stooge is deviant in amount of compensation
  • Stooge exerts influence who he is seen as autonomous as he chooses his seat
  • Condition 2- little influence 
9 of 9


No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Criminological and Forensic Psychology resources »