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
Comments
No comments have yet been made