Pickel

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Steff06
  • Created on: 04-05-16 13:58
What were the aims in Pickel's study?
To look at the effect of prior convictions, to look at the role of the judge's instructions when they were followed be a legal examination, to examine how much the credibility of the witness affects the jurors' ability to ignore inadmissible evidence
1 of 12
Describe the methodology of Pickel's study
Experiment using a mock trial of a fictional theft with a mock jury. Critical evidence introduced by accident by witness. Item objected to by attorney and either allowed or overuled by judge.
2 of 12
Explain what happened in the former case when jurors were instructed to ignore inadmissible evidence.
This ruling by the judge was sometimes supported by a legal explanation. Inadmissible evidence may be suggestive of bad character in defendant and bias jury. Sometimes no legal explanation was required.
3 of 12
Who were the participants of Pickel's research?
236 Bali state university psychology students participated as part of a course requirement. Randomly assigned to a condition in an independent measures design.
4 of 12
Describe the procedure
Participants listened to an audiotape of the trial and then completed a questionnaire asking them to make several decisions about the case.
5 of 12
What decisions were the participants asked to make about?
The verdict, their estimate of the probable guilt of the defendant, a rating on a 10-point scale of the extent to which knowledge of the prior conviction caused them to believe the defendant was guilty.
6 of 12
What did they give a rating about and what other group was included?
Asked to give a rating about the credibility of each witness and there was a control group who did not get the critical evidence.
7 of 12
What were the findings about those who heard the evidence ruled inadmissible and who were given the explanation?
They were less likely to find the defendant guilty and were clearly not able to disregard it.
8 of 12
What were the findings about mock jurors who heard the critical evidence ruled inadmissible, but received no explanation?
They were able to follow instructions and ignore the evidence.
9 of 12
What hypothesis was there no evidence found to support it?
Hypothesis that the credibility of the witness would affect the jurors' ability to disregard inadmissible evidence. No significant effect on the use of prior conviction as measured by the 10-point scale.
10 of 12
What was the conclusion found about calling attention to inadmissible evidence?
Doing this makes it more important to the jury and they pay more attention to it.
11 of 12
Why do they apply a a sense of fair play?
To decide whether or not to make use of it (backfire effect).
12 of 12

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Describe the methodology of Pickel's study

Back

Experiment using a mock trial of a fictional theft with a mock jury. Critical evidence introduced by accident by witness. Item objected to by attorney and either allowed or overuled by judge.

Card 3

Front

Explain what happened in the former case when jurors were instructed to ignore inadmissible evidence.

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Who were the participants of Pickel's research?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Describe the procedure

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Core studies resources »