6. Which of these statements does not describe Pennington and Hastie (1988) study that supports the claim that story order has the most powerful influence when persuading a jury?

There were four conditions to this experiment based around the order in which the prosecution or defence presented their 39 pieces of evidence.
When the driver had no insurance, jurors awarded the V average of $33,000, when he said he did have insurance this increased to an average of $37,000. This suggests that jurors are prepared to make larger awards to V's when an insurance company pay.
The study comprised a hour-long experiment with participants listening to a tape recording of the stimulus trail (Commonwealth of Massachusetts versus Caldwell) and the responding to questions.
If the evidence was presented chronologically, this was described as 'story order', whereas if the order in was based on who the best witnesses were (presenting either first (primacy effect) or last (receny effect))this was described as witness order

7. Which of these statements did not occur in Asch (1956) study on majority influence ?

The confederates were told to answer incorrectly on 12/18 trails
P's seated around a table in a room and asked to look at 3 lines of different lengths. Then asked in turn which of the three lines was the same length as the 'standard' line.
After listening to the facts the P's were made an individual verdict. They were then taken to a rooms with a table which had four seats at the sides and one at the top.
The p's were shown a series of lines and always answered in the same order (real P answered last of second to last)

When the evidence is presented in chronological order of the events
Where you remember the first bit of information presented to you (but the struggle to remember the middle)
Where you remember the the last bit of information presented to you.

0 of the control group showed affectionless psychopathy according to Bowlby
individual variables- weak morality+ low self-control both predicted offending
over 50% of juvenile thieves were separated with mother for longer than 6 months in the first 5 years.
2 participants in the control group experienced separation with mother for longer than 6 months in the first 5 years.
32% of juvenile thieves showed affectionless psychopathy according to Bowlby

16 dectectives in the Robbery division of Dade County Florida. Min 5 years with the division
36 students from the University of Washington, aged 18-31.Half were recruited through ads and were paid $3.50 and the rest got extra credit for their psychology classes.
Group 1 participants over 30 who are unlikely to recognise the faces of ten celebrities. Group 2 participants in their early 20's who are likely to be familiar with said celebrities.

In interrogation the suspect is asked an array of standard questions about the story (some false)
The 9-step model is designed to INCREASE the suspects anxiety while DECREASING the perceived consequences of confessing
Suspect is then forcefully told that their are errors in their story and they must re-answer them
A short story is read to the suspect who is then told to recant all they can remember
The more the person changes their story the more suggestible they are going to be in interrogation.

The participants were shown a videotaped trail of a robbery in which eyewitness identification played a key role.
The Plantiff and Defendant were categorised as attractive or unattractive by a panel from 1-9 1= very unattractive 9= very attractive.
Phase one- mock jurors read a trail summary of a case in which a 23 yr old secretary/receptionist was sexually harassed by her male employer.
The jurors were shown photos of the P and D and told to give a verdict. There were 4 combos of photos. First two were P and D both either attractive or unattractive. Second two P= attractive and D= unattractive and vice versa.
Towards the end of the case booklet the P's were asked to rate D and V on 11 bipolar scales such as dull-exciting and nervous-calm

When the defence used story order and prosecution used witness order this dropped to 31% guilty verdict.
If the driver said he was insured and the judge ruled this inadmissable and told the jury to disregard this, the average award to V was increased to $46,000. This suggests that jurors attach added significance to banned info.
When the driver had no insurance, jurors awarded the V average of $33,000, when he said he did have insurance this increased to an average of $37,000. This suggests that jurors are prepared to make larger awards to V's when an insurance company pay.