Just Spaces
Dr Blake McKimmie & Ms Jill Hays
Applied Social Psychology Lab
School of Psychology
“...when I first saw the fixed screen
dock I was immediately concerned
about its impact on the jury...
...The immediate impression was that
they were separated in that way
because they posed a threat to people
in the courtroom....”
- The Honourable Justice Whealy
2
How do jurors make their decisions?
Other cues
Message content
Extra-legal factors
• Pre-trial publicity
• Defendant characteristics
– Ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender,
attractiveness, tattoos
• Witness characteristics
– Nonverbal behaviour, gender, age, credentials
• Case domain
Kramer, Kerr, & Carroll (1990); Mazzella & Feingold (1994); McKimmie, Masters, Masser,
Schuller, & Terry (2013); McKimmie, Masser & Bongiorno (2013); Schuller, Terry &
McKimmie (2005); Antrobus, McKimmie, & Newcombe (2012); Cooper, Bennett, & Sukel
(1996)
Dual process models of persuasion
Cacioppo, Petty, Chuan, & Rodriguez (1986)
Chaiken, Liberman & Eagly (1989)
Central route
Peripheral route
High effort
Low effort
Message quality
Cues and decision rules
When motivation and ability
are high
When motivation and ability
are low
Cognitive misers and optimisers
Eagly & Chaiken (1993)
Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen (1994)
Sherman, Lee, Bessnoff, & Frost (1998)
McKimmie, Masters, Masser, Schuller & Terry (2013)
Judges and jurors are similar in
how they assess case evidence
Guthrie, Rachlinski, & Wistrich (2001)
How might the design of the
dock influence jurors?
Cue to danger
Ecological contamination
Attention
Camera perspective bias, weapon focus
Categorisation and stereotypes
Outgroup, offender, dehumanisation
Werthman & Piliavin (1967); Terrill & Reisig (2003); Lassiter & Irvine (1986); Loftus (1979);
Tajfel & Turner (1986); Devine (1989); Mazella & Feingold (1994); Haslam (2006).
Predictions
Glass
No glass
Control
Weak
evidence
+
-
-
Strong
evidence
+
+
+
Main Effect of Evidence
4.6
SOE:
WeakWeak
evidence
Strong
evidence
SOE:
Strong
4.4
Guilt
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
No Glass
Glass
Control
Dock Condition
11
No Effect of Dock Condition on:
• Dangerousness
• Dehumanisation
• Stereotypicality as a criminal
12
Effect of Dock Condition on Juror Bias
4
Juror Bias
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
No Glass
Glass
Control
13
Mediation of Dock Condition on Guilt
through Juror Bias, then Dangerousness
Indirect: .05*
.73*
Dangerousness
Juror Bias
.81*
.09*
Dock design
Guilt
Direct: .12
Total: .04, p = .596
14
Acknowledgements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Team:
Professor David Tait
Professor Rick Sarre
Dr Meredith Rossner
Dr Emma Rowden
Ms Diane Jones
Professor Mary Rose
Mr Paul Katsieris
Mr Mariano De Duonni
• Funding:
• Australian Research Council
• Linkage Project LP120200288
• Student Investigators:
• Jill Hays
• Kathryne Phillis
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Partners:
PTW Architects
Katsieris Origami
Hassell Pty Ltd
WA Department of the AG
ICE Design Australia
NSW Department of AG and
Justice
Applied Social Psychology Lab: http://www.psy.uq.edu.au/research/appliedsocial