Witness Appeal: Homework Feedback
3.2.1: Physical Attractiveness:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Start with background first.
Results: Mention the attractiveness of the plaintiff and the defendant.
Remember it’s the plaintiff not victim
Focus on the opposite levels of attraction: 41% ( D/  P) vs 83%( P/  D)
Halo Effect: more attractive- less guilty verdicts, make sure you mention the
assumptions made about the person that enables them to receive less guilty
verdicts..
Please don’t say Proves, supports, shows, demonstrates.
Conclusion ‘physical attractiveness had an effect on jury verdict.’ Be explicit about
what effect.
Key words: assumptions, cognitive bias, impression formation, Halo Effect, Asch,
Dion, Implicit personality theory.
Witness Appeal: Homework Feedback
3.2.2: Confidence:
•
•
•
•
Remember Penrod and Culter’s study was on…. Confidence and the % of
convictions NOT confidence and accuracy.
The follow up investigation by Culter looked at whether confidence was a good
predictor of accuracy. It was great if you included this when discussing the halo
effect as it links to the assumption that if someone is confident they are accurate,
but remember it is a different study and wasn’t part of the original study.
Key words: assumptions, cognitive bias, impression formation, Halo Effect, Asch.
(SAME as 3.2.1)
This was a research question please check that you have: AM PP FC
Witness Appeal: Homework Feedback
3.2.3: Shields and Videotapes
What to do now?
• Read your work, did you make these mistakes, did you
include all the relevant key terms.
• Re-read your work and highlight the key points.
Are you repeating yourself?
Remember you have to write:
4 x 15markers & 4 x 10 markers in the exam, we want to ensure
that we are using EVERY minute wisely.
Homework:
Can you please….
• Name: (computer)
• Time started- time finished
• Pen colour-change if you are using your notes.
• Any questions you have down the bottom.
Witness
Appeal
Reaching
a Verdict
Attractiveness
(Castellow/Dion Theory)
Witness Confidence
(Penrod & Cutler)
Shields and videotaping
(Ross et. al).
Reaching
a Verdict
Decision making (Hastie)
Majority Influence (Asch)
Minority Influence
(Nemeth and Wachtler)
3.3.1 Reaching a Verdict
• Stages and influences on decision making (Hastie 1983)
• Majority influence (Asch 1953)
• Minority influence (Mosvocivi)
Background:
Stages and influences on decision making (Hastie 1983)
Orientation Period
Open
Confrontation
Reconciliation
Attempts to smooth over
conflicts
Different opinions arise
Explore different
interpretations
Fierce debate
Focus on details
Pressure on the minority
to conform
Raise questions and
explore facts
Relaxed and open
discussion
Support for the group
decision is established
Set the agenda
Tension released through
humour.
Background:
Stages and influences on decision making (Hastie 1983)
Orientation Stage
Open Confrontation Reconciliation
Relaxed and open
discussion
Fierce debate
Attempts to smooth over
conflicts
Set the agenda
Focus on details
Tension released through
humour.
Raise questions and
explore facts
Explore different
interpretations
Different opinions arise
Pressure on the minority to
conform
Support for the group
decision is established
Can we study real cases?
• How likely are you to share your ideas in a jury room if you
knew it wasn’t confidential? (media, defendant, plaintiff,
psychology experiment)
• Confidential and the safety of the juniors is vital.
• The problem for researchers is that juries are sworn to secrecy about the
deliberations, even after the trial, they are prohibited by law from
discussing it.
• So we use mock trials and analyse quantitative data that is in the public
domain.
Background:
Influences on decision making
•
group size of the jury,
•
people in the jury
•
pre-trial publicity,
•
ethnicity,
•
gender,
•
individual differences,
•
how the votes are being cast.
•
social processes: majority influences.
•
social processes: minority influences.
Research:
Stages and influences on decision making (Hastie 1983)
Mock Trial: fictional murder trial
Videotaped and watched- Observational study
IV: Verdict that they were told to arrive at
Unanimous
Majority
Divided/Hung
(12-0)
(10-2)
(8-4)
Research:
Stages and influences on decision making (Hastie 1983)
• Findings:
– In _____% of cases the jury will decide in the direction of the
initial majority.
– Hung juries usually result only when there is significant
____factions at the beginning of deliberations.
– Decision making time ____with case complexity.
– Jury discussions are/are not usually contentious.
• The research shaped the background.
Research:
Stages and influences on decision making (Hastie 1983)
• Key Terms:
Evaluation
• Issues: LEE’S QQ
• Debates: DRNIPUE
• Methods: COVERS
• Approaches: DISC PPB
BACKGROUND/RESEARCH
Strengths
Weaknesses
Checklist: Forensics
1 minute- key word plan
10 minutes to write
“Describe the stages of jury decision making when
researching a verdict. [10]
Different pens please: (No notes and with notes).
MINORITY VS MAJORITY
•
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqDd06GW76o
What stage are they in?
Why might people conform to the majority?
Why might people conform to the minority?
3.3 Reaching a Verdict
• Stages and influences on decision making (Hastie 1983);
• Majority influence (Asch 1953);
occurs when the majority establishes a norm and gets the minority to move to the
position of the majority.
• Minority influence (Moscovici 1976, 1980, 1985).
occurs when a minority rejects the established norm of the majority of group
members and gets the majority to move to the position of the minority.
3.3.2 Reaching a Verdict
• Stages and influences on decision making (Hastie 1983)
• Majority influence (Asch 1953)
• Minority influence (Mosvocivi)
Majority influence (Asch 1953)
•
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRoiTWkBHU
What would you do?
What factors influence conformity?
Background
Majority Influence (Asch 1953)
Factors the effect conformity
Group Size:
↑ group size (3+)= Conformity ↑
Anonymous
↑ Anonymity= Conformity↓
Why: ↓ group pressure & normative influence = no fear of rejection from the group.
Being Anonymous:
Rank the following methods of giving a verdict:
• show of hands
• verbally going around the room
• secret written ballot
Background
Majority Influence (Asch 1953)
Factors the effect conformity
Distortion of Perception: (Informational Influence)
Thought the wrong answers were right. Believed that the other members must have
knowledge that they didn’t.
Distortion of Judgement: they felt doubt about the accuracy- conformed with group.
Distortion of Action: (Normative Influence) didn’t want to be ridiculed and went along
with the group. Highlights our need to belong and our concerned regarding what people
think of us. Peer pressure to confirm.
Research
Majority Influence (Asch 1953)
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA
Participant 1: Conform? Why?
Participant 2: Conform? Why?
Participant 3: Conform? Why?
Research
Majority Influence (Asch 1953)
A:
M:
P:
P:
F:
C:
• KEY WORDS:
Research
Majority Influence (Asch 1953)
Aim:
To investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority
group could influence conformity rates.
Method:
Experiment (laboratory)
Deception: ‘it would be a ‘vision test.’’
Participants:
123 male participants from Swarthmore College (USA).
Research
Majority Influence (Asch 1953)
Procedure:
• Participants and confederates
were shown one line and then
asked: ‘which of the three lines,
A, B or C, matches the stimulus
line X?’
• one participants in a room full of
confederates. Participant would
be 5th in the row.
• The confederates would answer
with a wrong answer.
Research
Majority Influence (Asch 1953)
Findings
• 75% of participants conformed at least once.
• 25% did not conform at all.
• 32% of all responses showed conformity.
• Majorities bigger than three make very little
difference to the conformity effect.
Research
Majority Influence (Asch 1953)
Conclusions:
• Normative influence is stronger than own perception.
• Conform to group is strong, even when you know it’s wrong:
delay vote until discussion first.
• ¼ didn’t confirm at all.
KEY WORDS:
•
Asch, normative influence, informational influence, conformity, confederate
75%- participants 32%- total, vision test.
Evaluation
• Issues: LEE’S QQ
• Debates: DRNIPUE
• Methods: COVERS
• Approaches: DISC PPB
BACKGROUND
Strengths
Weaknesses
RESEARCH
Strengths
Weaknesses
Checklist: Forensics
1 minute- key word plan 10 minutes to write
Complete: Background
“How might the view of the majority influence a jury when reaching a verdict.” [10]
Bullet Point: Research
“Describe research into how the majority influences a jury when reaching a verdict.” [10]
3.3.3 Reaching a Verdict
• Stages and influences on decision making (Hastie 1983)
• Majority influence (Asch 1953)
• Minority influence (Mosvocivi)
Background
Minority influence (Mosvocivi)
Conformity : whereby the minority publicly conform to the majority’s norms
but privately reject them.
Conversion: Convincing the majority that the minority views are correct. .
Conversion (public and private acceptance) Conversion (public not private)
Background
Minority influence (Mosvocivi)
Factors that may increase conversion:
• Consistency of the minority
• Confidence of the minority
• Appearing to be unbiased in discussions, asking questions, no absolutes.
When the minority is influential it will override the following factors:
Group Size:
Normative Influence: Group Pressure
The majority might be swayed because they believe the minority is better
informed than they are (informational influence).
Research
Minority Influence (Mosvocivi)
A:
M:
P:
P:
F:
C:
• KEY WORDS:
Research
Minority Influence (Mosvocivi)
Aim: To investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority.
Method: laboratory experiment, mock trail.
Participants: 128 female undergraduate students 32 groups (4 participants
and 2 confederates in each)
Procedure:
1. Given eye tests to ensure they were not color-blind.
2. Shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue.
3. State the colour of each slide out loud.
PART ONE: confederates answered green for all 36 slides.
PART TWO: answered green 24 times and blue 12 times.
Research:
Minority influence (Mosvocivi)
Moscovici
• Six participants (2 confederates)
IV- consistency of incorrect answers.
Consistent:
all were green.
Inconsistent:
some were green
36
Research
Minority influence (Mosvocivi)
Results:
The consistent minority had an affect on
the majority (8.42%) compared to an
inconsistent minority (only 1.25% said
green).
Total: A third (32%) of all participants judged
the slide to be green at least once.
Results
Minority influence (Mosvocivi)
•
Conclusions:
• Confronted with a consistent opposition, members of the majority will rethink
their position.
•
Consistency gives the impression that the minority are convinced they are right
and are committed to their viewpoint.
•
When the majority is confronted with someone with self-confidence and refuses
to back own, they may assume that he or she has a point.
•
A consistent minority disrupts established norms and creates uncertainty, doubt
and conflict.
•
This can lead to the majority taking the minority view seriously. The majority will
therefore be more likely to question their own views.
KEY WORDS:
Evaluation
• Issues: LEE’S QQ
• Debates: DRNIPUE
• Methods: COVERS
• Approaches: DISC PPB
BACKGROUND
Strengths
Weaknesses
RESEARCH
Strengths
Weaknesses
Checklist: Forensics
1 minute- key word plan 10 minutes to write
Complete: Background
“Describe research into how the minority influences a jury when reaching a verdict.” [10]
Bullet Point: Research
“How might the view of the minority influence a jury when reaching a verdict.” [10]
Generic Mark Scheme for Part A
Checklist: Forensics
15 markers
1. Annotated the question
2. Double check the structure: PCEC? PCEEC? Conclusion?
3. Plan out your Ps and Es
4. Remember the elements of the top band:
•
•
•
•
•
Included many evaluation points covering a range of issues: Issues/Debates/ Methods, Approaches
An argument that is organised, balanced, well developed: PCEC or PCEEC (compare qns)
Have you included relevant examples? All three in that subsection
Does your answer relate to the question: eg: ASSESS, RESEARCH, WITNESS APPEAL, USEFULNESS?
Have you made a valid conclusion?
Generic Mark Scheme for Part B
Checklist: Forensics
15 Mark Questions
PCEC
Evaluate:
Evaluate the methodology used in researching a verdict.
Evaluate the usefulness of research into researching a verdict.
Evaluate the application of research into what influences researching a verdict in court (June 2011).
Discuss:
Discuss the limitations of research into researching a verdict
Discuss difficulties which may be encountered when researching reaching a verdict.
Discuss ethical issues when researching influence on reaching a verdict in court (June 2012).
To what extent:
To what extent is research into research a verdict useful?
Assess:
Assess the usefulness of research into witness appeal in the courtroom