PSYCH 3CC3 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Penrod, Physical Attractiveness, Embezzlement
28 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Jury Psychology
Lecture 6
Introduction
• Jury selection – occurs mostly in the US and w/ civil trials. The defence and prosecution
determines which jurors should be accepted/rejected from the jury pool
o Jury consulting firms do this. Usually hired by defendants (especially big
companies) if they can afford it. Firms recommend how evidence should be
presented to sway jury in their favour
• Pre-trail publicity – also mostly in the US b/c the commonwealth has the publicity ban
• Jury decision-making – how jurors put together evidence they received and coming to a
conclusion of guilt/innocence
• Jury instructions – how well they’re understood and how comprehension can be
improved
Jury Research Methods
• Mock juries – fake juries that are presented w/ trial evidence & all elements of a real
case, asked to make a verdict about the defendant. Reasoning is recorded to variables are
changed to see how it affects verdict
• Shadow juries – done exclusively by jury consulting firms. Individuals from community
are seated in trial with a real case and are interviewed afterwards so the firm can adjust
their case to meet the needs of the real jury
• Community surveys – also exclusive to jury consulting firms. Members of the
community who are eligible for jury duty are surveyed to see which sides they would
support
Juror Demographics & Verdicts
• A juror’s own demographics such as socioeconomic status, education, age, gender,
race/ethnicity, and religion play no role in biasing them towards a verdict
• Some studies find no difference while others show it affects the verdict
positively/negatively
• There may be bias based on the suspect’s demographics
Juror Personality & Verdicts
• Authoritarianism – identified in 1940s, similar to fascism (Nazi mindset). They believe in
strong leadership, there are winners/losers/weak/strong, obedience & respect for authority
is the most important virtues children should learn, discipline, social problems solved by
eliminating immoral people, etc.
o Two scales used to assess authoritarianism:
▪ F-Scale – given fascist statements and asked to rate how much they
agree/disagree w/ them
▪ RWA Scale – similarly has statements that are rated
o Verdicts
▪ More ready to convict – they believe strongly in the accuracy of their
dominant leaders (police) if the police tried them to be guilty, they have to
be guilty
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
▪ Better recall of prosecution than defence evidence – immediately biased
towards prosecution
▪ Recommend longer sentences
▪ More punitive toward low-status defendants – the poor & weak
▪ Effect small – these effects of authoritarianism are larger in real juries than
in mock juries
o Juror Bias Scale – used to assess bias in jurors. 22 statements, looks at 2 aspects:
▪ Probability of commission – probability they see an individual as being
guilty before evidence is presented. Jurors agreeing w/ statements are high
on the scale
• Ex. “A suspect who runs from police most probably committed the
crime” “Generally the police only make an arrest when they are
sure who committed crime”
▪ Reasonable doubt – should only convict someone if they are guilty beyond
reasonable doubt
• Ex. “If majority of evidence, but not all of it, suggest defendant
committed the crime, jury should vote not guilty” this is good b/c
there is reasonable doubt
• Dogmatism – strong belief in cultural norms. The big difference b/w dogmatism &
authoritarianism is dogmatism is not associated w/ prejudice & discrimination against
outgroups (racial/religious) they believe strongly that the government is always right
o High dogmatism → more likely to convict (believes in right-ness of leadership),
more punitive after conviction (stiffer sentence)
o Reasonable effect but not super strong; some studies found this to be true while
others didn’t
• Locus of control – how life choices are guided
o Internal – individuals that believe everyone has personal control of their own life
choices, they are responsible for the consequences (e.g. one’s misfortunes are d/t
the mistakes they make)
▪ Harsher w/ punishment only (not biased in the findings of guilt), view
defendant as more responsible when actions are ambiguous/injuries are
high
▪ No difference compared to external when defendant clearly at fault or
injuries less severe
o External – life is controlled by external forces or pressures outside of themselves
(e.g. one’s misfortunates are d/t bad luck)
• Just world beliefs
o High JWB – believing that people get what’s coming for them & everything
works in direction of justice. Those who are innocent will be cleared, guilty will
be caught. If something bad happens to you, you did something to deserve it
▪ JWB effects stronger in women than men
▪ High JWB → less favourable impression of defendant, recommend
harsher punishment, victim held more responsible (especially w/ rape
cases)
▪ Victims of high moral character are less responsible than those of
questionable moral character
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
o Low JWB – things could happen even if you don’t deserve it
o Locus of control has to do w/ the person’s choices while just world beliefs has
how the world works (situation)
Pretrial Publicity (PTP)
• Info most often leaked by law officers or prosecutors
• Imrich et al (1995) – 27% of stories in 14 US papers were prejudicial to defendant.
Mostly about the defendant’s character, behaviour, guilt (negative stuff)
• Tans & Chafee (1966) – found the more negative information mock jurors received prior
to trail, the more likely defendant is found guilty
• Kramer, Kerr & Carroll (1990) – compared factual PTP and emotional PTP with or
without delay (~12 days) before trial
o Emotional PTP (irrelevant to guilt/innocence) leads to more convictions than
factual PTP
o Time delay b/w hearing PTP and the actual trial reduces effects of factual PTP but
increases effects of emotional PTP
o Instructions to ignore PTP had no effect; jurors still influenced by it
• Steblay et al (1999) – meta-analysis of 23 PTP studies
o Negative PTP increases probability of conviction
o Effects greater w/ jury pool than student mock jurors – students are better at
ignoring effects of PTP compared to general population
o Larger effects w/ real PTP compared to made-up PTP
o Larger effects w/ murder, sexual abuse, drug cases
o Larger effects when trial is delayed after receiving negative PTP (either no
difference or increase impact especially w/ emotional PTP)
• Ruva & Guenther (2015) – mock jurors given negative or unrelated PTP before viewing
criminal trial. Those exposed to negative PTP more likely to:
o Vote guilty, misremember trail testimony
o Rate defendant as lower in credibility
o Discuss ambiguous trial evidence in pro-prosecution manner
o Include PTP in discussion even though they were instructed to ignore it. It is hard
to get PTP out of your mind
Juror Decision Making
• These are the stages juries go through when making a decision
• Orientation – meets each other for the first time, elects a foreman, discuss procedures,
raise general trial issues, decide how they will reach a decision as a group
o Verdict driven – 30% of cases. They start w/ an initial poll to determine how
many think the defendant is guilty vs. innocent. They then argue back & forth to
try to convince each other
▪ Problem: not all evidence gets considered; only those made by jurors
arguing to support their verdict
o Evidence driven – 70% of cases. Jury walks through the evidence piece by piece
and weighs value of evidence (how much it says defendant is guilty/innocent)
very thorough in reaching a verdict this way but takes time. Will still involve
arguing back & forth. Poll taken at the end
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Introduction: jury selection occurs mostly in the us and w/ civil trials. The defence and prosecution determines which jurors should be accepted/rejected from the jury pool: jury consulting firms do this. Usually hired by defendants (especially big companies) if they can afford it. Jury research methods: mock juries fake juries that are presented w/ trial evidence & all elements of a real case, asked to make a verdict about the defendant. Reasoning is recorded to variables are changed to see how it affects verdict: shadow juries done exclusively by jury consulting firms. Members of the community who are eligible for jury duty are surveyed to see which sides they would support. Juror personality & verdicts: authoritarianism identified in 1940s, similar to fascism (nazi mindset). 22 statements, looks at 2 aspects: probability of commission probability they see an individual as being guilty before evidence is presented. Jurors agreeing w/ statements are high on the scale: ex.
