
HOME	who am I	resources	course notes	FAQ	contact

COURSE NOTES: Social



	Based on the course PSY/SOC 301, taught at The Sage Colleges by Prof. Susan Cloninger. This class uses the following textbook, which provides the chapter organization that you see on the menu on the left side of this page: Myers, D. (2005). Social Psychology (8th ed.) New York: McGraw Hill.

Chapter 15:

Social Psychology in Court

Myers begins this chapter with the O. J. Simpson case.

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

The power of persuasive eyewitnesses

very persuasive, even if the eyewitness has needs glasses
very persuasive, even if incorrect
persuasive, if remembers (irrelevant) details

Inaccurate eyewitnesses

often wrong, in staged experiments
wrong, even if confident
example of victim error in rape conviction of Ronald Cotton (Myers, 2005, pp. 609-610)

The misinformation effect

studies by Elizabeth Loftus
memory construction
"stop sign" or "yield sign" in question
misleading information cuts accuracy (from 75% to 41%, in one study)
young children are especially suggestible

Retelling

produces more confident reports

Feedback to witnesses

casual remark by interrogator influences witness reports dramatically

Reducing error

Train police interviewers

Reconstruct setting (e.g., with photos)
Ask evocative questions ("anything unusual about appearance?")
Avoid assumptions in questions
avoid showing too many mug shots

Minimize false lineup identifications

All similar to real suspect
"Blank" lineup with no real suspect
Instructions: offender not necessarily in lineup
Sequential instead of simultaneous lineup

Educate jurors

expert testimony

OTHER INFLUENCES ON JUDGMENTS

The defendant's characteristics

Physical Attractiveness

"Beautiful people seem like good people." (Myers, 2005, p. 619)
and being "babyfaced"

Similarity to the Jurors

attitudes, religion, race, gender
blacks are overpunished as defendants, and undervalued as victims

however, Myers notes (p. 622): "When the evidence is clear and individuals focus on it (as when they reread and debate the meaning of testimony), their biases are indeed minimal. ... The quality of the evidence matters more than the prejudices of the individual jurors."

Consider the following experiment:

Students read a case of sexual harassment.
Attractiveness of female plaintiff and male defendant were manipulated by photographs.
How might this influence the verdict?

Results:

attractive female plaintiff

unattractive defendant: 83% guilty
attractive defendant: 71% guilty

unattractive female plaintiff

unattractive defendant: 69% guilty
attractive defendant: 41% guilty

The judge's instructions

doesn't erase effect of inadmissible testimony
reactance (“You can’t unring a bell.”)
ineffective instruction to ignore pretrial publicity
Should testimony be taped and edited?

Experiment of murder trial, wiretap (Kassin & Sommers, 1997)

no wiretap condition (control): 24% conviction
inadmissible because barely audible: 24% conviction
inadmissible because of due process: 55% conviction
admissible: 79% conviction

Other issues

death penalty (Possibility of severe punishment reduces conviction rate.)
juror experience (influences judgments)
victim attractiveness and suffering (leads to harsher judgments)

THE JURORS AS INDIVIDUALS

Juror comprehension

inaccurate understanding of instructions and legal jargon
difficulty understanding statistical information
- narrative presentation of case
increasing jurors' understanding
- transcripts
- simpler language for legal instructions

Jury selection

jury selection consultants
less important than evidence

"Death-qualified" jurors

more likely to convict

Consider the Rodney King Jury:

to try police for beating Rodney King (videotaped)
from conservative community, Simi Valley
consisted of 1 Asian, 1 Hispanic, 10 Whites
deliberated for 1 week
deadlocked on the charge of excessive force

One juror, a female Hispanic, said:

"The people's eyes weren't open and I said to God, 'If you give me one more person on my side I would know'."
The other jurors mocked her and pressured her when she argued for conviction.
She accused the other jurors of having made up their minds before the jury deliberations.

THE JURY AS A GROUP