3. Can the order in which evidence is
presented effect the verdict?
We learned in class about the primacy effect:
If you hear a long list of words, it is more likely that you will
remember the words you heard first (at the beginning of the
list) than words that occurred in the middle
Also we learned about the recency effect:
that when people are asked to recall in any order the items
on a list, those that come at the end of the list are more
likely to be recalled than the others
So far we have seen these concepts applied to lists of
words.
Can they be observed in the way juries make
decisions?
4. What lawyers seem to think.
“A reminder of the importance of primacy and recency effects.
The primacy effect is the phenomenon of remembering
information presented first. It results from increased rehearsal of
early information when other, potentially distracting, information
is not yet presented. The recency effect is enhanced memory for
information presented last. Due to recent presentation, people
can easily access the information from memory. Understanding
primacy and recency effects are essential for attorneys when
structuring a trial. To enhance jurors' memory for important case
facts, communicate key facts early, then emphasize them
repeatedly to aid jurors' rehearsal. Present "surprises" at the end
of your case so that they will be remembered accurately. “-
Magnus Research Consultants & graphics
5. R. Enescu and A. Kuhn
In the experiment conducted, a DVD of a mock trial was
sent to 207 different judges. The trials were all the same
except the order of the witness testimonies.
There were six possible combinations
Forensic expert: Examined paint samples of the vehicles
Eyewitness : a teacher who said she saw different car
involved
Alibi witness: said that they were having breakfast with
the defendant.
7. Limitations
• In Switzerland there are no prosecutors allowed to speak
at trials like the one featured in Enescu and Kuhn’s
experiment.
• The amount of judges that responded was limited
• The experiment looked at judges’ decision making and not
juries.
8. References
Enescu, R., & Kuhn, A. (2012). Serial effects of evidence on
legal decision-making. European Journal Of Psychology
Applied To Legal Context, 4(2), 99-118.
Greenlees, I., Hall, B., Filby, W., Thelwell, R., Buscombe, R., &
Smith, M. J. (2009). Warnings given to observers can
eliminate order effects. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 10(2), 300-303.
Primacy and recency effects. (n.d). Magnus Research
Consultants and Graphics Web Site. Retrieved
February, 27, 2012, from
http://www.magnusweb.com
•
10. THE GROUPTHINK SYNDROME
Def.: “It refers to the tendency of cohesive
groups not to examine critically all aspects
of a decision or problem the group is
considering. It represents a specific failure
in the group's critical thinking process-
failure to express doubts, disagreements,
and conflict within the group. As a result,
the group's decision is flawed because it is
made with partial information that has not
been examined carefully.”
11. Group
Cohesiveness Insulation of the
group
• Cohesiveness: is how well each • This is where each jury member
individual get along with the is not allowed to tell
other members in the group anyone/media about the case
• Each jury member is tasked with they are in
an important responsibilities, • Due to this behavior each
which means their individual individual separate from other
identity is merged in the group individuals, which can affect the
identity establishment of cohesiveness
• “High levels of social among the group
cohesiveness tend to facilitate
the development of groupthink,
while high levels of task
cohesiveness are inhibiting”
12. Lack of a Tradition of Lack of Norms
Impartial Leadership Requiring Methodical
Procedures
• This requires the group to adopt
• Is an absence of appreciate methodical information and
leadership traditions appraisal
• The leader of the group uses his • This is required because there
or her power to influence the was no certain norms
member of the jury established
13. Homogeneity of the • High Stress
Members’ Social and Low Self
• There are two groups in the jury Esteem
the “ingroup” and the “outgroup” • High stress level can affect the
• The ingroup are those who jury decisions
belong in the group • Which affects their self esteem
• While the outgroup is are those • Low self esteem is induced by
who do not belong in the group situational factors
16. Guys and Edens (2003, 2006)
• Two versions of a non-intentional manslaughter
scenario
• Male defendant: Robert Hill
• Female defendant: Rachel Hill
• Both: victim’s gender unidentified
• Listen to scenario, then view a testimony from a
fictitious expert
17. Guys and Edens (2003, 2006)
• Answer the question: Guilty or Not Guilty?
• What should the term be?
• Incarceration or Probation
• Specify the length of term sentence
18.
19. Harassment
Wiener (1995)
• Two written scenarios
• Workplace harassment to one male and one female
• Reasonable worker vs. reasonable woman
• Women are more likely to:
• deem the conduct unwelcome, severe, and pervasive
• see the conduct as negatively affecting the plaintiff’s work
performance and psychological wellbeing
• see the scenario as typical working environment
21. Own-Race Bias
• Victim, defendant, jury composition
• Capital punishment cases
• Defendant: important consideration
• Victim: some instances, more important
22. Lynch and Haney, 2000
• Capital trials
• 402 jury-eligible participants
• race of the defendant and the victim was varied
• Poor understanding of instructions: more likely to sentence defendant to
death
• Black defendant, White victim
• 68% of sentences for death; 32% life without parole.
• White defendant, Black victim
• 36% of sentences for death; 64 % life without parole
23. Jury Composition
Bernard, 1979
• College student mock juries
• ten 12-person juries of differing racial compositions
• White jurors: more likely to vote guilty than were Black jurors when
defendant was Black
• All-White jury, Black defendant: only jury to reach a unanimous guilty
verdict
Not just the Black/White dichotomy
• Trinidad
• Latinos
25. • “The Power of Conformity” (Asch, 1955)
• Social Norms
• The Task: There are 7 other participants already seated in the
room when you arrive. You are seated at the end of the row. The
experimenter then reveals a pair of cards and asks you to
determine which of the 3 comparison lines is the same length as
the standard line.
•
26.
27. “To Help or Not to Help” (Darley & Latane, 1968)
Social Influence
Evaluation Apprehension
The Task: Students in an introductory psychology class were told that they
were being studied to how students adjust to university life in a highly
competitive, urban environment, as well as what kinds of personal
problems they were experiencing. These students were asked to talk about
these problems with other students, but to avoid embarrassment and
discomfort they would be in separate rooms and would speak with each
other through an intercom. This intercom would let students speak one at a
time and each student would have 2 minutes at a time to speak.
28. The Results: As the number of others that
participants believed were part of the study
increased, the percentage who reported the
seizure quickly, decreased dramatically. All the
participants in group 1 reported the emergency,
only 85% of group 2 did, and 60% of group 3
did.
Editor's Notes
Explain questionProvide evidence has to be good evidnence
