1. Social Psychology and the Law
Chapter 15
Social Psychology and the Law
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

2. Social Psychology and the Law
Studying the legal system helps psychologists see how behavior occurs in complex, personally relevant, and emotion-laden contests.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

3. Eyewitness Testimony
Eyewitness identifications are frequently inaccurate.
The three basic processes of acquisition, storage, and retrieval influence eyewitness memory, just as they influence all memory.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

4. Eyewitness Testimony
Two groups of factors influence eyewitness identification
Estimator variables
concern the eyewitness and the situation
System variables
are under the direct control of the criminal justice or legal system.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

5. Eyewitness Testimony Viewing Opportunity
The longer witnesses look and the more attention they are able to pay, the more accurate their identifications
However, witnesses are just as likely to think they can make an identification if they have witnessed an event under poor viewing conditions.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

6. Eyewitness Testimony Stress and Arousal
Stress increases memory for the event itself but decreases memory for what preceded and followed the incident
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

7. Eyewitness Testimony Weapon Focus Effect
People tend to keep their eye on weapons because of their danger and novelty
This distracts their attention from the robbers
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

8. Eyewitness Testimony Own-Race Bias
People are more accurate in identifying members of their own race
Own-race bias decreases with experience with other groups
Thus blacks are more accurate in identifying whites than vice versa.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

9. Eyewitness Testimony Retention Interval
Accuracy drops with time rapidly at first, then levels off.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

10. Eyewitness Testimony Suggestive Questioning
The way witnesses are questioned influences their memories of the event.
Some questions are suggestive but not deliberately misleading
E.g. Loftus & Palmer found that people said a car had been going faster in an accident if they asked about its speed when it “smashed” into the other car as opposed to “hit” it
Other questions are deliberately misleading, asking about nonexistent details.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

11. Eyewitness Testimony
Three hypotheses for how post-event information affects memory
over-writing
forgetting
source monitoring
People retain memories of both the event and any post-event information but cannot identify the source of the memories
Evidence supports the latter.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

12. Eyewitness Testimony Lineup Biases
The way lineups are conducted can have a tremendous effect on the accuracy of eyewitness identification.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

13. Eyewitness Testimony Show-ups Simultaneous lineups Sequential lineups
asks witnesses to indicate whether or not a single witness is the perpetrator
Simultaneous lineups
show the witness several potential suspects at the same time.
Sequential lineups
show potential suspects one at a time
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

14. Eyewitness Testimony
Sequential lineups allow the most careful attention to each person and the most careful decision-making and are most accurate.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

15. Eyewitness Testimony
Another aspect of lineups is choosing foils (people other than the suspect in the lineup).
Identifications are most accurate when all of the foils look like the witness’s initial description of the perpetrator.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

16. Eyewitness Testimony
Instructions given to eyewitnesses are also important.
Identifications are most accurate when the witness is told that the suspect “may or may not” be in the lineup.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

17. Eyewitness Testimony
This research has affected U.S. Department of Justice guidelines for police to use when questioning eyewitnesses.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

18. Criminal Defendants Voluntary False Confessions.
Coerced complaint false confessions
when people are pressured to admit guilt but privately believe their own innocence.
Coerced internalized false confessions
when people come to believe they committed crimes they did not commit.
This may occur when the behavior seems plausible and when other people claim they are guilty.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

19. Criminal Defendants Lie Detection
Observers do not detect lies at much better than chance rates
Despite nonverbal leakage
Law enforcement professionals are generally not more accurate
There is no correlation between how well people believe they detect lies and how well they actually do
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

20. Criminal Defendants Polygraph (“lie detector”) tests
ask suspects to answer questions while hooked to a machine that records physiological responses.
The control question test asks about the critical, as well as about unrelated, wrongdoings.
The accuracy of polygraph tests is debated
advocates claim 90% accuracy, while published research estimates 57-76% accuracy, not much better than chance (50%).
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

21. Criminal Defendants
How do characteristics of defendants influence the decisions made by juries?
Physically attractive defendants are less likely to be found guilty.
Black defendants receive disproportionately harsher sentences than whites.
This result is found in archival studies while the results of lab studies are inconsistent.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

22. Criminal Defendants Aversive racism theory
People should suppress racist thoughts when race is salient
Race may have an effect when people are unaware that it may have one.
Race may have an effect when people’s behavior can be justified by factors other than race.
According to this theory, jurors would be more likely to discriminate in trials where the race of the defendant is not made salient.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

23. Criminal Defendants Sommers and Ellsworth (2000, 2001)
Participants read about a White or Black defendant who slapped his girlfriend in public.
Half read that the defendant said, “You know better than to talk that way about a man in front of his friends.” The other half read the same sentence with the words “White man” or “Black man.”
In the first condition (race not salient), White participants made harsher judgments against the Black than against the White; there was no difference in the race-salient condition.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

24. Juries
Jury Selection
The voir dire process allows judges and lawyers to question prospective jurors
Goal is to assess the presence of biases that would interfere with their ability to render a fair judgment.
Peremptory challenges allow attorneys to eliminate jurors for a number of reasons
E.g., occupation or personality traits (but not race or gender)
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

25. Juries Demographic factors are not always predictive of verdicts
this is most likely when group membership is relevant to the case
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

26. Juries
Jurors who are high in authoritarianism are more likely to convict.
“Death qualified” juries are more likely to convict.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

27. Juries
According to Hastie and Pennington’s story model of jury decision making, jurors use the evidence presented in trials to create stories about the events in question.
Multiple competing stories may be created
The story that best fits the evidence determines the verdict chosen.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

28. Juries Comprehension of Judicial Instructions
Juries may have problems understanding and applying legal instructions.
On-going research is looking for solutions, for example, rewriting instructions in more “user-friendly” language and allowing jurors to take notes.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

29. Juries Jury Deliberations
Twelve-person juries are more representative and spend more time deliberating than six-person juries.
Juries using a unanimous decision rule discuss the evidence longer and more thoroughly than juries using a majority decision rule.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

30. Expert Testimony
Psychologists are increasingly asked to give expert testimony in court cases.
Judges must consider the scientific reliability of the evidence, but may lack the necessary background to rule effectively.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

31. Expert Testimony
Expert testimony that draws links between the research and the particular case has larger influence on jurors than research that just presents the research findings.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall