Y2: Psychology: Criminal: Factors Affecting Jury Decision Making

12

They are randomly selected members of the British public who have no association to the case.

• No one can talk to the jury during/before the trial

• They can’t discuss the case with anyone else and can only do so in the jury room

• If they have a question for the judge they have to write it down and send it via the Usher

1) Mock juries

2) Shadow juries

• A re-enactment of a courtroom in which ppts take part in a staged trial

• They each take on a different role, such as a jury member or the judge

• The jurors hear a summary of both sides of a mock case with evidence for both in a written scenario or sometimes a video clip

• They then discuss the case which lasts typically 2 hours and takes place in a separate room

• Researchers may often observe this through a one way mirror

1) High generalisability due to the selection process of the jurors being random which represents the real selection process of a real jury
2) High internal validity due to having the mock case controlled and set up therefore can establish cause and effect on factors affecting the jury’s decision
3) High application as useful for researching scenarios and variables that may affect juries leading to further research and potential changes to improve jury decision making in real life

1) Low validity due to the mock jurors knowing the case isn’t real therefore there are no stakes for them to be more invested in with the pressure of convicting
2) Low ecological validity due to not being a real case which would not reflect the real environment of the stress of the family and the person in question
3) Low validity due to the process of the trial being shortened and summarised which lacks mundane realism of a trial in real life that can take weeks due to complexities within the case

• A group of people will sit in on a real-life trial, often in the gallery

• They make a decision of guilty or not guilty based on what they see

• Their decision making is carefully monitored in a quiet room where all deliberations are recorded

• They do not have nay influence over the trial

1) High ecological validity as the trial is a real case with real evidence and case for and against therefore the results of factors affecting a jury are more credible
2) High ethics as the people in the shadow jury won’t experience the same level of psychological distress as a real juror may feel when trying to come to a verdict

1) Low generalisability due to it being hard to gain a sample that represents the random selection process of real juries
2) Low internal validity due to lack of control over variables of the trial such as the gender and age of the person on trial therefore hard to establish cause and effect
3) Low validity due to the shadow jury having no influence over the final verdict of the trial therefore they are aware of no consequences and so don’t experience the same pressure as a real jury

1) Pre-trial publicity
2) Characteristics of the defendant
3) Minority influence

• The information in the media about a trial before it begins

• Can include facts about the crime such as factual details of the defendants past offences of emotional details such as opinions

• Especially in high profile cases, it is hard for jurors to avoid seeing the publicity even if they’re told to ignore it

• This can therefore have a negative impact on their verdict if the media portrays the defendant negatively or a positive impact if it is more positive

• The jurors who are exposed to the publicity may form schemas of seeing the defendant in a positive or negative light depending on the media’s view

• This schema will then influence how information from the trial is remembered

• This can occur through rationalisation by forgetting a detail that does not conform with the positive/negative schema

• Or it can be done through confabulation of information by changing details to fit with the positive/negative schema

1) Thomas (2010) used a shadow jury due to not being able to set up media and found that jurors in high profile cases are 70% more likely to recall media coverage compared to 11% of standard cases therefore showing they were unable to avoid the media
2) Steblay (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of 44 experiments with mock juries and found that pre-trial publicity affects jurors decisions about guilt of the defendant as those exposed were 59% more likely to give a guilty verdict than 45% of the controls
3) Daftary-Kapur (2014) used a mock and shadow jury and found that jurors exposed to more PTP were more likely to be bias with those exposed to pro-defence PTP gave a verdict in that direction and vice versa with pro-prosecution media however there was no significant difference between natural exposure and experimental suggesting mock juries do have ecological validity

1) High ecological validity if shadow juries are used as they will be exposed to the same media coverage as the real jury and how it may affect the same real case
2) Has high application of findings as if it identifies there is bias then measures can be put in place to limit media exposure as much as possible.

Brown and Kulik (1977) suggests that highly emotional material is more likely to be remembered so there is an argument for not just looking at being exposed to PTP but looking at what the content is.

When a specific trait of someone biases our overall view of them.

• Attractiveness of the defendant can bias the verdict

• If they are more attractive they may be treated more leniently and if unattractive more harshly

• Attractive people are seen as more intelligent, friendly, and honest

• Stereotypes of unattractive people being deemed more likely to be criminals and so receive harsher sentences whereas more attractive people are deemed less likely to commit crimes so receive lighter sentences

• Attractiveness of the defendant can bias the verdict

• If they are more attractive they may be treated more leniently and if unattractive more harshly

• Attractive people are seen as more intelligent, friendly, and honest

• Stereotypes of unattractive people being deemed more likely to be criminals and so receive harsher sentences whereas more attractive people are deemed less likely to commit crimes so receive lighter sentences

1) Sigall and Ostrove (1975) found when a crime was not related to attractiveness (e.g. burglary) an attractive defendant got a more lenient sentence but when it was related (e.g. swindling) the attractive person got a harsher sentence suggesting it depends upon nature of crime as to whether attractiveness affects due to whether of not they defy their gender role
2) Efran (1974) found that physically attractive defendants were rated as guilty with less certainty (based on a survey on whether ppts thought physical attractiveness did not bias jury) than less attractive ones
3) Castellow (1990) used a mock jury for a case of a 23 yr old secretary accusing her male employer of sexual harassment and found that the verdict was most likely at 83% to be guilty when the photo combo was attractive secretary and unattractive employer and least likely at 41% with unattractive secretary and attractive employer

1) Low validity as experimental conditions may have shown DCs by acting as they though the researcher wanted them to behave
2) Low validity with ppt variables affecting who was deemed attractive so a uniform decision on attractiveness would not have been reached bc of this therefore not only variable

Whilst research suggests attractiveness affects jury decision making, we cannot establish a causal relationship as they may have been affected by DCs as all in experimental condition acting as they might think the researcher wants them to act. Could also be suggested that jurors are more biased on leniency of gender than attractiveness.

• There is a higher proportion of ethnic minorities in prison (15%) compared to 8% of the UK general pop

• There seems to be a stereotypical view that black men are more likely to commit a crime

• Studies have found that white jurors are more likely to find a black defendant guilty compared to a white one

• Black defendants also receive harsher sentences than a white defendant for the same crime

• These stereotypes may affect juries bias towards an opinion therefore more likely to find guilty of those who fit the stereotype

1) Duncan (1976) showed white ppts a film of two men talking intensely and then one shoving the other and found that 75% perceived the push as violent when it was a black man compared to 17% for a white man
2) Mazzella and Feingold (1994) found no overall effect of ethnicity on mock jury decisions of guilt or innocence, however punishment was affected by ethnicity
3) Johnson (2002) found that a group of white ppts made more situational attributions about a white defendant and suggested more lenient punishment than for black defendants

High application as results finding that ethnicity affects verdict can lead to ways to improve these biases by challenging stereotypes.

1) Low generalisability as race stereotyping will be different in different countries with different ways of conducting trials
2) Can be unethical as involves studying prejudice and stereotyping of people that can cause psychological distress to some groups

Therefore ethnicity can affect someone's decision of punishment however this could be biased as the ppts were all white and so may feel more compassion towards someone of their own ethnicity but juries are purposely made of a mix of ethnicities.

• Minorities may be able to sway the majority verdict

• Minorities are more successful in changing majorities when their argument is consistent and are willing to discuss views and opinions

• Therefore minorities can bias a jury's decision making even if the majority disagrees initially

1) Nemeth (1977) suggests that minorities are successful in changing opinions because they force the majority to scrutinise their own stand leading to a decision change
2) Mascovici (1976) showed that if there is a minority of 2 in a group of 6, the opinion will be changed if argument is consistent

1) Low reliability as we are unsure of how many cases a minority tried to change the opinion of the jury but failed
2) Low internal validity as we cannot be sure that a minority's opinion alone will change the verdict

Therefore research shows a minority opinion will be accepted if the argument is consistent however this is not always the only factor changing the verdict.