Good Morning

Learning Objectives

• Understand factors that influence perceptions of the defendant

• Examine problems with eyewitness testimony
• Application of group processes to jury decision-making

Defendant Characteristics

• Physical attractiveness
• Similarity

Defendant’s Attractiveness

• Experimental study (e.g., Efran)

– Ps given case description + defendant photo
• 1/2 photo of attractive defendant
• 1/2 photo of unattractive defendant
– Results: Attractive defendant judged more leniently
• Less likely to be judged as guilty
• Received less punishment
• Actual court cases (Downs & Lyons, 1991)
– Coders rated attractiveness of real defendants
– Examined punishment given by real judges
– Judges set higher bails & fines for less attractive defendants

Racial Stereotypicality and Crime

• Race of the victim and the race of defendant influence sentencing (Baldus et al., 1998)
• People associate Black physical traits with criminality (Ebarhardt et al., 2004)
• Perceived stereotypicality is correlated with actual sentences of judges (Blair et al., 2004)
Defendant Characteristics

• Physical attractiveness
• Similarity
• Race
– Race of defendant and victim
– Racial stereotypicality of defendant

Do Innocent Defendants Ever Confess?

False Confessions(Kassin & Kiechel)

• Ps worked on a computer task in pairs.

• IV 1: Vulnerability manipulation
– ½ Task done at very slow-pace
– ½ Task done at very fast-pace
• IV 2: Incriminating evidence
– ½ No evidence offered by confederate
– ½ Evidence offered by confederate (false evidence)
• DV: % who signed a confession (public compliance)
– % who confessed privately (private acceptance)

How Much Is a Confession Worth? (Kassin & Sukel)

• IV: Mock jurors read a murder trial

– 1/3 no confession in trial
– 1/3 low-pressure confession in trial
– 1/3 high-pressure confession in trial
• DV: % of participants convicting the defendant
 Learning Objectives

• Understand factors that influence perceptions of the defendant

• Examine problems with eyewitness testimony
• Application of group processes to jury decision-making

Eyewitness Testimony

• Hypothetical grocery store robbery case

• IV: Eyewitness testimony
– No eyewitness (18%)
– One eyewitness: (72%)
• Clerk claimed he saw defendant, defense attorney said he was wrong
– Discredited eyewitness: (68%)
• Clerk claimed he saw defendant, defense attorney discredited him because
clerk had 20/400 vision and had not been wearing his glasses
• DV: Percent voting to convict suspect

Eyewitnesses

• Accuracy of Eyewitness Identification

– Phase 1 : Stage a theft; Ps pick out “thief” from photos
• 1/3 difficult
• 1/3 moderate
• 1/3 easy
– Phase 2
• Ps (witnesses) questioned & identified thief; session videotaped
• New Ps (jurors) watched videotaped session & rated extent to which they
believed the witness correctly identified the thief
– DV: % of witnesses who are accurate & % of jurors who thought witness was
accurate
Eyewitness: Acquisition Stage

• Weapon-focus effect
• Cross-race identification bias

Eyewitness: Storage and Retrieval

Children’s Eyewitness (Leichtman & Ceci)
Independent variable:
• Condition:
– Control: No prior info, neutral interviews
– Stereotype: Prior info, neutral interviews
– Suggestion: No prior info, suggestive interviews
– Stereotype + Suggestion: Prior info, suggestive interviews
Dependent variables:
 • False accusation
• Claim to have witnessed event

The Jury

• Informative social influence

• Normative social influence
• Group polarization

Group Polarization & the Jury (Myers & Kaplan)

• Ps participate in simulated jury setting (8 cases)

– IV 1: Content of case (high-guilt, low-guilt)
– IV 2: Discussion (no, yes)
– IV 3: Time of judgment (initial, final)
• Dependent variables:
– Guilt ratings
– Punishment given