85168
Decision Making of
Juries
- Social influence
- Majority Influence
- Asch (1955) showed how a
single PP in a group would
conform to the majority
- Hastie (1983) found that
a jury's final verdict
reflected the view held
by the majority of jurors
- 86% if the final decision was
innocent, 90% if it was guilty
- 86% if the final decision was
innocent, 90% if it was guilty
- normative influences
- wanting to be
accepted by the
group
- wanting to be
accepted by the
group
- informational
influences
- being affected by
believing that
others know better
- being affected by
believing that
others know better
- Smith and Mackie (1995)
suggested several reasons
why the majority is so influential
- Varied
opinions
- being the majority, they can
express their opinion in a
variety of ways
- however, Hinsz and Davis (1984)
found the more varied the opinions,
the greater the shift in opinion
- being the majority, they can
express their opinion in a
variety of ways
- Deeper
discussions
- shared discussions can be
longer with more people
- however, Stasser and Stewart (1992) found
that even when instructed to discuss all the
information, the PP's focussed almost entirely
on the shared information and virtually
excluded all the non-shared information
- shared discussions can be
longer with more people
- Greater
confidence
- knowing most people share the same views,
allows members to be more convincing and are
more likely to convert others
- Kerr (1987) claimed knowing more people are on your
side allows majority members to be more
argumentative, so their views are more compelling
- knowing most people share the same views,
allows members to be more convincing and are
more likely to convert others
- Varied
opinions
- Asch (1955) showed how a
single PP in a group would
conform to the majority
- Minority Influence
- Nemeth (1977) says minority
makes the majority question
their own opinion
- Attribution
effect
- Attribution theory; their behaviour is seen to be
motivated by a deep conviction since they are
defending and therefore we attribute their beliefs to
internal, dispositional causes rather than external ones
- Attribution theory; their behaviour is seen to be
motivated by a deep conviction since they are
defending and therefore we attribute their beliefs to
internal, dispositional causes rather than external ones
- Attribution
effect
- Moscovici (1969) demonstrated
the power of the minority
- In trials with 50% confederates, the
conform rate of PP's was 1.25% but
rose to 8.42% when the confederates
answered incorrectly consistently
- Moscovici suggests that individuals in
juries can change the majority view
when they have a long deliberation
period, but they need to be consistent
- Moscovici suggests that individuals in
juries can change the majority view
when they have a long deliberation
period, but they need to be consistent
- In trials with 50% confederates, the
conform rate of PP's was 1.25% but
rose to 8.42% when the confederates
answered incorrectly consistently
- however, Tindale (1990)
- for the minority to have
an effect, they must be in
large groups
- Nemeth (1977) says minority
makes the majority question
their own opinion
- Majority Influence
- Characteristics of
the defendant
- Juror's beliefs about the defendant
will affect their decision making
- Dixon (2002) asked PP's to
judge guilt from a recorded
exchange between a
suspect and policemen
- standard british accent =
rarely identified as guilty
- Birmingham accent =
significantly more likey
to be guilty
- standard british accent =
rarely identified as guilty
- Dixon (2002) asked PP's to
judge guilt from a recorded
exchange between a
suspect and policemen
- Ethnicity
- Stereotypes based on ethnicity
affect jurors' decision making
- Duncan (1976) varied ethnic group
of the perpetrator and victim in a
tape of a potential violent situation
- PP's judged shove as more violent
when done by a black individual
- PP's judged shove as more violent
when done by a black individual
- Pfeifer and Ogloff (1991) found in
a mock jury case that white PP's
were more likely to judge a black
defendant guilty in a rape case,
- especially when
victim was white
- when asked to justify verdict, the
effect of ethnicity disappeared
- suggests that differences were due
to stereotyping
- suggests that differences were due
to stereotyping
- especially when
victim was white
- however, Mazzella and
Feingold (1994) found no
overall effect of ethnicity
on mock jury decisions
- Duncan (1976) varied ethnic group
of the perpetrator and victim in a
tape of a potential violent situation
- Judgements of ethnic
minorities are similarly
biased in real cases
- Baldwin and
McConville (1979)
found that black
defendants were more
likely to be wrongly
convicted
- even if members of
the jury were black
- however, Gordon
(1988) found that
longer sentences
were given to white
people if the crime
was fraud
- even if members of
the jury were black
- Baldwin and
McConville (1979)
found that black
defendants were more
likely to be wrongly
convicted
- Stereotypes based on ethnicity
affect jurors' decision making
- Physical Attractiveness
- In court we tend to link
physical attractiveness with
positive characteristics
- Saladin (1988) showed
PP's photos of men and
asked them to judge how
capable the men were at
committing a crime
- found that attractive men
were considered less likely
to commit a crime than the
unattractive ones
- found that attractive men
were considered less likely
to commit a crime than the
unattractive ones
- it's the same with sentencing
- DeSantis and Kayson (1997) found
that mock jurors gave unattractive
defendants harsher sentences
- DeSantis and Kayson (1997) found
that mock jurors gave unattractive
defendants harsher sentences
- however if attractive
individuals appear to be
abusing their good looks
then the advantage is lost
- Sigall & Ostrove (1975)
found unattractive defendants
were given longer sentences
for burglary but the reverse
was true for fraud
- Sigall & Ostrove (1975)
found unattractive defendants
were given longer sentences
for burglary but the reverse
was true for fraud
- Saladin (1988) showed
PP's photos of men and
asked them to judge how
capable the men were at
committing a crime
- Downs and Lyons demonstrated
a negative correlation between
defendant attractiveness and
fines/ bail payments
- however, attractiveness
seems to be irrelevant
when imposing fines /
setting bail payments
(McKelvie and Coley, 1993)
- however, attractiveness
seems to be irrelevant
when imposing fines /
setting bail payments
(McKelvie and Coley, 1993)
- In court we tend to link
physical attractiveness with
positive characteristics
- Juror's beliefs about the defendant
will affect their decision making
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.