Decision Making of Juries - Evaluation

Descrição

A Level PY4 Psychology (Forensic Psychology) Mapa Mental sobre Decision Making of Juries - Evaluation, criado por HeyThereIAmKyle em 06-06-2013.
HeyThereIAmKyle
Mapa Mental por HeyThereIAmKyle, atualizado more than 1 year ago Mais Menos
Hayd23
Criado por Hayd23 mais de 11 anos atrás
HeyThereIAmKyle
Copiado por HeyThereIAmKyle mais de 11 anos atrás
101
0

Resumo de Recurso

Decision Making of Juries - Evaluation
  1. Evaluation of Social Influence
    1. Majority influence
      1. Varied opinions
        1. Hinsz and Davis (1984) found the more varied the opinions, the greater the shift in opinion
        2. Deeper discussions
          1. 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
          2. Greater confidence
            1. Kerr (1987) claimed knowing more people are on your side allows majority members to be more argumentative, so their views are more compelling
            2. Dangers of discussion
              1. Myers and Kaplan (1976) found after discussing low-guilt cases the juries recommended a more lenient punishment and the high-guilt cases were more harsh
            3. Minority influence
              1. An attribution effect
                1. 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
                2. Minority size
                  1. Tindale (1990) - larger minorities are more effective than lone dissenters
                    1. Wood (1994) - increasing numbers have a greater effect
                      1. increasing numbers mean that their views cannot be easily dismissed
                3. Evaluation of Characteristics of the Defendant
                  1. Ethnicity
                    1. Contradictory evidence
                      1. Mazzella and Feingold (1994) found no overall effect of ethnicity on mock jury decisions
                        1. however, punishment was affected by ethnic group
                      2. The effect of the crime
                        1. effect of ethnic group varies with the crime
                          1. Gordon (1988) found that longer sentences were given to black than to white defendants convicted of burglary, but the reverse was true for fraud
                        2. Attributional bias
                          1. Johnson (2002) manipulated the ethnic group of the defendant with a group of all white PP's
                            1. found PP's made more situational attributions about the white defendant and suggested more lenient punishments than for the black defendants, which could explain ethnic differences
                        3. Physical attractivenss
                          1. The effect of the crime
                            1. effect of physical attractiveness also varies with crime
                              1. Sigall and Ostrove (1975) found unattractive defendants were given longer sentences for burglary but the reverse was true for fraud
                                1. supporting the idea that the attractiveness effect ceases to operate if we believe that good looks have been used for criminal gain
                            2. Gender bias
                              1. Abwender and Hough (2001) found female jurors treated attractive defendants significantly more leniently than unattractive ones, but the reverse was true for male jurors
                                1. however, such evidence can be criticised because in court the judgement of guilt or innocence is absolute, so the situation was not entirely realistic

                          Semelhante

                          Factors Affecting The Accuracy Of EWT
                          HeyThereIAmKyle
                          Decision Making of Juries
                          Hayd23
                          Approaches to Profiling
                          Hayd23
                          Treatment and Punishment of Crime
                          Hayd23
                          Theories of Crime
                          Hayd23
                          Factors Affecting Eyewitness Testimony
                          Hayd23
                          Treatment and Punishment of Crime
                          HeyThereIAmKyle
                          Aetiologies of Depression
                          HeyThereIAmKyle
                          FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
                          charlotte coleman
                          Ross et. al - Effect of Shields and Videotape on Children Giving Evidence
                          Amelia S
                          Upbringing psychology
                          HannahJane