Random Thread & The Continuation of Necessary Continuation

[DISKATER69]

I'm back!....humbly

 

[marypops!]

This is what i've just written. This took me almost an hour, but I wasn't really paying much attention, plus I left and went upstairs for a while.

REACHING A VERDICT

Effects of Order of Testimony. Pennington et al. Effects of Memory Structure on Judgement.
To investigate whether story evidence summaries are true causes of the final verdict decisions and the extent to which story order affects confidence in those decisions.
Laboratory experiment.
Self-selected sample.
130 students from Northwestern University and Chicago University.
They were allocated to four conditions in roughly equal numbers.
Participants listened to a tape recording of the stimulus trial and responded to written questions. They were told to reach a guilty or innocent verdict on a murder trial, and then rate their decision on a 5-point scale of confidence.
Each participant was seperated by partitions and had no interaction.
In the story-order condition, evidence was presented in its natural order.
In the witness-order condition, evidence items were arranged in the order of primacy and recency effects.
There were 39 innocent pieces of evidence and 39 guilty pieces of evidence.
In all cases the stimulus trial began with the indictment and followed the normal procedure, ending with the judge's instructions.

Defence evidence
Story order Defence evidence
Witness order Mean
Prosecution evidence
Story order 59% 78% 69%
Prosecution evidence
Witness order 31% 63% 47%
Mean
45% 70% 58%
If the defence showed their evidence in witness order, even more jurors would find a guilty verdict.
If the defence showed their evidence in story order, even more jurors wouldn't find a guilty verdict.
The greatest confidence rating was expressed by those who heard the defence or prosecution in story order.
The lowest confidence rating was expressed by those who heard the defence or prosecution in witness order.
The primacy & recency effects were controlled for.
The case was adapted from a real-life case.
Mainly nurture side of debate.
Individual explanation side of debate.
Mainly reductionism side of debate.
Mainly free-will side of debate.
Mixture of quantitative and qualitative data.

Persuasion. Cutler et al. The Effect of the Expert Witness on Jury Perception.
To investigate whether hearing about pschological research from an expert witness which casts doubt on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony would affect a juror's decision-making by making them more sceptical about such testimony.
Laboratory experiment with videotaped mock trial.
Self-selected sample.
538 undergraduates who were given credit for their course.
Participants watched a taped robbery trial in groups of 2-8. They independently completed a questionnaire containing the dependent measures, which were the verdict, memory test and rating scales on confidence.
The independent variables were Witnessing Identifying Conditions (WIC), witness confidence, form of testimony and an expert opinion.
Juror verdicts - When the WIC were good, more guilty verdicts were given and this affect increased if the expert witness had given a descriptive testimony. Other variables were less significant.
Juror memory - 85% correctly recalled the testimony.memory for what the expert said was good. 50% recalled the four stages of memory. 81% recalled at least 1 stage. They also correctly identified what the expert said about weapon effects, disguises and delays in identification.
Juror confidence - Under the good WIC, the jurors had more confidence in the accuracy of the identificaiton. The effect was stronger if they had heard the expert witness and if the witness was 100% confident instead of 80%.
Mainly nurture side of debate.
Mainly situational explanation side of debate.
Mainly holist side of debate.
Mainly free will side of debate.
Mainly qualitative data.

Effect of Evidence Being Ruled Inadmissable. Pickel. Investigating the Effect of Instructions to Disregard Inadmissable Information.
To look at the effect of prior convictions, the role of judge's instructions when followed by a legal explanation and how much the credibility of a witness affects the juror's ability to ignore inadmissable statements.
A laboratory experiment using a mock trial of a fictional theft with a mock jury.
Self-selected sample.
236 Bali State University Pyschology students.
Independent measures design.
Critical evidence was introduced 'by accident' by the witnesses.
The item was objected to by the attorny and then either allowed or overruled by the judge.
When jurors were instructed to ignore the inadmissable evidence, this ruling was sometimes supported by a legal explanation.
Participants listened to an audiotape of the trial, then completed a questionnaire asking them to make several decisions about the case. The verdict, the estimate of probable guilt and a rating on a 10-point scale of the extent to which knowledge of the prior conviction caused them to believe the defendant was guilty. The also gave a rating on the credibility of the witness.
There was a control group that did not get the evidence.
Mock jurors who heard the critical evidence ruled inadmissable and who recieved no explanation were able to follow instructions and ignore the evidence. They were also less likely to find the defendant guilty.
No evidence was found to support the hypothesis that the credibility of the witness would affect the juror's ability to disregard the inadmissable evidence.
There was no significant effect on the use of prior conviction evidence as measured by the 10-point scale.
Calling attention to inadmissable evidence makes it more important to the jury and they then pay more attention to it.
Nature or nurture.
Individual and situational explanation
Mainly reductionism side of debate.
Mainly determinism side of debate.
Qualitative and quantitative data.

 

[DISKATER69]

geez george! lol

 

[AliceinHalloweentown]

Oh-kay.
books finished.. what to read next?

 

[Stitch4Prez]

wow, the board died very quickly.

 

[Stitch4Prez]

nevermind.

 

[DISKATER69]

Oh-kay.
books finished.. what to read next?

Lol reading during the summer

 

[Stitch4Prez]

Oh-kay.
books finished.. what to read next?

I'm facing the same problem, I got to find the library around here.

 

[AliceinHalloweentown]

Lol reading during the summer

I like reading but I'm too stressed during the school year to do it!
My school books don't come until Tuesday, so until then I'm reading books on my "To Read" list.

First Peter Pan, then Journey to the Center of the Earth, next I think 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

 

[AliceinHalloweentown]

I'm facing the same problem, I got to find the library around here.

I've been reading books online: http://www.readprint.com/

It's a really good site.
I'm about to start 20K Leagues Under the Sea

 

[Stitch4Prez]

I've been reading books online: http://www.readprint.com/

It's a really good site.
I'm about to start 20K Leagues Under the Sea

This is cool, thanks.

 

[broadwaybookworm]

hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

 

[AliceinHalloweentown]

This is cool, thanks.

No problem!
A lot of books are pulled by their publisher, but there's a decent amount of good books.

 

[Stitch4Prez]

hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

hey

 

[DISKATER69]

hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

hey what's up?

 

[Stitch4Prez]

No problem!
A lot of books are pulled by their publisher, but there's a decent amount of good books.

Its better then paying for a book, I'm finding some stuff I've been wanting to read.

 

[DISKATER69]

Hahaha I almost have 100 posts on this thread already xD

 

[marypops!]

Wrote this in about 14 minutes, but I spent 10 minutes doing other stuff, such as getting the cat out from behind the mirror...

Attractiveness of Defendant. Castellow et al. The Effects of Attractiveness on Jury Verdict.
To test whether an attractive defendant is less likely to be seen as guilty.
Laboratory experiment using a mock-trial format.
Independent measures design.
Self-selected sample.
71 male and 74 female students from East Carolina University.
Participants read a sexual harrassment case which included photographs of the victim and defendant previously categorised as attractive or ugly by a panel on a scale of 1-9.
They then answered questions on the case. The dependent variable was measured by the question "do you think the defendant is guilty of sexual harrassment?".
Participants were asked to rate the defendant on 11 bipolar scales such as dull-exciting or warm-cold.
Physically attractive defendants and victims were rated positively on other personality variables.
When the defendant was attractive, guilty verdicts were 56% compared to 76% for an unattractive defendant.
When the victim was attractive, the guilty verdicts were 77% compared to 55% for an unattractive victim.
No gender differences were found.
Although this is a mock trial, when applied in the courtroom, attractiveness does have an affect on the verdict. Other studies have supported these findings.
Mainly nature side of debate.
Mainly individual explanation side of debate.
Mainly reductionism side of debate.
Mainly determinism side of debate.
Qualitiative and quantitative data.

Witness Confidence. Pedrod & Cutler. Effect of Witness Confidence on Juror's Assessment of Eyewitness Evidence.
To examine several factors, including confidence, that jurors might consider when evaluating eyewitness idenification evidence.
A laboratory experiment with mock trial.
Independent measures design.
Self-selected sample.
Participants made up of undergraduates, eligible and experienced jurors.
A taped trial of a robbery was presented where eyewitness identification played a key role. The witness testified that she was either 80% of 100% confident that she had identified the robber.
Nine other variables, all at high and low level, were introduced into the film, four of which are reported below.
Participants experienced either the high or low condition variables on a random basis and after watching the film, they were asked to decide whether the robber was guilty or not.

Four of ten factors and levels Percentage
convictions
Suspect in disguise
High - heavily disguised
Low - minimal disguise
63
63
Weapon focus - a weapon is used
High - weapon clearly brandished
Low - Weapon visible
64
63
Retention interval
14 days
2 days
63
63
Witness confidence about identification
100% confident
80% confident
67%
60%
Witness confidence is the only statistically significant effect of these listed variables under the conditions of the mock trial.
The evidence in the field is consistent in showing that confidence is a poor predictor of witness accuracy. It also shows that jurors' trust in it is undiminished.
Nature or nurture.
Mainly individual explanation side of debate.
Mainly holism side of debate.
Determinism or free will.
Mainly quantitative data.

Effect of Shields and Videotape on Children Giving Evidence. Ross et al. Impact of Protective Shields and Videotape Testimony on Conviction Rates.
Mock trial based on an actual court transcript. A professional film crew recorded actors plaing the roles in the case. Three versions were created. First was open court with the child in full view, second had the child behind a screen and third was a video link.
Self-selected sample.
300 college students from an intoductory Psychology class.
They were told it was a study of Psychology and the law. Deception?
Independent measures design.
Participants watched one of the films of the court case. Alleged abused with the child's father as the defendant and the mother, 2 expert witnesses and the child as witnesses. The abuse was a single touch while the father was giving the child a bath.and the case focused on whether it was innocent or sexual in nature.
The judge in the case read a warning before either the screen or video monitor was used. The participants gave their verdicts and rated the credibility of the child witness.

Open court Shield Video
Guilty (%) 51 46 49
Not guilty (%) 49 54 51
There was a follow-up study where everything stayed the same as before, but the tape was stopped immediately after the child testified. This time, the results showed a clear difference.
The open court group were far more likely to convict and the effect of gender was not significant.
The effect on the credibility of the witness was the same as before, no difference.
Nature or nurture.
Mainly situational explanation side of debate.
Mainly reductionism side of debate.
Determinism or free will.
Mainly quantitative data.

 

[Stitch4Prez]

George, you wrote that in 14 minutes?

 

[¡WDW!girlrox(:]

my room is now a total mess...