Topic 4: Psychology & the Courtroom: Additional Studies

Question 1

(Topic 4: Penrod & Cutler) Aim of Penrod & Cutler’s study?

Answer 1

To investigate the effect of witness confidence on jury verdicts.

Question 2

(Topic 4: Penrod & Cutler) Sample used in Penrod & Cutler’s study?

Answer 2

Mock jury composed of students and experienced jurors.

Question 3

(Topic 4: Penrod & Cutler) What was the fake trial based on?

Answer 3

A robbery with evidence from a female eyewitness.

Question 4

(Topic 4: Penrod & Cutler) What were the two witness confidence conditions?

Answer 4

80% confident and 100% confident.

Question 5

(Topic 4: Penrod & Cutler) What were the guilty verdict percentages?

Answer 5

67% guilty in the 100% confidence condition; 60% guilty in the 80% confidence condition.

Question 6

(Topic 4: Penrod & Cutler) What percentage of jurors voted non-guilty in the 100% confidence condition?

Answer 6

0.33

Question 7

(Topic 4: Penrod & Cutler) What was the main conclusion of the study?

Answer 7

Witness confidence affects jury verdicts, but is not the sole determining factor.

Question 8

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) Aim of Sigall & Ostrove’s study?

Answer 8

To investigate the effect of attractiveness on sentencing.

Question 9

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) The sample used in Sigall & Ostrove’s study?

Answer 9

120 students (60 male, 60 female).

Question 10

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) What were the independent variables?

Answer 10

• Type of crime: Burglary or Fraud.
• Defendant attractiveness: Attractive or Unattractive.

Question 11

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) What was the control condition?

Answer 11

No attractiveness information provided.

Question 12

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) What was the study’s prediction?

Answer 12

That attractive defendants who used their beauty in the crime would be punished more harshly.

Question 13

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) How was punishment measured?

Answer 13

Suggested prison sentence (1-15 years).

Question 14

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) Prison sentence for attractive defendant, burglary?

Answer 14

2.8 years.

Question 15

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) Prison sentence for attractive defendant, fraud?

Answer 15

5.45 years.

Question 16

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) Prison sentence for unattractive defendant, burglary?

Answer 16

5.2 years.

Question 17

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) Prison sentence for unattractive defendant, fraud?

Answer 17

4.35 years.

Question 18

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) Prison sentence for control group, burglary?

Answer 18

5.1 years.

Question 19

(Topic 4: Sigall & Ostrove) Prison sentence for control group, fraud?

Answer 19

4.35 years.

Question 20

(Topic 4: Pennington & Hastie) How do people understand events, according to Pennington & Hastie?

Answer 20

People organize events into stories.

Question 21

(Topic 4: Pennington & Hastie) How do jurors tend to decide verdicts?

Answer 21

They favor verdicts that align with their constructed story.

Question 22

(Topic 4: Pennington & Hastie) How can lawyers impact verdicts?

Answer 22

Through their storytelling methods.

Question 23

(Topic 4: Pennington & Hastie) What is “story order”?

Answer 23

Presenting evidence chronologically.

Question 24

(Topic 4: Pennington & Hastie) What is “witness order”?

Answer 24

Presenting witnesses strategically for persuasion.

Question 25

(Topic 4: Pennington & Hastie) What research method did Pennington & Hastie use?

Answer 25

A mock jury approach.

Question 26

(Topic 4: Pennington & Hastie) What did Pennington & Hastie compare?

Answer 26

Story order vs. witness order.

Question 27

(Topic 4: Pennington & Hastie) Which order was found to be more persuasive?

Answer 27

Story order.

Question 28

(Topic 4: Simon & Chabris) What did Simon & Chabris's study demonstrate about visual perception?

Answer 28

That people often fail to notice unexpected events when focused on a primary task (visual inattention).

Question 29

(Topic 4: Simon & Chabris) How can Simon & Chabris's findings be used in legal arguments?

Answer 29

To challenge the reliability of eyewitness accounts.

Question 30

(Topic 4: Simon & Chabris) What percentage of participants noticed the unexpected event in Simon & Chabris's study?

Answer 30

0.54

Question 31

(Topic 4: Simon & Chabris) What key distinction does the study highlight?

Answer 31

Looking" does not guarantee "seeing.

Question 32

(Topic 4: Simon & Chabris) What should NOT be automatically assumed about eyewitness testimony?

Answer 32

That it is accurate.