Thesis (M.A.)--York University, 2004. Graduate Programme in Psychology. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 70-74). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pMQ99383

Previous research has demonstrated how different forms of media, such as news, television, and music, can affect an individual's perceptions and attitudes. However, little research exists on how these effects may have an impact in the courtroom beyond pre-trial publicity. This could pose a threat to the constitutional right of a fair trial; and understanding this threat may be vital to impartiality in the trial process. Using cultivation theory and the CSI effect as a theoretical basis, this study examined how attitudes toward, and perceptions about, mock trial vignettes were affected by exposure to entertainment media in the form of film. A posttest only, randomized experimental design was employed. One-hundred-fifty-nine participants were recruited through social media based on their eligibility for jury duty and were then exposed to (a) a film about crime, (b) a neutral film about the human body, or (c) no film and then presented with 3 criminal trial scenarios and asked to rate their perceptions about the defendant, the severity of the crime, and the defendant's guilt. The vignettes produced 3 separate scores for each participant and the resulting data were analyzed using 3 separate one-way ANOVAs. Results of the study failed to show significant effects. This study may assist future researchers investigating this phenomenon by providing insight into the dimensional limitations of this phenomenon. For the everyday media consumer, this research contributes to the body of knowledge that helps to keep people informed of the many ways media can influence an individual's perceptions, attitudes, and ultimately, their decisions, which is vital to reducing the impact of biases created by an uncontrolled flow of selective, and at times inaccurate, information.

This study examined the effects that a defendant's pleading of the fifth amendment during a criminal trial had on simulated juror's decisions regarding verdict, likelihood of guilt, certainty of guilt, sentence severity, and perceptions of the defendant's character. One hundred fifty-five undergraduate psychology students read one of three versions of a transcript, based on a trial of a man charged with theft, in which the defendant did not plead the fifth (control), plead the fifth, or plead the fifth possibly for reasons other than hiding involvement in the crime (i.e. having an affair). Results showed that the two fifth amendment conditions found the defendant to be more likely guilty than the control condition. Also, a factor analysis suggested that an honest and a relaxed dimension best described the defendant's character. In addition, it was discovered that perceptions of the defendant's honesty mediated the effects of perceived likelihood of guilt. / Department of Psychological Science

No description available.

The jury selection process (also known as voir dire) has been examined previously in many ways, including racial impacts. Previous research suggests the need for more examination of how and if gender impacts the voir dire process. The lack of knowledge about how gender impacts voir dire might also have implications for public respect and trust in the court system. For example, theories of procedural justice suggest that individual experiences with the legal system affect whether they view the entire legal system as being legitimate. This is important because this perception then impacts how the public interact with the system. This research examines one main research question, how is gender salient in the voir dire process? To understand how gender impacts voir dire, including how attorneys and potential jurors communicate with each other, courtroom observations of the voir dire process were conducted. During these observations coding sheets were used focusing on types of questions asked by attorneys and reactions of the potential jurors and how gender affected this process. Over 150 interactions with potential jurors were examined. The results of these interactions focus on the use and misuse of gendered titles, gendered expectations, and repetition. It was found that gender is salient throughout the process and may impact how attorneys present the questions they ask and the information they give. The results of this research are applicable to jury selection/voir dire research and are important to better understanding how gender is seen and acted out in the courtroom.

Psychologists, legal practitioners and scholars share the knowledge that honest eyewitnesses can err in their attempts to identify the perpetrator of a crime. This thesis reports an experimental investigation of the extent to which expert evidence and judicial instruction can improve juror ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate identifications. Special attention is also paid to the logic of inferences which have been made by psychologists regarding the efficacy of expert evidence, and compares methodologies adopting direct measures of participant Sensitivity to Eyewitness Accuracy (SEA) with those that can only indirectly assess this construct. Study 1 surveys the knowledge and opinions of legal professionals regarding eyewitness identification issues (n = 35), showing that respondents expressed doubts that judicial instructions would exert an effect equivalent to that of eyewitness expert evidence. Accordingly, Experiments 1 to 4 (Experiment 1, n = 104; Experiment 2, n = 238; Experiment 3, n = 228; Experiment 4, n = 297) were conducted to directly assess the relative impacts of judicial instruction and expert evidence on participant juror SEA. The methodology utilised in these investigations incorporated the testimony of real eyewitnesses to a staged crime scenario in order to assess the impact of instruction on juror ability to discriminate between known accurate and known inaccurate eyewitnesses. Overall, little evidence was found to support the notion that expert evidence is more effective than judicial instruction, as no significant association was identified between instruction type and SEA. This result was found to hold irrespective of the objective quality of the expert?s testimony (accurate or erroneous). In light of the results from Experiments 1 to 4, Experiment 5 was designed to investigate why the experts were not able to improve the discrimination accuracy of the jurors. This study focused on the extent to which participants of varying levels of expertise could correctly classify eyewitness accuracy. The results of Experiment 5 (n = 145) suggest that experts were no better able to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses than novice laypeople. Overall, the evidence reported in this thesis raises serious questions regarding the utility of eyewitness expertise in the completion of eyewitness discrimination tasks.

Thesis (M.S.)--Mississippi State University. Department of Psychology. / Title from title screen. Includes bibliographical references.

The present study explored two main questions: Can jurors disregard pretrial publicity? And if jurors cannot disregard pretrial publicity, to what extent does it affect juror decision making? Participants (49 male and 71 female) listened to an audiotaped trial and were assigned to one of four conditions: They were either exposed to the critical evidence as PTP (PTP condition), as an admissible videotape (Video condition), as descriptive testimony given by a witness (Discussion condition), or they were not exposed to the critical evidence (Control condition). After hearing the audiotaped trial, participants were then asked to render a verdict in the case (guilty v. not guilty) on three different charges, rate their confidence in their verdicts, rate the probability of the defendant's guilt on each charge, make sentence recommendations, rate their confidence in their sentence recommendations, and report their attitudes about the defendant's character. Verdicts, sentence recommendations, and confidence judgments were not affected by pretrial publicity. However, results suggested that pretrial publicity may have an impact when judging the defendant's personality characteristics. / Department of Psychological Science

The present study investigated whether the presentation of severe psychological injury increased the perceived likelihood of sexual harassment and more plaintiff-friendly verdicts in a hostile environment sexual harassment claim. Four hundred thirty-two participants were presented with a case summary divided into five paragraphs. Within the fifth paragraph, participants were informed that the plaintiff suffered from different severity levels of psychological injury. Gender was monitored to ensure a proportional amount of males and females in each condition. Results indicated that the presentation of psychological injury in any form increased the likelihood of perceived sexual harassment and verdicts for the plaintiff. Participants believed that garden-variety injuries (i.e., embarrassment, humiliation) were more likely to occur from sexual harassment, and had a greater impact on their perceptions and liability determinations. These results suggest that participants may use the presentation of psychological injury as a heuristic that when present, favors the plaintiff. / Department of Psychological Science

Psychologists, legal practitioners and scholars share the knowledge that honest eyewitnesses can err in their attempts to identify the perpetrator of a crime. This thesis reports an experimental investigation of the extent to which expert evidence and judicial instruction can improve juror ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate identifications. Special attention is also paid to the logic of inferences which have been made by psychologists regarding the efficacy of expert evidence, and compares methodologies adopting direct measures of participant Sensitivity to Eyewitness Accuracy (SEA) with those that can only indirectly assess this construct. Study 1 surveys the knowledge and opinions of legal professionals regarding eyewitness identification issues (n = 35), showing that respondents expressed doubts that judicial instructions would exert an effect equivalent to that of eyewitness expert evidence. Accordingly, Experiments 1 to 4 (Experiment 1, n = 104; Experiment 2, n = 238; Experiment 3, n = 228; Experiment 4, n = 297) were conducted to directly assess the relative impacts of judicial instruction and expert evidence on participant juror SEA. The methodology utilised in these investigations incorporated the testimony of real eyewitnesses to a staged crime scenario in order to assess the impact of instruction on juror ability to discriminate between known accurate and known inaccurate eyewitnesses. Overall, little evidence was found to support the notion that expert evidence is more effective than judicial instruction, as no significant association was identified between instruction type and SEA. This result was found to hold irrespective of the objective quality of the expert?s testimony (accurate or erroneous). In light of the results from Experiments 1 to 4, Experiment 5 was designed to investigate why the experts were not able to improve the discrimination accuracy of the jurors. This study focused on the extent to which participants of varying levels of expertise could correctly classify eyewitness accuracy. The results of Experiment 5 (n = 145) suggest that experts were no better able to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses than novice laypeople. Overall, the evidence reported in this thesis raises serious questions regarding the utility of eyewitness expertise in the completion of eyewitness discrimination tasks.