Social Psychology & the Law

Social Psychology

 Three Themes
I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology (Pre-trial) II. Irrationally justified (During Trial) III. Power of situation to lead to a better criminal justice system

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Individual biases in psychological decision-making

Decision to shoot (Plant et al., 2011) White participants shown computerized simulation of Black suspects Black suspect face paired with an object (either neutral or gun). When paired with gun = shoot Dependent variable: How quickly they decide to shoot armed suspects (those paired with gun) Results: Quickest to shoot Black men, over Black women, as well as White men and women

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Masculinity & Decision to shoot Black suspects (Goff, 2012) White Participants: Actual Police Officers Big screen simulation with suspect approaching (armed and unarmed) Independent variables:
Race of Victim: (Black vs. White males) Insecure masculinity: (Low vs. high)

Dependent variable: Decision to shoot Results:

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Individual biases in psychology & Eyewitness memory Factors that increase biased Eyewitness Testimony Own-race bias: people are better at recognizing faces of their own race Weapon Focus: False Memory: Recalling events that never occurred or occurred differently Misinformation effect: witnessing an event, receiving misinformation about it, and then incorporating the misinformation into ones memory

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Individual biases in psychology & Eyewitness memory Questioning & Misinformation effect (Loftus & Palmer, 1974) Participants saw a film of a car accident Follow-up questions by investigator How fast were the cars going when they _______ each other? Independent variable: Wording in the question
Contacted Hit Bumped Collided into Smashed into

Dependent variable: Estimate of speed by participants (in mph) & Long-term memory

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Individual biases in psychology & Eyewitness memory Questioning & Misinformation effect (Loftus & Palmer, 1974) Results:
50 40 30 20 10 0 Contacted

Hit

Bumped Collided Smashed

Long-term memory? One week later, participants came back for

Did you see broken glass?

Results:

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Individual biases in psychology & Lie Detection Is the Reid technique able to improve lie detection? (Kassin &
Fong, 1999)

Independent variables
Guilt of suspect: (Guilty vs. innocent of mock crime) Interrogator Reid Technique training: (Yes vs. No)

Dependent variable: Accuracy of interrogators in determining who was guilty/innocent & confidence in judgment Results: Interrogators that underwent training were less accurate, but more confident in their judgments

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Individual biases in psychology & Lie Detection Is the Reid technique able to improve lie detection? (Kassin &
Fong, 1999). Remember, 50% is baseline.
Trained Polygraphers Police College Students Judges Secret Service
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Accuracy

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Individual biases in psychology & Confessions REID Technique and Controlling the situation Five Steps to securing a confession:
1. Control the situation
Interrogate in small room/control rewards/minimize distractions

2. Distort perceptions of the crime

Maximization (make it sound worse than it was) Minimization (make it sounds less serious that it was)

3. Sympathize with the suspect

Good cop/bad cop

4. Encourage self-doubt
Point out physical symptoms

5.

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Voluntary: Involving no external pressure Coerced-compliant: Coerced-internalized: innocent suspect induced to believe (sometime temporarily) he or she is guilty

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Individual biases in psychology & Confessions False ConfessionsHow can this happen? Power of false evidence (Kassin & Keichel, 2001)
Participants asked to complete a computer task Told to NOT touch a particular button or cpu would crash Computer crashes & they are accused of touching the button Independent variables: 120
False evidence 100 (Witness either saw or not) 80 Certainty of situation 60 (Slow paced task vs. Fast paced task) 40
20 0
No witness Witness

Slow Fast

Dependent variable: % that signed a confession (loss of experimental credits)

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Dror & Charlton (2006)

Took old cases of fingerprint cases, where experts had said there was a match between unknown and known (suspect) fingerprints Went back to those same experts and w/o their knowledge gave the same set of prints Independent variable:
Changed environmental information about the case (not fingerprints!)

Results:

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Individual biases in psychology & Confessions False confessions and other biases less likely to occur if attorney is present Power of innocence (Kassin & Norwick, 2004): Participants who
were truly innocent were significantly more likely than guilty suspects to sign a waiver of their Miranda rights

I. Procedures failing to account for individual biases in psychology

Individual biases in psychology Most people dont go to court Defense attorneys & Plea-Recommendations (Edkins, 2010) Participants: Practicing defense attorneys Given case describing robbery at a Jewelry store Independent variable: Race of Suspect (Black vs. White) Dependent Variable: Number of years in plea recommendation

Results: Defense attorneys more likely to recommend longer sentences to Black suspects, compared to White suspects

II. Irrationally Justified

I. Individual biases in psychology (Pre-trial) II. Irrationally justified (During trial) Old friend cognitive dissonance & justification of bias Detectives & False Confessions Torture & Judgments of Guilt (Gray & Wegner, 2010)
Participants paired with other student (actually confederate) Other student played dice game, but is suspected of cheating Experimenter dunks other students hand in freezing water Independent variable: Degree of Pain experienced by other student
High (Very uncomfortable & whimpering) Low (She is fine)

Dependent variable: Perceived guilt of other student?

Results:

II. Irrationally Justified

Looking Deathworthy (Eberhardt et al., 2006) Independent variable: Divided cases up based on stereotypicality of Black defendant (less vs. more stereotypical) Dependent variable: Percentage of time person received death penalty (actual cases) Control Variables (Independent raters)
Aggravating circumstances; severity of murder; defendants socioeconomic status; victims socio-economic status; defendant attractiveness

Study 1: White Victims Results: Stereotypically Black defendants received the death penalty
much more than less stereotypically looking black defendants

Study 2: Black Victims

Results:

III. Power of Situation & Improving the System

II. Irrationally Justified III. Power of changing situation to improve criminal justice system Eyewitness testimony & line-up instructions
Biased Instructions: We have the suspect in custody and would like to show you a photo line-up to see if you are able to identify him

Administrator bias (vs. double-blind): Please take another look at the line-up vs. No knowledge of the case Simultaneous vs. sequential line-up procedures: All pictures together (cues approach of which personof the groupis closest)

Improving eyewitness procedures: Use double-blind procedures to administer line-ups and sequential line-ups

III. Power of Situation & Improving the System

Situation of scientific evidence (problem of bad science)

Judges understanding of scientific evidence (Kovera & McAuliff, 2000)

Used actual judges to examine scientific studies 17% of Judges said they would admit any study (doesnt matter how bad) Independent variables:
Quality of study (low vs. high) Scientifically trained judges (yes vs. no)

Dependent variables: Correct evaluation of good vs. bad studies & admissibility decisions
Results: Trained judges better able to distinguish between good vs. bad studies and less likely to admit studies with poor quality