Tag Archives: Reaching a Verdict

Castellow et al., (1990) ‘Effects of Physical Attractiveness of the plaintiff (victim) and defendant in sexual harassment judgement

Forensic Psychology, OCR A2 Psychology, Reaching a Verdict, Witness Appeal, , , ,

Castellow et al., (1990) ‘Effects of Physical Attractiveness of the plaintiff (victim) and defendant in sexual harassment judgement’, Journal of Social Personality and Behaviour 5, 547-62.

Background

This is the first study we will be looking at from the ‘witness appeal’ section of ‘reaching a verdict’, as part of your OCR A2 Forensic Psychology course. It is further categorised into ‘attractiveness.’

A myriad of studies have proposed the notion that the attractiveness of the defendant, or of the victim can have an impact on jury verdicts. The more attractive the defendant, the less guilty verdicts.

Think of disney films, can you tell who is the baddy without them saying a word?

Continue reading Castellow et al., (1990) ‘Effects of Physical Attractiveness of the plaintiff (victim) and defendant in sexual harassment judgement →

Pickel (1995) – ‘Inducing Jurors to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Legal explanation Does not Help

Forensic Psychology, OCR A2 Psychology, Persuading a Jury, Reaching a Verdict, , , ,

Pickel, K.L. (1995) ‘Inducing Jurors to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Legal explanation Does not help. Law and Human Behaviour. Volume 19, Issue 4.

Background

This is the third study we will be looking at from Reaching Verdict and  Persuading a Jury, as part of your OCR A2 Forensic Psychology course. It is further categorised into ‘inadmissible evidence.’

Reaching a verdict and Persuading a Jury consider the legal system. This study specifically covers the effects of evidence being ruled as inadmissible.

 

Continue reading Pickel (1995) – ‘Inducing Jurors to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Legal explanation Does not Help →

Cutler and Penrod (1989) ‘The Eye Witness, The Expert Psychologist and the Jury.’

Forensic Psychology, OCR A2 Psychology, Persuading a Jury, Reaching a Verdict, , , , ,

Cutler and Penrod (1989) ‘The Eye Witness, The Expert Psychologist and the Jury.’ Law and Human Behaviour

Background

This is the second study we will be looking at from Reaching Verdict and  Persuading a Jury, as part of your OCR A2 Forensic Psychology course. It is further categorised into ‘persuasion’ and ‘expert witnesses.’

Reaching a verdict and Persuading a Jury consider the legal system. This study specifically covers the effects of expert witnesses on jury verdicts.

In the United Kingdom the final verdict in criminal trials is made by a jury of 12 citizens randomly selected from the voting register,  which upon turning 18 all UK citizens are added to. Prisoners and people diagnosed with mental illnesses are not allowed to serve on juries.

 

Continue reading Cutler and Penrod (1989) ‘The Eye Witness, The Expert Psychologist and the Jury.’ →

Pennington and Hastie (1988) – Explanation-based decision making: effects on memory structure on judgement

Forensic Psychology, OCR A2 Psychology, Persuading a Jury, Reaching a Verdict, , , ,

Pennington, N. and Hastie, R., (1988) – ‘Explanation-based decision making: effects on memory structure on judgement’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning and Memory and Cognition 14 (3), 521-33.

Background

This is the first study we will be looking at from Reaching Verdict and  Persuading a Jury, as part of your OCR A2 Forensic Psychology course. It is further categorised into ‘order-effects/story order/witness order.’

Reaching a verdict and Persuading a Jury consider the legal system. This study specifically covers court hearings.

In the United Kingdom the final verdict in criminal trials is made by a jury of 12 citizens randomly selected from the voting register,  which upon turning 18 all UK citizens are added to. Prisoners and people diagnosed with mental illnesses are not allowed to serve on juries.

 

Continue reading Pennington and Hastie (1988) – Explanation-based decision making: effects on memory structure on judgement →