1 / 15

Just Spaces

Just Spaces. Dr Blake McKimmie & Ms Jill Hays Applied Social Psychology Lab School of Psychology. “... when I first saw the fixed screen dock I was immediately concerned about its impact on the jury ...

lajos
Download Presentation

Just Spaces

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Just Spaces Dr Blake McKimmie & Ms Jill Hays Applied Social Psychology Lab School of Psychology

  2. “...when I first saw the fixed screen dock I was immediately concerned about its impact on the jury... ...The immediate impression was that they were separated in that way because they posed a threat to people in the courtroom....” - The Honourable Justice Whealy

  3. How do jurors make their decisions? Other cues Message content

  4. Extra-legal factors • Pre-trial publicity • Defendant characteristics • Ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender, attractiveness, tattoos • Witness characteristics • Nonverbal behaviour, gender, age, credentials • Case domain Kramer, Kerr, & Carroll (1990); Mazzella& Feingold (1994); McKimmie, Masters, Masser, Schuller, & Terry (2013); McKimmie, Masser & Bongiorno (2013); Schuller, Terry & McKimmie (2005); Antrobus, McKimmie, & Newcombe (2012); Cooper, Bennett, & Sukel (1996)

  5. Dual process models of persuasionCacioppo, Petty, Chuan, & Rodriguez (1986)Chaiken, Liberman & Eagly (1989)

  6. Cognitive misers and optimisers Eagly & Chaiken (1993) Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen (1994) Sherman, Lee, Bessnoff, & Frost (1998) McKimmie, Masters, Masser, Schuller& Terry (2013)

  7. Judges and jurors are similar in how they assess case evidence Guthrie, Rachlinski, & Wistrich (2001)

  8. How might the design of the dock influence jurors?

  9. Cue to dangerEcological contaminationAttentionCamera perspective bias, weapon focusCategorisation and stereotypesOutgroup, offender, dehumanisation Werthman & Piliavin (1967); Terrill & Reisig (2003); Lassiter & Irvine (1986); Loftus (1979); Tajfel & Turner (1986); Devine (1989); Mazella & Feingold (1994); Haslam (2006).

  10. Predictions

  11. Main Effect of Evidence

  12. No Effect of Dock Condition on: • Dangerousness • Dehumanisation • Stereotypicality as a criminal

  13. Effect of Dock Condition on Juror Bias

  14. Mediation of Dock Condition on Guilt through Juror Bias, then Dangerousness Indirect: .05* Dangerousness .73* Juror Bias .81* .09* Dock design Guilt Direct: .12 Total: .04, p = .596

  15. Acknowledgements • Project Team: • Professor David Tait • Professor Rick Sarre • Dr Meredith Rossner • Dr Emma Rowden • Ms Diane Jones • Professor Mary Rose • Mr Paul Katsieris • Mr Mariano De Duonni • Funding: • Australian Research Council • Linkage Project LP120200288 • Student Investigators: • Jill Hays • KathrynePhillis • Partners: • PTW Architects • Katsieris Origami • Hassell Pty Ltd • WA Department of the AG • ICE Design Australia • NSW Department of AG and Justice Applied Social Psychology Lab: http://www.psy.uq.edu.au/research/appliedsocial

More Related