Psych 389 Psych and Law- UMICH exam 3 winter 2025

simultanious lineup

show the witness all lineup members simultaneously, allowing for direct comparison

sequential lineup

present lineup members to the witness one at a time, forcing them to make a decision on each before seeing the next.

vior dire

allows lawyers to interview, and then to accept or reject, potential jurors

the concept of reactance may be used to explain

jurors' use of inadmissible evidence, when admonished not to

how the law deals with pre-trial publicity

if an individual says they can ignore the pre-trial publicity and judge the case solely on the facts to be presented, they are allowed on the jury

black letter law often conflicts with all of the following

extra-legal factors

one's conscience and personal sentiments

commonsense justice

DOES NOT CONFLICT W/: Legal Formalism

To get the kind of jury they want, lawyers can do all of the following

c.Use a certain number of challenges with cause to dismiss a juror

d. Ask question during voir dire expressly to elicit information about juror's potential bias for or against either party.

b. Use preemptory challenges to dismiss a juror without stating a reason

CANNOT: A. exclude based on race

If I were a behavioral scientist advising a prosecuting lawyer on how or win a case, I would be most concerned with:

the order in which the lawyer is going to present the witnesses to the jury

Regarding the effect of jury deliberation on verdicts, Myers and Kaplan conducted an experiment and found that, after deliberation:

jurors were more likely to go with the decision a majority were leaning towards when they walked into the jury room

Although these claims are not always true, Tribe pointed out several issues that made him skeptical of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence will be overweighed because of its prestige

Scientific evidence will be overweighed because of its precision

Scientific evidence is probabilistic and not particular

According to the Wrightsman text, which trial procedure has been found to be seen as fairer and leading to less biased outcomes?

Adversarial system

According to the Wrightsman textbook, arbitration can be either:

binding or nonbinding

According to Allport, integration of potential hostile groups worked best when done under optimal conditions. Each of the following are conditions he described as optimal,

Groups have equivalent positions of influence and status

Firm, consistent endorsement of authorities, law, or custom

Absence of competition between groups

Implicit biases refer to:

bias occurring without awareness or control

According to the Swencious and Atiba Goff reading on police and racial bias, all the following are risk factors in producing discriminatory behavior among police

Focus on controlling crime

Discretion

Cognitive demands

According to the legal scholar Wallace Loh, when does the Supreme Court listen to and use behavioral science data?

when the data give legitimacy to an unpopular decision involving social reform and experimentation

No matter how honest and rigorous, scientific findings may still be "tainted" by a researcher's values and politics as long as:

scientists determine which specific empirical questions to ask and phenomena to emphasize

According to Thaler and Sunstein reading, the main idea behind "libertarian paternalism" is:

Using approaches that preserve freedom of choice yet steer people in a direction that promotes their welfare.

Our legal system is an adversarial one. Traditionally, to work well, it assumes all the following

each side knows in advance what the other side knows

witnesses can be compelled to testify

there is a small, finite pool of witnesses

Black Letter Law

areas of the law that consist of mainly technical rules

arbitration

A private method of resolving disputes where the parties agree to let a neutral third party (an arbitrator) make a decision.

The arbitrator's decision is usually binding (final and enforceable), though sometimes it can be non-binding if agreed.

It's often faster and less formal than going to court.

Common in business contracts, labor disputes, and international conflicts.

adversarial sysetm

A legal system where two opposing sides (prosecution vs. defense, plaintiff vs. defendant) present their case to an impartial judge (and often a jury).

Each side is responsible for gathering and presenting evidence and arguing their position.

The judge or jury acts like a referee and decides based on what the sides present.

It's the system used in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom.

Inquisitorial System

A legal system where the judge plays an active role in investigating the case.

The judge leads the questioning, gathers evidence, and seeks the truth directly.

Lawyers are still involved but play a less central role than in adversarial systems.

Common in many European countries like France and Germany.

Mediation

A voluntary and non-binding process where a neutral third party (a mediator) helps the parties communicate and try to reach their own agreement.

The mediator does not decide the case — they just guide the conversation and negotiation.

Used in family law (like divorce), business disputes, and many civil cases.

Data suggest that the sequential lineup, relative to the simultaneous lineup

reduces the number of mistaken identifications of innocent people

Yerkes- Dodson Law

describes the relationship between arousal (or stress) and performance, suggesting there's an optimal level where performance is best

estabrook hypothesis

as arousal or emotional intensity increases, attention narrows and the ability to process information effectively decreases

lineup bias

A lineup may be structured so that choosing the suspect is favored over any of the fillers. Presumably if the fillers are selected effectively, this will not happen, but it will be influenced heavily by the filler selection criteria.

pseudo witness

person off street given only the barest of description from witness

2 routes to recognition

1. familiarity: automatic

2. analytical: deliberate and concious

Inbau and Reid

1. induce tension (setting and behavior)

2. Minimize Crime (what crime is what what it means)

3. Maximize Evidence (pit accomplices against each other)

4. Good Cop/Bad Cop

Reccomendations for interrogrations

1. look for coercion

2. make sure confesison is consistent

3. consider if suspect is revealing info only the perpatrator would know

4. videotape interrogation

Venire

construct panel of potential jurors

1. key person approach

2. random sampling (mail, calls, etc)

Voir Dire

attorneys interview potential jurors and accept or exclude them

1. exclude for cause

2. peremptory (NO justification needed)

scientific jury selection

1. survey community- find most sympathetic

2. personality/attitude tests- more pro-prosecution OR defense (authoritarianism)

3. Nonverbals- juror demenor during voir dire

cultural cognition

risks seen greater when behavior violates ones ideological learnings- ex. guns not seen as much as a risk by conservatives

does evidence matter

YES! More evidence = stronger case AND more convictions

Irwin v. Dowd ('61)

"due process violated if potential jurors are familiar with the case and have formed opinions'

if occurs; change of venu is granted

HOWEVER; prior info must be prejudicial and if jurors say they aren't biased and will only look at facts, it's okay and there is no change

U.S v. Ameral ('73)

Experts must have special knowledge not typically found in lay jurors

1. subject matter beyond common understanding of jury

2. well-qualified

3. evidence = scientifically reliable (Frye and Daubert test)

4. probative value of testimoney outweighs prejudicial value

Issues- Tribe ('72)

1. How to spot Charlatans (a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud)

2. scientific evidence will be overweighed because of its prestige

3. scientific evidence will be overweighed because of its percison

4. scientific evidence = probablistic and our legal system is based on notion of particular evidence

Law and Probabalistic evidence

law WANTS PARTICULAR evidence, but science does NOT provide that

1. science conclusions NOT certain

2. findings based on data, NOT the case at hand

14th Amendment

addresses citizenship, equal protection, and due process. It defines citizenship as including all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., prohibiting states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens, and guaranteeing due process and equal protection under the law

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Separate but equal is constitutional

Brown v Board of Education (1954)

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, effectively overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson

logic of brown v. board

from Thurgood Marshall: segregation cycle- white predjuice toward black people = low black self-esteem = low black achievement = reverse predjuice and repeat

Allport's optimal conditions

1. firm and consistent endorsement of authority

2. common goals and no competition b/w groups

3. equal status

4. intergroup cooperation

minimal group phenomenom (Tajfel, 1980)

splitting into groups based on even random bases causes in-group favortism

jigsaw classroom

enforced cooperation by introducing superordiante goals

groups are assigned to become "experts" of 1 topic and then must teach other groups about that topic

implicit bias

unaware of biases

system 1 (unconcious awareness) v system 2 (concious awareness)

social biases may be gone in system 2, but still remain in nonconcious system 1

IAT controversies

- lack of temporal stability

- score depends on speed/age

- can be controlled

- lack of correlation w/ explicit measures of behavior

- lack of correlation w/ other implicit measures

- valance OR common knowledge, familiarity, and salience

death penalty issues

1. cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment)

2. deter crime?

3. capricious or discriminatory in implimentation

Q/N Homocide rate equation: KP aa1Pc/a2 Pe/ca3 Ub1 Lb2Ybb3Ab4exp(g1)

KP aa1Pc/a2 Pe/ca3 Ub1 Lb2Ybb3Ab4exp(g1)

Q/N = homicide rate

k = constant

Pa = probability of arrest after homicide

Pa/c = probability of conviction if arrested

Pe/c = probability of executed if convicted

U = unemployment rate that year

L = % of population in labor force

Yb = Average household income

A = % of population under the age of 30

convergent evidence

can results stay the same if different methods, different researchers, and different populations?

IF SO, more confident that results are NOT engineered

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

FURMAN v. GEORGIA (1972)

1. Stuck down all death penalty laws as unconstitutional.

2. Allowed states to enact new death penalty laws for homicide, with the following choices:

a. Abolish the death penalty

b. make death penalty mandatory (later ruled as unconstitutional

c. Provide jury with guidelines:

- aggravating circumstances: committing other felony, pecuniary gain, especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity

- mitigating circumstances: no prior record, under duress, youth

3. Automatic appellate review

McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)

1. Disparity correlation w/ Race

2. BUT disparity not deliberately introduced by legal system- it is impossible to control all biases that jurors may have

Death qualification

in captial cases juries decide:

1. guilty v. innocent

2. life sentence v. death penalty

BUT; in order for death penalty to be a viable option, we must exclude all those who oppose the death penalty

Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968)

Exclude from jury if "would vote against a death sentence in ANY circumstance"

effects of death qualifications

1. disproportionatly excludes cognizable groups

2. difference in attitude b/w excludables + death qualified jurors

- DQ jurors- harsh

- exclude jurors- "better to let a guilty person go over convicting an innocent"

3. verdicts difference b/w excludable and DQ

- Excludeable: aquit = 34% and convict = 66%

- DQ: aquit = 14% and convict = 86%

Lockhart v. McCree (1986)

1. Social science evidence not "real world" or particular" enough; is irrelevant.

2. The legal system's obligation is to sit 12 people on the jury who can make a good faith effort to apply the relevant law and facts impartially. A jury need not represent all biases/attitudes of the community.

3. DQ juries give the defendant a break, because they will probably have "whimsical doubts" as to guilt at the sentencing phase.

social policy

Old School

- Compel behavior via regulation (car inspections)

-Or by incentives (tax breaks for buying a house)

"New" School

-Do not constrain choice

-But "nudge" choice by choice architecture of the decision or behavior; how the choice is structured A form of "libertarian paternalism"

-Use behavioral/social science principles to do nudging

nudges

- take advantage of automatic response

- defaults

- channel factors (make easy or hard)

- make plans

- use social pressure

Supreme Court and Social Science

Ct. Embraced Soc Sci Data in:

1. Brown v. Board (Desegregation)

2. Furman v. Georgia (Death penalty Discrimination)

3. Bellow v. Georgia (Are Smaller Juries OK?)

Ct. Dismissed Soc Sci Data in:

1. Death penalty & deterrence (many cases)

2. McClesky v. Kemp (death penalty discrimination)

3. Lockhart v. McCree (death qualification)

Wallace Loh Analysis

The supreme court embraces social science data when they want legitimate liberal reform, particularly unpopular reform. They do so to provide intellectual cover for politically difficult decisions

reseracher bias

1. saying something false is true

2. picking which truth to emphisize

Adversarial System Assumes

1. Small, finite pool of witnesses.

2. Witnesses can be compelled to testify.

3. Both sides know well in advance what the other side knows.

This assures that each side can be equally prepared, and can create no unfair advantage.

BUT WITH EXPERTS:

1. Can't compel to testify.

2. Can be anybody, with qualifications

3. Can testify about any study or finding within field.

Potential evidence is no longer finite or known well beforehand.

Potential Problems with Adversarial System

1. An unfair advantage to the "richest" side.

2. Can get anybody to argue anything.

3. Can argue from any source

Kahan et al- 2 dimensions of values

1. Hierarchy-Egalitarianism

2. Individualism-communitarianism

Kahan et al - Findings

1. People of different cultural worldviews form different perceptions of what "expert consensus" is.

2. Hierarchical individualists were more skeptical of climate change risk and more supportive of gun rights.

3. Egalitarian communitarians were more likely to perceive climate change as serious and distrust gun proliferation.

4. Experimental manipulation showed people rated experts as more credible when the expert's position aligned with their own cultural values.

Kahan et al- proposed mechanisms

1. Cultural availability: Individuals better recall and trust experts who reflect their cultural values.

2. Biased assimilation: People more easily accept information supporting their values.

3. Identity-protective cognition: Beliefs protect one's standing within their cultural group

Bazerman et al- Thesis

Cognitive biases in human thinking hinder the creation of wise and effective environmental agreements

Bazerman et al- Key findings

1. Self-serving bias: Parties interpret fairness and outcomes in ways that favor their own interests.

2. Egocentric interpretations: People believe their own views are more objective or justified than those of others.

3. Reactive devaluation: Proposals are devalued simply because they come from an opposing party.

Bazerman et al- Negotiation Challenges

1. Parties overestimate their own contributions and underestimate others' concerns.

2. Environmental negotiations often suffer from mutual mistrust and biased assessments of fairness.

Bazerman et al- Solutions

1. Increase awareness of cognitive biases among negotiators.

2. Design negotiation processes that account for and mitigate bias (e.g., third-party facilitators, transparent information sharing).

3. Focus on joint gains and common interests rather than zero-sum thinking.

Fiske- subtle bias (Moderates)

Unconscious, automatic, and often unintentional biases are widespread.

Biases show up as in-group favoritism and out-group exclusion, often through indirect and ambiguous behaviors.

Subtle biases stem from internal conflict between cultural ideals (equality) and cultural biases.

Ambivalent prejudice is common (e.g., both pity and resentment towards out-groups).

Subtle biases lead to systemic exclusion and maintain group inequalities.

Fiske- Blatant bias (extremeists)

Conscious, hot, direct, and unambiguous hatred toward out-groups.

Extremists perceive out-groups as threats to economic standing and traditional values.

Blatant biases correlate with support for segregation, hate crimes, and maintenance of hierarchical status quos.

Originates from perceived threats, not personal economic hardship, but group-level competition and fear.

Fiske- Bias mechanisms

Stereotypes (cognitive), prejudice (affective), and discrimination (behavioral) constitute bias.

Brain imaging shows amygdala activation (fear response) to out-group cues.

Fiske- Bias origin

Media exposure and limited direct intergroup contact reinforce unconscious biases.

Cultural norms push people toward explicit endorsement of egalitarian values but unconscious biases persist.

Fiske- Reducing Bias

Education, economic opportunity, and structured positive intergroup contact (with equality, cooperation, and institutional support) can reduce both subtle and blatant biases.

alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

The resolution of disputes in ways other than those involved in the traditional judicial process. Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are forms of ADR.

Sequential Intercept Model

Describes 5 stages of the criminal justice system at which interruptions might be made to substitute a community/treatment alternative

major intercepts for community-based alternatives to standard procedure

1. special law enforcement responders

2. post-arrest initial detention/hearing

3. jail, court, forensic evaluations, and commitments

similarities of community court and other kinds of problem solving courts

all focus on rehab over traditional criminal procedures

rehab = less $, less restrictive, more efficient + more safe

differences of community court and other kinds of problem solving courts

community court = heterogeneous and has variety of groups of offenders in need of rehab for reasons that relate to risk of future offending

Arbitration

A private dispute resolution process where a neutral third party (the arbitrator) hears arguments and evidence from both sides and makes a binding or non-binding decision. It's often used as an alternative to a court trial.

Criminalization Hypothesis

The theory that individuals with mental illnesses are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system because their symptoms or behaviors are misinterpreted as criminal activity, especially in the absence of adequate mental health services

Crisis Intervention Team (CIT)

A program that trains police officers to respond safely and effectively to individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. It emphasizes de-escalation and connecting individuals to mental health services rather than arresting them.

Deinstitutionalization

- # of people in long term hospitalization treatment has dropped significantly

- long-term trend of closing mental hospitals and transfering to community-based care

- caused many to not have medication or services

Mediation

A structured, voluntary process in which a neutral third party (mediator) helps disputing parties communicate and reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike arbitration, the mediator does not impose a decision.

Meta-analysis

A research method that combines the results of multiple studies on a specific topic to draw a more reliable conclusion through statistical analysis. It's commonly used in psychology, medicine, and social sciences.

Problem-Solving Court

A specialized court designed to address underlying problems (e.g., drug addiction, mental illness) that contribute to criminal behavior. Examples include drug courts, mental health courts, and domestic violence courts.

Risk Averse

A behavioral tendency to prefer outcomes with lower uncertainty, even if they might yield smaller rewards. In criminal justice, it can refer to individuals or systems that prefer to avoid risk (e.g., by detaining someone pre-trial to avoid potential threats).

Sequential Intercept Model

Describes 5 stages of the criminal justice system at which interruptions might be made to substitute a community/treatment alternative

0. Community Services- quality of services and divert into local crisis care

1. Law Enforcement and Emergency Services

2. Post-Arrest- Initial Detention and Initial Court Hearings

3. Post-Initial Hearings- Jails and Courts

4. Reentry from jail/detention into community

5. Community Corrections- probation, parole, and community supervision

Specialized Police Responding

Police response models that involve specially trained officers or units (often like CIT) who are equipped to handle calls involving mental health crises or other vulnerable populations, aiming to reduce use of force and connect people with services.

Summary Jury Trial

A legal process where parties present a shortened version of their case to a jury in a non-binding trial. It's used to encourage settlement by giving both sides a preview of how their case might be received by a jury.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence

An approach to law that focuses on how legal rules, procedures, and actors affect the psychological well-being of individuals involved. It emphasizes legal practices that promote healing and rehabilitation over punishment.

Authoritarianism

A personality trait characterized by submission to authority, rigid adherence to conventional values, and hostility toward outgroups; linked to juror decision-making, where high-authoritarian jurors may favor the prosecution.

Behavioral Confirmation Processes

When people's expectations cause them to elicit behavior from others that confirms their original expectations (also known as self-fulfilling prophecy).

Bench Trial

A trial without a jury where the judge alone decides the verdict.

Black Sheep Effect

The tendency to judge an ingroup member more harshly than an outgroup member when they deviate from group norms.

Casuistry

A method of case-by-case reasoning used in ethical decision-making, focusing on analogies between cases rather than applying universal principles.