Psych 225 Lecture 3 Outline of Last Lecture 1. Intro to MethodsOutline of Current Lecture 1) Lab Checks Current LectureIN PAPER:Materials section when describing the scale list cronbachs alpha among other things -Cronbach’s alpha should always be positive -include a couple of scales -describe the reverse coding and possible range of scores There is not the right or wrong hypothesis for our papers; use the literature to reach the hypothesis ~judge’s instruction about critical evidence; (include something broad incorporating: sentencing# of years, severity of sentence, likelihood of guilt)~make it broad like condemnation or derogation of the defendant -make a prediction that include authoritarianism (not an IV, but maybe a factor)-how it might combine with judge’s instruction Levels: the conditions; we have three levels: admissible, inadmissible (due process), inadmissible (hearsay) Factor: judge’s instruction  IVLab Checks (IE Lit)These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.Kassin and Sommers 1) What % of P’s found the defendant guilty (of jealousy based murder of wife and neighbor) when the judge ruled that evidence of confession was inadmissible?Wire-tap evidence % who voted guiltyAbsent (control) 24Admissible 79Inadmissible (due process)Inadmissible (unreliable) Obviously the wire-tap evidence was important when ruled admissibleWire-tap evidence % who voted guiltyAbsent (control) 24Admissible 79Inadmissible (due process) 55Inadmissible (unreliable) 24When they say it is because of due process, people still consider the evidence even though inadmissible, but not as many people still consider the evidence when the reason it is inadmissible because of unreliable/hearsay ~unreliable something versus a legal technicality…people give more weight to the unreliable This article fits better with a reactance theory (than an ironic process) if ironic process, that should have occurred with both inadmissible scenarios (ironic process-more accessible in their mind) ~digital ratings: impact of critical evidence on estimates of guilt~:2) Which P’s demonstrated a dramatic decrease in estimates of guilt following judge’s instruction-saw dramatic decrease when told wiretap evidence is inadmissible unreliable (from 80-55%)Pickel (1995)3) Expt. 1 How did inadmissibility instructions affect verdict?-case: theft of $5000 from boss’ office after defendant was fired Prior bad act evidence % who voted guiltyControl (not presented) 42Admissible 64Inadmissible (no explanation) 43Inadmissible, legal explanation 55-when jurors present with prior bad act evidence and told to ignore for no reason: similar to control; when those heard they should disregard and given explanation of why, there was a higher guilty verdict THESE SLIDES ARE POSTED ON LEARN @UWHearsay Evidence % who voted guiltyControl (not presented) 48Admissible 66Inadmissible (no explanation) 53Inadmissible, legal explanation 49this time participants did listen to the judge as muchwhen telling jurors things that might help them they agree, when it might interfere, they don’t listen to the judge as muchEdwards and Bryan (1997)Case: murder, robbery in a store5) In addition to judge’s instructions regarding critical evidence (prior bad act, assault), what did E & B manipulate?-in this study there is factorial design crossing the judge’s instruction (admissible and inadmissible) with the emotion of the critical evidence (low-neutral, high-affective)and there was a control group (no extra critical evidence) DV=perceived guilt and sentencing index -when the evidence was neutral: the jurors were able to disregard the inadmissible evidence -when the evidence was affective: the jurors were not able to disregard the inadmissible evidence Why did they perform a 2nd experiment?Werner, Kagehiro and StrubeCase: robbery/murdercritical evidence: wiretapIn study 1 what did W manipulate? -nature of critical evidence vs. judge’s instructions-looked at the nature of the critical evidence (incriminating vs. exonerating) and judge’s instructions (admissible vs. inadmissible) -when incriminating evidence admissible they were more likely to convict (followed instruction)*as authoritarianism increases, greater likelihood they would convict when hearing incriminating evidence-when they heard exonerating evidence, as authoritarianism was less so were convictions -authoritarianism is predictor variable Madigan, Johnson, & Linton -language of psychology APA style as epistemology ~CP article on pg. 71-81-subheadings, multiple authorship, quotations, foot notes IN PAPER:-explain the authoritarianism scale-references from case-where it came