Matching Items (63)
Description
This study compared mock jurors' verdict decisions regarding three different insanity defenses that are used across jurisdictions in the United States' Criminal Justice System. Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity (NGRI), Guilty Except Insane (GEI) and Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) all have different effects on the defendant and on the system, but little is known about how jurors' will use these different verdicts. This study used a vignette and online survey delivered through MTurk to see which of the three verdicts, if rendered, would be more preferable by the mock jurors. It was predicted that GEI (a "compromise" verdict with elements from both NGRI and GBMI) would be more favorable than NGRI (the most lenient) but less favorable that GBMI (the strictest). However, the findings indicated that lay people cannot tell the difference between the three insanity verdicts: an equal proportion of mock jurors in each condition chose the relevant insanity verdict. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed.
ContributorsSiso, Cassidy Brooke (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Thesis director) / Schweitzer, Nick (Committee member) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Hugh Downs School of Human Communication (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
The relative importance of adaptation and individual ontogenetic experience in dogs' high levels of behavioral compatibility with humans has been a topic of intense scientific attention over the past two decades. Salomons et al. Current Biology, 31, 3137-3144, (2021) recently presented a particularly rich data set of observations on both wolf and dog puppies that has the potential to contribute substantially to this debate. In their study subjecting wolf and dog puppies to batteries of tests, including the ability to follow human pointing gestures, Salomons et al. (2021) reported that dogs, but not wolves, have a specialized innate capacity for cooperation with humans. However, upon reanalyzing this data set, we reach a different conclusion-namely, that when controlling adequately for various environmental factors, wolves and dogs perform similarly in their cooperation with humans.
ContributorsHansen Wheat, Christina (Author) / Van Der Bijl, Wouter (Author) / Wynne, Clive D. L. (Author)
Created2022-09-07
Description
Across three studies and two robust pilot studies, this project addressed issues surrounding prejudicial evidence and jury instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence. Specifically, this project examined a new framework for understanding how people vary in their response to prejudicial evidence, based on the morals they value, and tested the effectiveness of a novel way to phrase jury instructions to debias jurors inspired by moral foundations theory. In two experimental studies, participants read a transcript of a sexual assault (Study 1: n = 544) or an assault and battery criminal case (Study 2: n = 509). In each experiment, participants were randomly assigned to read either a case with or without prejudicial evidence. Participants exposed to prejudicial evidence were either given standard jury instructions to disregard the evidence, no instructions, or novel jury instructions inspired by moral foundations theory. Individual differences in moral foundations affected how susceptible people were to prejudicial evidence and case facts in general. This pattern emerged regardless of the type of jury instructions in most cases, suggesting that the moral foundation inspired instructions failed to help jurors disregard prejudicial evidence. The impact of people’s moral foundation endorsement has direct implications for how attorneys may phrase evidence to cater towards these moral biases and select ideal jurors during the voir dire process. To further advance people’s understanding of the effects of prejudicial evidence and jury instructions in legal settings, a third study looked at how attorneys (n = 138) perceived the prevalence and impact of prejudicial evidence in real cases and the effectiveness of jury instructions. Over three quarters of the sample (77.54%) reported having experienced prejudicial evidence in their cases and expressed concern that prejudicial evidence is influential to jurors with jury instructions being ineffective. Taken altogether, the results of this project show the potential impact moral foundation endorsement can have on case judgments and how jurors are differently influenced by prejudicial evidence. In addition, data from attorneys showing the perceived prevalent and impact of prejudicial evidence in real cases further
justifies the need to continue researching safeguards against prejudicial evidence.
ContributorsMcCowan, Kristen Marie (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Thesis advisor) / Stolzenberg, Stacia N (Committee member) / Fox, Kate A (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
For decades, researchers have found that jurors are consistently unable - or unwilling - to disregard inadmissible evidence when instructed to do so by a judge. The legal system ignores the problem entirely: judges have repeatedly affirmed that a judge’s instructions to disregard are a sufficient safeguard of defendants’ constitutional rights, regardless of whether the jury actually disregards the inadmissible evidence. This study tested four interventions derived from psychological research to identify the combination that most effectively helped jurors disregard inadmissible evidence (operationalized by lower conviction rates). It was hypothesized that the most effective interventions identified in Study 1 would yield significantly lower conviction rates when compared to traditional instructions to disregard in Study 2. The interventions were tested in Study 1 using Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) methodology to identify the optimized intervention package through regression analysis. Study 2 served as a randomized controlled trial in which treatment as usual (a judge’s instructions to disregard) was compared to the optimized intervention package. Participants were randomly assigned to either (1) be exposed to no inadmissible evidence, (2) receive inadmissible evidence and treatment as usual, (3) receive inadmissible evidence, treatment as usual and the optimized intervention package, or (4) receive the inadmissible evidence without objection. Logistic regression revealed that jurors who were given an instruction to disregard produced lower conviction rates when they also received the optimized intervention package. Interpretation, limitations, and calls to action are discussed.
ContributorsSandberg, Pamela Nicole (Author) / O'Hara, Karey L. (Thesis advisor) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Committee member) / Hall, Deborah L. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
Journal article.
ContributorsProtopopova, Alexandra (Author) / Gilmour, Amanda (Author) / Weiss, Rebecca (Author) / Shen, Jacqueline (Author) / Wynne, Clive D. L. (Author)
Created2012
Description
Journal article.
ContributorsHall, Nathan J. (Author) / Protopopova, Alexandra (Author) / Wynne, Clive D. L. (Author)
Created2014
Description
Journal article.
ContributorsHall, Nathan J. (Author) / Smith, David (College student) (Author) / Wynne, Clive D. L. (Author)
Created2013
ContributorsHall, Nathan J. (Author) / Lord, Kathryn (Author) / Arnold, Anne-Marie (Author) / Wynne, Clive D. L. (Author)
Created2015
ContributorsProtopopova, Alexandra (Author) / Wynne, Clive D. L. (Author)
Created2014-08-01
Description
This dissertation examines dog training in the United States to see how it is implemented and practiced and the potential ramifications for our pet dogs. In Chapter 2, word-based analysis compared the words practicing dog trainers use to describe their work and examined how gender and experience differ between methodologies. Given both the vast history of dog training and the variety of training information available to dog owners, in Chapter 3, I surveyed undergraduate students to determine where dog guardians obtain their information and how they might tackle dog problem behavior. Of 100 practicing dog trainers, only 20%, mostly female trainers using non-aversive methods, were certified. When asked who they asked for dog training advice, most dog guardians reached out to friends, family, or online sources and only about 20% ever attended a formal dog training class.
In Chapter 4, dogs were walked on four different types of leash walking equipment which were attached to a strain gauge to assess if these equipment were any better or worse at reducing a dog’s pulling force; dogs pulled most on a martingale collar and there were no statistically significant differences among the other equipment types to each other. Through behavior analysis, none of the dogs in our study showed impaired welfare.
In Chapter 5, I compared e-collar training to non-aversive methods in the ability to stop chasing of a lure. Dogs experiencing e-collar stimulation were successful in stopping chase of the lure both during training sessions and in testing. None of the dogs in either non-aversive group was successful in the tests. The findings did not indicate that dogs in the e-collar group, or the non-aversive groups, differed in welfare.
As in Chapter 4, despite the lack of immediate negative welfare effects for the dogs experiencing aversive methods like the e-collar, given the demonstrated evidence for Chapters 2 and 3 that individuals who use these aversive tools, either practicing trainers or the general public, may lack the foundation to properly implement them, I recommend caution in their public sale and do not advocate for their use.
ContributorsJohnson, Anamarie Clare (Author) / Wynne, Clive D. L. (Thesis advisor) / Sanabria, Federico (Committee member) / Udell, Monique A. R. (Committee member) / Stenhoff, Donald (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2024