Matching Items (26)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: psychology
- Creators: Salerno, Jessica
Description
Courthouse dogs (sometimes referred to as facility animals) are expertly trained canines which may be used to assist individuals with psychological, emotional, or physical difficulties in a myriad of courtroom situations. While these animals are increasingly used to assist young witness to court, the jury is still out on whether or not they are prejudicial to the defendant. No known research exists in this area, although research is necessary to determine the possibly prejudicial nature of these animals. Using a mock trial paradigm involving a child sexual abuse case, the current study employed a 2 (Witness type: victim vs. bystander) x 3 (Innovation type: courthouse dog vs. teddy bear vs. none) fully-crossed factorial design. It was hypothesized that witness type and innovation type would interact to differentially impact jurors' judgments about the trial, defendant, and child witness. In addition, it was posited that emotions, such as anger and disgust, would also affect judgments and decision-making. Results indicate that courthouse dogs and comfort toys did impact jurors' decision making in some ways. In addition, emotions and witness credibility predicted sentencing, verdict, and other trial judgments.
ContributorsBurd, Kayla (Author) / Mcquiston, Dawn E (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica M (Committee member) / Schweitzer, Nicholas J (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
While acceptance towards same-sex marriage is gradually increasing, same-sex marriage is banned in many states within the United States. Laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying have been shown to increase feelings of depression, exclusion, and stigma for same-sex attracted individuals. The intention of this study was to explore the effect both pro- and anti-same-sex marriage advertisements have on heterosexual individuals' implicit attitudes towards same-sex couples. It was predicted that exposure to anti-same-sex advertisements would lead to viewing same-sex couples as more unpleasant and heterosexual couples as being more pleasant. However, heterosexual participants who viewed anti-same-sex marriage ads were more likely to rate heterosexual couples as being unpleasant and same-sex couples as pleasant. It is theorized that viewing anti-same-sex marriage advertisements led heterosexual individuals to report heterosexual stimuli as being more unpleasant compared to same-sex stimuli as a form of defensive processing.
ContributorsWalsh, Theodora Michelle (Author) / Newman, Matt (Thesis advisor) / Hall, Deborah (Committee member) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Bully victimization has been associated with blunted cardiovascular responses to stress as well as elevated responses to stress. The difference between these altered physiological responses to stress is largely unknown. This study explored several possible moderators to the relationship between chronic stress and future cardiac output (an indicator of increased stress) in response to future stressors. These moderators include the difference between social and physical stressors and individual levels of loneliness. Participants were administered measures of loneliness and victimization history, and led to anticipate either a "social" (recorded speech) or "non-social" (pain tolerance test ) stressor, neither of which occurred. EKG and impedance cardiography were measured throughout the session. When anticipating both stressors, loneliness and victimization were associated with increased CO. A regression revealed a three-way interaction, with change in cardiac output depending on victimization history, loneliness, and condition in the physical stressor condition. Loneliness magnified the CO output levels of non-bullied individuals when facing a physical stressor. These results suggest that non- bullied participants high in loneliness are more stressed out when facing stressors, particularly stressors that are physically threatening in nature.
ContributorsHaneline, Magen (Author) / Newman, Matt (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Miller, Paul (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
The present study examined daily survey data collected from married couples over the course roughly 14 days. I investigated the relationships of the morning quality ratings of three distinct spousal interactions conversation (physical affection, and sexual activity) reported in mornings on later-day positive and negative affect, as well as next-day intensity of negative somatic symptoms (e.g. headaches, dizziness, aches and pains). Hierarchical linear modeling was used to estimate path models for both husbands and wives. Direct and indirect effects were observed. Results showed that quality of conversation and physical affection increased later-day positive mood for both husbands and wives; however, positive quality activity increased later-day positive affect for wives only. Quality of sexual activity decreased later-day negative affect for wives only. Less later-day negative affect decreased next-day intensity of symptoms for both husbands and wives. Lastly, quality of sexual activity decreased later-day negative affect, which decreased next-day somatic symptoms for wives. This was the only significant indirect effect. Implications are that high marital quality is important for maintaining psychological health for both spouses, and physical health, particularly for wives.
ContributorsVincelette, Tara (Author) / Burleson, Mary H (Thesis advisor) / Roberts, Nicole A. (Committee member) / Schweitzer, Nicholas J (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Very little experimental work has been done to investigate the psychological underpinnings of perceptions of privacy. This issue is especially pressing with the advent of powerful and inexpensive technologies that allow access to all but our most private thoughts -and these too are at risk (Farah, Smith, Gawuga, Lindsell, &Foster;, 2009). Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a global positioning system (GPS) device to covertly follow a criminal suspect, without first obtaining a search warrant, is a violation of a suspect's fourth amendment right to protection from unlawful search and seizure (United States v. Jones, 2012). However, the Court has also ruled in the past that a law enforcement officer can covertly follow a suspect's vehicle and collect the same information without a search warrant and this is not considered a violation of the suspect's rights (Katz v. United States). In the case of GPS surveillance the Supreme Court Justices did not agree on whether the GPS device constituted a trespassing violation because it was placed on the suspect's vehicle (the majority) or if it violated a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. This incongruence is an example of how the absence of a clear and predictable model of privacy makes it difficult for even the country's highest moral authority to articulate when and why privacy has been violated. This research investigated whether public perceptions of support for the use of each surveillance technique also vary across different monitoring types that collect the same information and whether these differences are mediated by similar factors as argued by the Supreme Court. Results suggest that under some circumstances participants do demonstrate differential support and this is mediated by a general privacy concern. However, under other circumstances differential support is the result of an interaction between the type of monitoring and its cost to employ -not simply type; this differential support was mediated by both perceived violations of private-space and general privacy. Results are discussed in terms of how these findings might contribute to understanding the psychological foundation of perceived privacy violations and how they might inform policy decision.
ContributorsBaker, Denise, M.S (Author) / Schweitzer, Nicholas J (Thesis advisor) / Newman, Matt (Committee member) / Risko, Evan (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Previous studies exploring variability in sentencing decisions have consistently found gender differences, such that women receive lighter sentences than men. In the proposed study, I present a new framework for understanding gender differences in sentencing preferences, including circumstances under which no gender differences should emerge. The Affordance Management Approach suggests that our minds are attuned to both group- and individual-level threats and opportunities that others afford us. I conceptualize the sentencing difference between men and women as driven by perceived affordances that assist or hinder an individual in achieving certain fundamental goals. When faced with sanctioning an offender in our community, the offender's sex, the victim's age, and environmental variables such as the ratio of men to women may influence our decision-making, because these factors have affordance implications. Thus, I hypothesized that individuals will express differences in the sentencing of offenders who commit assault, and that these differences vary by offender sex, victim age, and sex-ratio. The results indicate that, as predicted, female offenders received lighter sentencing than men when the offender committed an assault against a same-sex adult, but received equally punitive sentences as men when the assault was committed against a child. In general, results do not support a consistent effect of sex ratio as a factor when making sentencing decisions. Although results do not fully support the current study's specific hypotheses, there remains much to be gained from applying an affordance management perspective to understanding variability in sentencing between the sexes.
ContributorsUzzanti, Charlene Ann (Author) / Neuberg, Steven (Thesis director) / Knight, George (Committee member) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
Prior research has indicated an attractive-leniency bias for defendants in mock jury studies. However, in recent years there have been highly publicized trials of attractive women who also appear sexual, in which juror's judgements do not show support for the attractive-leniency bias. The opposite effect seems to be taking place. The present study is the first to test the Femme Fatale stereotype that seems to be producing harsher judgements of attractive and sexually appealing women who commit crime, and the interaction of the relationship to their victim. The present study conducted a 2 (Attractiveness) X 2 (Sexual Appearance) X 2 (Relationship) between subjects design. Researchers conducted an ANOVA on all variables. Results indicate that women who are perceived as more attractive and more sexual, are more likely to be found guilty of their crime.
ContributorsBernal, Kelsey Joann (Author) / Salerno, Jessica (Thesis director) / Neal, Tess (Committee member) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
It has recently been argued that high-confidence eyewitness identifications are highly likely to be accurate regardless of the quality of viewing conditions experienced by the witness. However, new evidence suggests that evaluators of eyewitness identification evidence (e.g., jurors) do not trust highly confident eyewitnesses who experienced poor witnessing conditions. In fact, contextual information about poor witnessing conditions decreases evaluators’ belief of eyewitnesses to a greater extent for highly confident witnesses than for moderately confident witnesses. Why is the effect of witnessing-condition information greater for evaluations of high-confidence witnesses than for less confident witnesses? The current research tested the possibility that information about witnessing conditions influences evaluators’ perceptions of how well-calibrated a witness’s identification confidence is with the eyewitness’s accuracy. Using a paradigm adapted from the confidence calibration literature, I conducted an experiment to test this calibration account of the finding that witnessing condition information has a stronger effect on perceptions of highly confident witnesses than moderately confident witnesses. Although the results replicated the differential effects of witnessing condition context on perceptions of highly and moderately confident eyewitnesses, they failed to yield support for the confidence calibration hypothesis, potentially because the confidence calibration manipulation was ineffective. Directions for future research are discussed.
ContributorsLebensfeld, Taylor Cameron (Author) / Smalarz, Laura (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Arndorfer, Andrea (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
In the legal system, the prediction of a person’s risk of committing a crime has mostly been based on expert judgment. However, newer techniques that employ machine learning (ML)—a type of artificial intelligence—are being implemented throughout the justice system. Yet, there is a lack of research on how the public perceives and uses machine learning risk assessments in legal settings. In two mock-trial vignette studies, the perception of ML-based risk assessments versus more traditional methods was assessed. Study 1 was a 2 (severity of crime: low, high) x 2 (risk assessment type: expert, machine learning) x 2 (risk outcome: low, high) between-subjects design. Participants expressed ethical concerns and discouraged the use of machine learning risk assessments in sentencing decisions, but punishment recommendations were not affected. Study 2 was a within-subjects design where participants were randomly assigned read through one of three crime scenarios (violent, white-collar, sex offense) and one of three risk assessment techniques (expert, checklist, machine learning). Consistent with Study 1, participants had ethical concerns and disagreed with the use of machine learning risk assessments in bail decisions, yet their own decisions and recommendations did not reflect these concerns. Overall, laypeople express skepticism toward these new methods, but do not appear to differentially rely on ML-based versus traditional risk assessments in their own judgments.
ContributorsFine, Anna (Author) / Schweitzer, Nicholas (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Smalarz, Laura (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021
Description
Evaluators of eyewitness evidence (e.g., judges, jurors) often must determine whether an eyewitness’s identification of a police suspect is accurate or mistaken. It has recently been argued that a particular class of variables—suspect-bias variables—pose a unique threat to the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. Unlike “general impairment” variables that generally impair eyewitness identification accuracy (e.g., poor viewing conditions, biased lineup instructions), suspect-bias variables produce a suspect-specific bias that increases the risk of confident misidentifications of innocent suspects. The goal of this research was to examine evaluators’ sensitivity to suspect-bias variables compared to general impairment variables, and to test whether sensitivity to suspect-bias differs as a function of whether the suspect-bias variable is under the control of the legal system (system suspect-bias) or outside of the legal system’s control (estimator suspect-bias). Participant-evaluators (N = 214) read eight crime vignettes paired with one of four different eyewitness variables (system suspect-bias, estimator suspect-bias, general impairment, or no-variable control) and rated the accuracy of each eyewitness. Evaluators also explained the reasoning for their accuracy rating, and their explanations were coded for mentions of procedural suggestion, eyewitness memory strength, memory contamination, and general eyewitness (un)reliability. Evaluators appear to be more sensitive to general impairment variables than to suspect-bias variables. This finding is alarming, as suspect-bias variables pose a greater threat to eyewitness reliability than general-impairment variables. Implications for the collection and evaluation of eyewitness evidence are discussed.
ContributorsKulak, Kylie (Author) / Smalarz, Laura (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Schweitzer, Nick (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022