Just SpacesDr Blake McKimmie & Ms Jill Hays

Applied Social Psychology LabSchool 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

How do jurors make their decisions?

Other cues

Message content

Extra-legal factors

• Pre-trial publicity• Defendant characteristics

– Ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender, attractiveness, tattoos

• Witness characteristics– Nonverbal behaviour, gender, age, credentials

• Case domainKramer, 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)

Dual process models of persuasionCacioppo, Petty, Chuan, & Rodriguez (1986)

Chaiken, Liberman & Eagly (1989)

Central route Peripheral route

High effort Low effort

Message quality Cues and decision rules

When motivation and ability are high

When motivation and ability are low

Cognitive misers and optimisers

Eagly & Chaiken (1993)Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen (1994)Sherman, Lee, Bessnoff, & Frost (1998)

McKimmie, Masters, Masser, Schuller & Terry (2013)

Judges and jurors are similar in how they assess case evidence

Guthrie, Rachlinski, & Wistrich (2001)

How might the design of the dock influence jurors?

Cue to dangerEcological contamination

AttentionCamera perspective bias, weapon focus

Categorisation 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).

Predictions

Glass No glass Control

Weak evidence + - -

Strong evidence + + +

11

Main Effect of Evidence

No Glass Glass ControlDock Condition

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6 SOE: WeakSOE: Strong

Gui

lt

Weak evidenceStrong evidence

12

No Effect of Dock Condition on:

• Dangerousness• Dehumanisation• Stereotypicality as a criminal

13

Effect of Dock Condition on Juror Bias

No Glass Glass Control1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Juro

r Bia

s

Guilt

DangerousnessJuror Bias

Mediation of Dock Condition on Guilt through Juror Bias, then Dangerousness

14

.09* .81*

Direct: .12

Indirect: .05*

.73*

Total: .04, p = .596

Dock design

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• Kathryne Phillis

• 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