Barnard BC 3155 Psychology and the Law / John Jay PSY491 Experimental Research in Psychology and Law

This syllabus responds best to Mozilla Firefox or Internet Explorer

Spring 2011

(Syllabus updated 4-19-11)

Larry Heuer                                                                        Steve Penrod                                                                  Maria Hartwig 
Barnard College                                                                   John Jay College of Criminal Justice                                John Jay College of Criminal Justice
415K Milbank Hall                                                               Office : 2131N
212-854-7507                                                                       212-237-8877                                                                 212-237-8059
LBH3@Columbia.edu                                                          spenrod@jjay.cuny.edu                                                   mhartwig@jjay.cuny.edu
www.columbia.edu/~lbh3                                                     http://penrods.net/ /
Office Hours: Th, 12:00 - 1:30                                               http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~spenrod/2007/

Barnard Classroom:   318 Milbank                                John Jay Classroom: 2437 North Hall 

Directions to John Jay College: Our John Jay meetings will take place in Room 2437, in John Jay's North Hall on 59th Street between 9th and 10th Ave. The nearest subway stop is 59th St. (Columbus Circle) on the #1 Line. From there you will have to walk about 3 blocks. This link will take you to a local map:  John Jay, North Hall .

Directions to Barnard College: Our Barnard meetings will take place in room 318 Milbank Hall. Enter the Barnard gate at 117th and Broadway (on the west side of the steet). Milbank Hall is the the northern-most building on campus. The nearest subway stop is 116th and Broadway on the #1 Line. This link will take you to a local map: Barnard College .

This seminar will survey the topic areas addressed by researchers interested in the interface between psychology and the law. Students will be expected to read the assigned articles closely, and come to class prepared to participate in a critical analysis of the research. We will evaluate this research from both a basic (e.g., What contributions has the research made to relevant theory in psychology, and what are the implications for future research?) and an applied (What contributions has the research made to our understanding of a psychological problem in a legal context, and what are the implications for social policy?) perspective.

Students will be expected to read the core articles prior to our weekly meetings, and to write a brief "reaction paper" about the readings (see note below about e-mailing reaction papers).

Learning Objectives:

Successful participation in this course should equip students with the following skills:

• The ability to identify and access the theoretical and empirical research literature on the topic of psychology and the law

• The ability to read, and critically analyze the published research on the topic of psychology and the law

• The ability to communicate your written and spoken thoughts clearly

• The ability to propose hypothesis testing research that promises to add to the existing knowldege about the interface of psychology and the law

• The ability to design studies that employ methods well suited to the research goals (experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational)

Class participation

(1)  Students should be familiar with all assigned readings each week, and come to class prepared to discuss their thoughts on the material; If you're not prepared, or if you haven't turned in your reaction paper on time, don't come to class.

(2)  Each week, you will be required to turn in a "reaction paper". Each paper should include at least one or more thoughtful comments on each of the assigned articles for that week. Comments might include criticisms of the research, ideas for future research, or general thoughts on integrating the current week's reading with other assigned materials. These comments should be directed to all three instructors (lbh3@columbia.edu, spenrod@jjay.cuny.edu, mhartwig@jjay.cuny.edu) via e-mail no later than 5 p.m. on the day before class (send your comments in body of your email, NOT in a document attached to the email). The subject line of your email should say "Psych-Law reaction paper." Basically, these are notes of thoughts that occur to you as you read the materials, and that you might bring up in our class discussion. Failure to turn in the reaction paper by the designated hour will be treated as an absence from that week's class.

(3)  Students will be allowed one absence during the semester. If you elect to miss a class period, you do not need to hand in that week's reaction paper. Each additional absence will be penalized by a reduction of 1 full letter in your final grade.

Class participation is a very important part of the learning process in this course. You will be evaluated on the quality of your contributions and insights. A quality comment possesses one or more of the following properties:

• Reflects a consideration of issues addressed in assigned readings and previous class discussions and lectures

•  Offers a unique, but relevant, perspective

•  Contributes to moving the discussion and analysis forward

•  Builds on other comments

•  Transcends the "I feel" syndrome. That is, it reflects a critical analyis of some aspect of the assigned material (e.g., methodological, theoretical, applied)

Final paper

A central goal of this course is to identify areas in which the current state of theorizing and research on the interface between psychology and law leaves important theoretical issues unresolved or applied questions unanswered. Our discussions will be geared toward identifying fruitful avenues for future research which address these limitations. Consistent with this approach, each student will be required to write an extensive (approximately 10 page) paper in which some area of the research relevant to this class is reviewed, a problem is identified, and a study is proposed which addresses this problem. This paper should be written in a format consistent with the guidelines set out in the Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5^th Edition, 2001)--it should begin with an abstract, followed by an introduction, method section, and references. The following URL’s are excellent guides to most of what you would need to know about APA style for your paper:

• http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/10/

• http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/apa4b.htm

• http://www.vanguard.edu/faculty/ddegelman/index.aspx?doc_id=796

• http://www.dianahacker.com/resdoc/p04_c09_s1.html

The following URL's will direct you multiple examples of funded grant proposals:

Penrod proposals:

Hartwig proposals:

Heuer Proposals:

Every research proposal must include AT LEAST 3 citations to research published in 2008 or later.

By April 7, every Barnard student must turn in a brief (3-4 page) final paper proposal. This should include an outline of your proposal. Your outline should be prefaced by an abstract (150 – 250 words) in which you summarize the question you propose to study and the study (or studies) you will conduct in order to answer this question. Your outline should be a reasonably well worked out preview of what your final paper will look like. It should summarize the research you will draw on to pose the question, the study (or studies) you propose to conduct in order to answer your research question, your expected findings. This outline must be approved by me before you turn in your final paper.

Your proposal must also include at least 3 citations to relevant research published in 2008 or later. Students are encouraged to use my office hours and class time to discuss the development of their ideas and the methods they will employ to test them. Proposals should be sent to me as an MSWord file attached to an email clearly identified as the final paper proposal for this class.

Your final paper is due no later than May 2. A softcopy (MS Word preferred) must be in my mailbox by midnight on that date.

Everyone in class is responsible for the weekly Required Readings” The “ Additional Readings ” are not assigned, they are provided as a resource for anyone who might be interested in reading additional articles on that week’s topic.

Grading 

Grades will be based on the following criteria: 50% classroom participation (including weekly reaction papers), 50% final papers. 

Class Schedule and Topics 

3 February
Eyewitnesses

Meeting Location: John Jay

Required Readings :

Wells, G. L., Memon, A. & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness Evidence: Improving its Probative Value.  Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45-75. 'rdp'
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~spenrod/papers/Wells2006PSPI.pdf      SKIP the interviewing section pp 55-60.

Penrod, S. D. & Bornstein, B. H. (2007). Generalizing Eyewitness Reliability Research. In R.C.L. Lindsay, D. Ross, D Read & M. Toglia, (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology (Vol. II): Memory for people. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 'rdp'
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~spenrod/papers/Penrod2007Chap.pdf

Tim Valentine, Jan Mesout (2009) Eyewitness identification under stress in the London Dungeon.  Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 151-161. ‘eye’
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~spenrod/eye/Valentine2008ACP.pdf

Additional Readings :

Behrman, B. W., &  Davey., S. L. (2001.)  Eyewitness Identification in Actual Criminal Cases: An Archival Analysis, Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475-491.

Behrman, B. W., & Richards., R. E. (2005). Suspect/Foil Identification in Actual Crimes and in the Laboratory: A Reality Monitoring Analysis .  Law and Human Behavior , 29, 279-301.

Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7, 215-225  

Deffenbacher , K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of High Stress on Eyewitness Memory. Law & Human Behavior, 28(6), 687-706.

Haw, R. M. & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of Administrator-Witness Contact on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106-1112.

Kassin , S. M. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: The fifth rule. Law & Human Behavior, 22, 649-653. 

Kassin , S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research.  American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.

Krauss, D. A., & Lee, D. H. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 26(2), 113-137.

Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 3-35.

Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & Southwick, S. M. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 27(3), 265-279 .

Penrod , S., & Cutler, B. (1995) Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation.  Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 1(4), 817-845.

Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940-95.

Steblay ,  N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., &  Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Sequential and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison, Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.

Wells, G.L., Small. M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998).  Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads .  Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.

Valentine T. & Pamela Heaton  (1999).  An Evaluation of the Fairness of Police Line-Ups and Video Identifications,   Applied Cognitive Psychology 13, S59-S72.

Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2003). The effect of judgment type and confidence scale on confidence-accuracy calibration in face recognition . Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 490-499.

Yarmey , A. D. (2004). Eyewitness recall and photo identification: a field experiment. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(1), 53-68. 

February 10

Eyewitnesses: Sequential Lineups and the Illinois "Experiment" 
Meeting Location: Barnard

Required  Readings:

The Illinois "Experiment"

Steblay, N. K. (In press).  What We Know Now: The Evanston Illinois Field Lineups.  Law and Human Behavior.

Gronlund, S. D., Carlson, C. A., Dailey, S. B. & Goodsell, C. A. (2009). Robustness of the Sequential Lineup Advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 140-152. 

Steblay,  N., & Dysart, J., (2009). Seventy Tests of the Sequential Superiority Effect: A Meta-Analysis.   Unpublished manuscript.

17 February  
Deception and Lie Detection

Meeting Location: John Jay  

Required Readings : 

Bond, C., & Uysal, A. (2007). On lie detection 'Wizards.'. Law and Human Behavior, 31(1), 109-115 .

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L.A., &  Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works.  Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603-619 . 

Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F., Jr. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Pending final decision, Psychological Bulletin.

O'Sullivan, M. (2007). Unicorns or Tiger Woods: Are lie detection experts myths or rarities? A response to On lie detection 'Wizards' by Bond and Uysal. Law and Human Behavior, 31(1), 117-123.

Additional Readings :

Akehurst , L., Bull, R., Vrij, A., & Kohnken, G. (2004). The Effects of Training Professional Groups and Lay Persons to use Criteria-Based Content Analysis to Detect Deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(7), 877-891. 

Bond, C. F., DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of Deception Judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214-234. 

Edelstein, R. S., Luten, T. L., Ekman, P., & Goodman, G. S. (2006). Detecting lies in children and adults. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 1-10. 

Detecting lies in children and adults. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 1-10. 

Grubin , D., & Madsen, L. (2005). Lie detection and the polygraph: A historical review. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 16(2), 357-369. 

Langleben, D. D., Loughead, J. W., Bilker, W. B., Ruparel, K., Childress, A. R., Busch, S. I., & Gur, R. C. (2005). Telling Truth From Lie in Individual Subjects With Fast Event-Related fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 26(4), 262-272. 

Hartwig , M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29(4), 469-484. 

Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2002). Suspects, lies and videotape: An analysis of authentic high-stakes liars. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 365–376. (this is also a fun article,  but perhaps most interesting for revealing how little is still known about lie detection Study with 16 actual suspects shows that liars blink less and pause more – contrary to conventional wisdom) 

Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect deceit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149. 

Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). "He's guilty!": Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26(5), 469-480. 

Myers, B. Latter, R., & Addollahi-Arena, M. K. (2006). The court of public opinion: late perceptions of polygraph testing. Law and Human Behavior, 30 (509-523). 

The court of public opinion: late perceptions of polygraph testing. Law and Human Behavior, 30 (509-523). 

Vrij , A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R.P. (2006). An empirical test of the Behaviour Analysis Interview. Law and Human Behavior, 30(3), 329-345. 

Vrij , A., Mann, S., Robbins, E., Robinson, M. (2006). Police Officers’ Ability to Detect Deception in High Stakes Situations and in Repeated Lie Detection Tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(6), 741-755.

i

24 February 

Juries
Meeting Location: Barnard

Required Readings :

Read, J. D. & Desmarais, S. L.; (2009).  Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian evaluation.  Applied Cognitive Psychology,  23,  301-326. 

Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988) . Juror decisionmaking in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-55.

Martire, K. A. & Kemp, R. I. (2009). The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony.  Law and Human Behavior, 33, 225-236.  

McAuliff, B. D.; Kovera, M. B.  (2007). Estimating the effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors something they don't already know.  Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 849-870.

Additional Readings : 

Adams, C. M. S., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2006). Separating Compensatory and Punitive Damage Award Decisions by Trial Bifurcation . Law and Human Behavior, 30, 11-30. 

Brewer, N., S. Harvey, et al. (2004). "Improving Comprehension of Jury Instructions with Audio-Visual Presentation." Applied Cognitive Psychology 18(6): 765-776. 

Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (206unic). Gruesome Evidence and Emotion: Anger, Blame, and Jury Decision-Making . Law and Human Behavior, 30, 183-202. 

Devine , D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., Pryce, J. (2001).  Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 622-727.  

Englich , B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The Last Word in Court--A Hidden Disadvantage for the Defense . Law and Human Behavior, 29, 705-722

Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., Park, E. S., & Gockel, C. (2006). Chaos in The Courtroom Reconsidered: Emotional Bias and Juror Nullification. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 163-181. 

Heuer, L.B. & Penrod, S. (1994). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: A national field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 121-150. 

Kovera , M. B., Dickinson, J. J., & Cutler, B. L. (2003). Voir dire and jury selection. In Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology, Vol. 11. (pp. 161-175). New York, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, NY, US.  

Kressel , N. J., & Kressel, D. F. (2002). Stack and sway: The new science of jury consulting.Boulder, CO, US: Westview Press. 

Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial Bias in Mock Juror Decision-Making: A Meta-Analytic Review of Defendant Treatment . Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621-637. 

Read, J. D., Connolly, D. A., & Welsh, A. (2006). An Archival Analysis of Actual Cases of Historic Child Sexual Abuse: A Comparison of Jury and Bench Trials . Law and Human Behavior, 30, 259-285. 

Sommers , S. R. (2006). On Racial Diversity and Group Decision Making: Identifying Multiple Effects of Racial Composition on Jury Deliberations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 597-612. 

Steblay , N., Hosch, H.M., Culhane, S. E. & McWethy, A. (2006) . The Impact on Juror Verdicts of Judicial Instruction to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Meta-Analysis.  Law Human Behavior, 30 469–492. 

Van Wallendael, L., & Cutler, B. (2004). Limitations to Empirical Approaches to Jury Selection. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4(2), 79-86. 

10 March)

Emotions and the Law

  Meeting Location: John Jay

Required Readings :

Hutcherson, C. A., & Gross, J. J. (In Press). The Moral Emotions: A Social–Functionalist Account of Anger, Disgust, and Contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Kerr, N. L. (2010). Explorations in Juror Emotion and Juror Judgment. In B. H. Bornstein & R. L. Wiener (Eds.), Emotion and the Law (Vol. Nebraska Symposium on Emotion, pp. 97-132). New York: Springer.

Meissner, C. A., Brigham, J. C., Pfeifer, J. E. (2003). Jury Nullification: The Influence of Judicial Instruction on the Relationship Between Attitudes and Juridic Decision-Making. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(3), 243-254.

Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., Park, E. S., & Gockel, C. (2006). Chaos in The Courtroom Reconsidered: Emotional Bias and Juror Nullification. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 163-181.

Additional  Readings :

Law & Human Behavior, Special Issue on Emotion in Legal Judgment and Decision Making:

Bornstein, B. H., & Wiener, R. L. (2006). Introduction to the Special Issue on Emotion in Legal Judgment and Decision Making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 115-118.

Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome Evidence and Emotion: Anger, Blame, and Jury Decision-Making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 183-202

Feigenson, N., & Park, J. (2006). Emotions and Attributions of Legal Responsibility and Blame: A Research Review. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 143-161.

Haidt, J. (2010). Moral Psychology Must Not Be Based on Faith and Hope: Commentary on Narvaez (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2), 182-184.

Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., Park, E. S., & Gockel, C. (2006). Chaos in The Courtroom Reconsidered: Emotional Bias and Juror Nullification. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 163-181.

Narvaez, D. (2010). Moral complexity: The fatal attraction of truthiness and the importance of mature moral functioning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2), 163-181.

Narvaez, D. (2010). The embodied dynamism of moral becoming: Reply to Haidt (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2), 185-186.

Maroney, T. A. (2006). Law and Emotion: A Proposed Taxonomy of an Emerging Field. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 119-142.

Feigenson, N. R. (2003). Emotions, risk perceptions and blaming in 9/11 cases. Brooklyn Law Review, 68, 959, 962–978.

Feigenson, N., et al. (2001). The role of emotions in comparative negligence judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 576.

Finkel, N. J., & Parrott, W. G. (2006). Emotions and culpability: How the law is at odds with psychology, jurors, and itself. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ho, R., ForsterLee, L., ForsterLee, R., & Crofts, N. (2002). Justice versus vengeance: Motives underlying punitive judgements. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(3), 365-378.

Knabb, J. J., Welsh, R. K., Ziebell, J. G., & Reimer, K. S. (2009). Neuroscience, moral reasoning, and the law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(2), 219-236.

Pillsbury, S. H. (1999). Harlan, Holmes, and the passions of justice. In S. A. Bandes (Ed.), The passions of law (pp. 330-362). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Prinz, J. J. (2007). The emotional construction of morals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; US.

17 March

No Classes, Barnard Spring Break

24 March

Capital Punishment and Death Qualification
Meeting Location: Barnard

Required Readings : ('jury')

Cowan, C.L. & Thompson, W. & Ellsworth, P. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53-80. 

Bersoff , D.N. (1987). Social science data and the Supreme Court. Psychology and Law, 42(1), 52-58. 

Lockhart vs.McCree APA Amicus Brief. (1987). American Psychologist, 42, 59-68.

Elliott, R. (1991). Social science data and the APA: The Lockhart brief as a case in point. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 59-76. 

Ellsworth, P. (1991). To tell what we know or wait for Godot? Law and Human Behavior, 15, 77-90. 

O'Neil, K. M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004). Exploring the Effects of Attitudes Toward the Death Penalty on Capital Sentencing Verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 10(4), 443-470.

Additional Readings :

Ackerson, K. S., Brodsky, S. L., & Zapf, P. A. (2005). Judges' and Psychologists' Assessments of Legal and Clinical Factors in Competence for Execution . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 164-193.

Allen, M., Mabry, E., & McKelton, D.-M. (1998) . Impact of juror attitudes about the death penalty on juror evaluations of guilt and punishment: A meta-analysis. Law & Human Behavior, 22(6), 715-731.

Antonio, M. E. (2006). Arbitrariness and the Death Penalty: How the Defendant's Appearance During Trial Influences Capital Jurors' Punishment Decision . Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24, 215-234.

Arndt, J., Lieberman, J. D., Cook, A., & Solomon, S. (2005). Terror Management in the Courtroom: Exploring the Effects of Mortality Salience on Legal Decision Making . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 407-438.

Boots, D. P., Heide, K. M., & Cochran, J. K. (2004). Death Penalty Support for Special Offender Populations of Legally Convicted Murderers: Juveniles, the Mentally Retarded, and the Mentally Incompetent. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 223-238.

Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law & Human Behavior, 26(2), 175-184.

Dorland, M., & Krauss, D. (2005). The Danger Of Dangerousness In Capital Sentencing: Exacerbating The Problem of Arbitrary And Capricious Decision-Making . Law & Psychology Review, 29, 63-105.

Gross, S. R. (1984). Determining the neutrality of death-qualified juries. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 7-30.

Haney, C. (2005). Death by design: Capitol punishment as a social psychological system . New York , NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Krauss, D. A., Lieberman, J. D., & Olson, J. (2004). The Effects of Rational and Experiential Information Processing of Expert Testimony in Death Penalty Cases . Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 801-822.

Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 337-358 .

Wiener, R. L., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., Seib, H., Rauch, S., Warren, L., & Morasco, B. (2004). Guided Jury Discretion in Capital Murder Cases: The Role of Declarative and Procedural Knowledge .Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 516-576.

Unnever , J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Roberts, J. V. (2005). Note everyone strongly supports the death penalty: Assessing weakly-held attitudes about capital punishment . American Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 187-216.

31 March
Confessions and Interrogations

Meeting Location: John Jay

Required Readings :

Kassin, S., Drizin, S., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G., Leo, R., & Redlining, A. (2010). Police-induced confessions:  Risk factors and recommendations.  Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3-38.

Kassin, S. (2005). On the Psychology of Confessions: Does Innocence Put Innocents at Risk? American Psychologist, 60(3), 215-228.

Kassin, S., Goldstein, C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187-203.

Rogers, R., Rogstad, J.E., Gillard, N.D. Drogin, E.Y., Blackwood, H.L., & Shuman, D.W. (2010). “Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,16(3), 300-318.

The Movie Murder on a Sunday Morning is an Oscar winning documentary about the interrogation and trial of 15-year-old African-American Brenton Butler. It is an excellent example of some of the interrogation dynamics discussed in this research. It is available for viewing at the 3rd floor media desk of the Barnard Libarary in Lehman Hall. John Jay students from this course must present the John Jay ID to the desk attendant when entering Lehman Hall.

Additional Readings :

Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891-930.

Garrett, B. L. (2010). The substance of false confessions. Stanford Law Review, 62, 1051-1119.

Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2009). On the presumption of evidentiary independence: Can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications? Psychological Science, 20, 122-126.

Horselenberg , R., Merckelbach, H., Smeets, T., Franssens, D., Peters, G. Y., & Zeles, G. (2006). False confessions in the lab: Do plausibility and consequences matter? Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(1), 61-75.

Kassin , S. M. (2006). A critical appraisal of modern police interrogations. In T. Williamson (Ed.), Investigative interviewing: Rights, research, regulation. (pp. 207-228). Devon, United Kingdom: Willan Publishing.

Kassin , S. M. & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The Psychology of Confessions: A Review of the Literature and Issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33-67.

Kassin , S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7(3), 125-128.

Kassin , S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). "I'd Know a False Confession if I Saw One": A Comparative Study of College Students and Police Investigators, Law and Human Behavior, 29(2), 211-227.

Kassin , S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, (28)2, 211-221.

Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., Weiland, P. E. & Munhall, P. J. (2002). Videotaped interrogations and confessions: A simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,867-874.

Lassiter, G. D., P. J. Munhall, et al. (2005). Attributional complexity and the camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 27-35.

Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2004). “You’re guilty, so just confess!” Cognitive and behavioral confirmation biases in the interrogation room. In D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment. New York : KluwerAcademic/Plenum Press.

Narchet, F., Meissner, C., & Russano, M. (in press). Modeling the Influence of Investigator Bias on the Elicitation of True and False Confessions. Law and Human Behavior. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-010-9257-x

Owen-Kostelnik, J., Reppucci, N. D., & Meyer, J. R. (2006). Testimony and interrogation of minors: Assumptions about maturity and morality. American Psychologist, 61(4), 286-304.

Perillo, J. T., & Kassin, S. M. (in press). Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false confessions. Law and Human Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2.

Ratcliff, J. J., Lassiter, G. D., Schmidt, H. C., & Snyder, C, J. (2006). Camera Perspective Bias in Videotaped Confessions: Experimental Evidence of Its Perceptual Basis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(4), 197-206.

Rogers, R., Gillard, N., Woley, C., & Fiduccia, C. (in press). Decrements in Miranda abilities: An investigation of situational effects via a mock-crime paradigm. Law and Human Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9248-y.

Russano , M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating True and False Confessions Within a Novel Experimental Paradigm. Psychological Science, 16(6), 481-486. 

Wallace, D. B., & Kassin S. M. (in press). Harmless error analysis: How do judges respond to confession errors? Law and Human Behavior. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-010-9262-0.

7 April

Procedural Fairness

Meeting Location: Barnard

Required Readings :

Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(2), 215-235.

Heuer, L., Penrod, S., & Kattan, A. (2007). The role of societal benefits and fairness concerns among decision makers and decision recipients. Law & Human Behavior, 31, 573-610.

Heuer, L. & Stroessner, S. (2011). The multi-value basis of procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 541-553.

Carlsmith, K. M., Sood, A. M. (2009) The fine line between interrogation and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 191-196.

This URL will link you to a YouTube video titled Monkey cooperation and fairness:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAFQ5kUHPkY

Additional Readings:

Casper, J. D., Tyler, T. R., & Fisher, B. (1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law and Society Review, 22, 483-508 .

Heuer, L., Blumenthal, E., Douglas, A., & Weinblatt, T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgment. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1279-1292 .

Kitzmann , K. M., and Emery, R. E. (1993). Procedural justice and parents' satisfaction in a field study of child custrody dispute resolution. Law & Human Behavior, 17, 553-567.

MacCoun , R. J. & Tyler, T. R. (1988) The basis of citizens' perceptions of the criminal jury: Procedural fairness, accuracy, and efficiency. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 333-352.

Murphy, K. (2004). The role of trust and nurturing compliance: A study of accused tax of lawyers. Law and Human Behavior, 28(2), 187-209.

Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendant's evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law and Society Review, 18, 51-74.

Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57(5), 830-838 .

Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why citizens obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 215-235 .

Wenzel, M. (2004). The social side of sanctions: Personal and social norms as moderators of deterrence. Law and Human Behavior, 28(5), 547-567.

14 April

Free Will and the Law
Meeting Location: John Jay

Required Readings :

Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J., & Vohs, K. D. (In press). Annual Review of Psychology.

Mobbs D, Lau HC, Jones OD, Frith CD, 2007 Law, Responsibility, and the Brain. PLoS Biol, 5(4), 693-700.

Burns, K., & Bechara, A. (2007). Decision making and free will: A neuroscience perspective. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 263-280.

Tancredi, L. R. (2007). The neuroscience of "free will". Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 295-308.

Additional Readings:

Baumeister, R. F. (2008). Free will in scientific psychology. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 3(1), 14-19.

Blair, R. J. R. (2007). Aggression, psychopathy and free will from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 321-331.

Cary, P. (2007). A brief history of the concept of free will: Issues that are and are not germane to legal reasoning. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 165-181.

Felthous, A. R. (2007). Introduction to this issue: Free will. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 163-164.

Greene, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B., 359, 1775-1785.

Gomes, G. (2007). Free will, the self, and the brain. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 221-234.

Grim, P. (2007). Free will in context: A contemporary philosophical perspective. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 183-201.

Jones, M. (2003). Overcoming the Myth of Free Will in Criminal Law: The True Impact of the Genetic Revolution. Duke Law Journal, 52.

Kohl, W. & Habermeyer (2007). Free will: reconciling German civil law with Libet's neurophysiological studies on the readiness potential. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 309-320.

Kawohl, W., & Habermeyer, E. (2007). Free will: Reconciling German civil law with Libet's neurophysiological studies on the readiness potential. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 309-320.

Kroeber, H. L. (2007) The historical debate on brain and legal responsibility revisisted.  Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 251-261.

Morse, S. J. (2007). The non-problem of free will in forensic psychiatry and psychology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 203-220.

Pockett, S. (2007). The concept of free will: Philosophy, neuroscience and the law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 281-293.

Rachlin, H. (2007). Free will from the viewpoint of teleological behaviorism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 235-250.

Wilks, D., Ratheal, J. D. (2009). A historical overview and contemporary expansion of psychological theories of determinism, probabilistic causality, indeterminate free will, and moral and legal responsibility. Counseling and Values, 53(2), 140-152.

21 April

No Class, John Jay Spring Break

28 April

Clinical Psychology and the Law

Meeting Location: Barnard

Required Readings :

Brothel Boy

Morse, S. J. (1998). Fear of danger, flight from culpability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(2), 250-267.

Perlin, M. L. (1996). "Dignity was the first to leave": Godinez v. Moran, Colin Ferguson, and the trial of mentally disabled criminal defendants. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 61-81.

5 May

Media Effects
Meeting Location: John Jay

Required Readings :

Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Kastenmuller, J. M., Vogrincic, C., & Sauer, A. (2011). The Effects of Risk-Glorifying Media Exposure on Risk-Positive Cognitions, Emotions, and Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, DOI: 10.1037/a002226

Krahe, B., Moller, I. Huesmann, L. R., Kirwil, L., Felber, J., & Berger, J. (2011). Desensitization to media violence: Links with habitual media violence exposure, aggressive conditions, and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog

Greitemeyer, T., & McLatchie (2011). Denying humanness to others: A newly discovered mechanism by which violent video games increase aggressive behavior. Psychological Science.

Additional Readings :

Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games . Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113-122.

Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz, D., Malamuth, N. M., & Wartella, E. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth . Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 81-110.

Anderson, C. A., & Murphy, C. R. (2003). Violent Video Games and Aggressive Behavior in Young Women . Aggressive Behavior, 29, 423-429.

Carnagey , N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2004). Violent video game exposure and aggression: A literature review . Minerva Psichiatrica, 45, 1-18.

Carnagey , N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2005). The Effects of Reward and Punishment in Violent Video Games on Aggressive Affect, Cognition, and Behavior . Psychological Science, 16, 882-889.

Hope, L., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2004). Understanding Pretrial Publicity: Predecisional Distortion of Evidence by Mock Jurors . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 111-119.

Kovera , M. B. (2002). The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: An examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms . Law and Human Behavior, 26, 43-72.

Linz, D. (2010). Effects of Sexually Oriented Messages on Individuals and Communities: A History of Challenging Assumptions in the Courtroom. (Chapter)

Linz , D., Blumenthal, E., Donnerstein, E., Kunkel, D., Shafer, B. J., & Lichtenstein, A. (2000). Testing legal assumptions regarding the effects of dancer nudity and proximity to patron on erotic expression . Law and Human Behavior, 24, 507-533.

Linz , D., Paul, B., & Yao , M. Z. (2006). Peep Show Establishments, Police Activity, Public Place , and Time: A Study of Secondary Effects in San Diego, California . Journal of Sex Research, 43, 182-193.

Penrod 2006 NSF Pretrial Publicity Research Grant Proposal

Shaw, J. I., & Skolnick, P. (2004). Effects of Prejudicial Pretrial Publicity From Physical and Witness Evidence on Mock Jurors' Decision Making . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2132-2148.

Smith, B. K. (2006). The fight over video game violence: Recent developments in politics, social science, and law . Law & Psychology Review, 30, 185-199.

Studebaker, C. A. & Penrod, S. D. (2005).   Pretrial Publicity and Its Influence on Juror Decision Making.  In Brewer, N. & Williams, K. D.  (Eds.), Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective.  New York: Guilford Press.

Vidmar , N. (2002). Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation . Law and Human Behavior, 26, 73-105.