As we know from Asch's study on conformity, the majority can influence the minority in making their decisions, but what did Hastie et al find about majority influence?
The view held by the jury prior to deliberation was that held by the minority of jury members during discussions.
That the view held by the jury prior to deliberation was that held of the majority of jury members during discussions.
The jury couldn't agree on a sentence, so they all had a massive gang bang with the judge and offenders included. All charges were dropped.
Which three of these did Smith and Mackie suggest were the reasons for majority influence?
Varied Music Taste
Deeper Penetration (Vaginal)
Greater Opium Parties
What is a normative influence?
An influence that makes a member conform to the majority because he wants to be accepted by the majority, and not stand out as strange or deviant.
An influence that makes a member stray from the majority.
An influence that makes the member of the jury want to leave.
What is an informative influence?
An influence that kills a member of the jury, thus kick starting another case.
An influence that prompts a member to conform to the majority as he/she believes the rest of the group is more intelligent than they are.
An influence that makes a member of the jury feel that they need to go against all social norms.
Nemeth said minority influence works because it...
Makes the majority feel sad because they were never accepted by their parents, and now they're not accepted by their peers :(
Makes the majority angry that someone would try and stand up to them like that.
Makes the majority question their own opinion.
Supporting Nemeth's case, the attribution theory supports why minorty influence may have an effect on jury members. Why does this happen?
Because members of the majority attribute the deep rooted conviction of the minority to situational factors, and so this cannot be convincing enough.
Because members attribute a minorities argument to deep rooted, convicted, dispositional factors as opposed to environmental ones, as they are arguing an unpopular case.
Because the majority are stupid, and I'm getting bored of writing answers that have to make sense so I can confuse you. Ugh.
Larger minorities have a greater effect on majorities, but what has a greater effect than this?
Fucking donkey shit. Literally fucking donkey shit. Picking up a piece of donkey shit, and fucking it.
A minority group of foreign people. Which they probably all are anyway, fucking immigrants.
An increasing number of minority members.
A jurors belief about the defendant can also have a great effect on the way a deliberation is given, and this would be okay if that belief was from evidence alone, but unfortunately it is often affected by stereotypes. What did Dixon find out about regional accents and stereotyping?
That when listening to a recording of two people talking, the participants were more likely to charge the person with a Birmingham accent as guilty, as opposed to a person with "well spoken" English.
That when listening to a recording of two people talking, participants were more likely to not listen.
That when listening to a recording of two people talking participants were more likely to a charge a person with well spoken English as guilty as opposed to a person with a Birmingham accent.
What did Duncan find about stereotyping?
That when participants were shown a video of a seemingly violent situation with differing ethnicities, a seemingly innocent and harmless shove was more likely to be perceived as violent for a black individual than a white individual.
That when participants were listening to rap they threw up and bled to death. Internally.
Fuck this shit I don't want to write this quiz any more, I hate revising so much.
What did fucking Pfiefer and Ogloff find? Fuck this shit I wanna die.
White participants were more likely to judge black participants as guilty for a rape charge, and when they were asked to justify it, they withdrew it, cause they're fucking racist.
It's the other one.