Recently in Sensation & Perception Category

When I was in a social psychology class, we learned about the bystander effect. This is simply the fact that when with others, individuals act differently than they would alone. A huge case involving the bystander effect is the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964. Kitty was 21 years old living in New York City. She managed a bar close to her apartment. One night, she was walking home late from work. Right outside her apartment, she was attacked and stabbed twice. She screamed but no one came to help her. The perpetrator left but returned 10 or so minutes later to find Kitty lying, barely conscious, by the back door. He continued to stab her, rape her, steal her money, and then leave. One man saw the first attack on Kitty and didn't call the police. Quite a few of the other tenants in the apartment building heard Kitty's screams but did not call the police either. This is the reason why this case is so well known. Many of the apartment tenants said they didn't want to get involved.

Four years after the murder, two psychologists did a study to try and figure out what the effect of bystanders had on people. They placed people in one room and were to speak through a microphone to the person in another room. The person on the other side, the confederate of the experiment, started to pretend he was having a seizure and even mumbled the words about dying. The psychologists found that the more people that were present, the longer it took for someone to act for respond to the person having the seizure. The people who didn't report the seizure said that the reason they didn't report it was because they wanted to abide by the rules of the experiment by staying in the other room apart from the confederate.

I think the bystander effect relates a lot to psychology and law. If someone is witnessing a crime, it's way less likely they'll report it if other people are present. It makes me wonder though if the bystanders being strangers has an affect on if people act or not. If I was surrounded by my friends, I think I would almost always react to someone getting murdered or having a seizure. People care a lot about what others think and sadly, this can have some negative effects.

This website is where I read about the bystander effect.

I found this website that talks about traps that your mind does to you that usually make you think incorrectly. I thought the first one was most relevant to this class. It's called the anchoring trap and it's when you base your thoughts/decisions off of the first thing you hear. The example they used is a study that asked people two questions: Is the population of Turkey was over 35 million? What's your best estimate? The results showed that almost everyone guessed around 35 million. They asked the same question to other people using 100 million instead. The results were the same. This reminds me of questioning witnesses and how using leading questions can result in false answers. If a witness isn't totally sure about what happened and they're asked if the suspect was fat, they're probably going to think the suspect was fat. The website gave 9 more mind traps that are very interesting as well and it shows how powerful our brain is and how we don't always realize that. Here's the website: http://litemind.com/thinking-traps/

Since I have never been called up for jury duty I figured I should do a little research on the actual process of selecting a jury. One of my roommates had been called in for jury duty on a couple of occasions so I spoke with him in regards to how it went and how he felt about the process. To sum up his comments briefly, basically "it was a waste of my time." I found this to be amusing as well as somewhat discerning considering being evaluated by a "jury of your peers" is a large part of our legal system. Upon questioning why he felt that way he responded, "it costs you money when you have to miss out on work, just to be called in twice, and sent home twice." With that being said, I can understand his distaste for jury duty. This had me wondering if he had used any psychological cues that may have led to him being dismissed. Turns out there are actually web sites dedicated in helping you AVOID jury duty.

http://www.courtreporterschools.com/?page_id=7

I also found a web site that sells a book on how to avoid jury duty. Leave it to someone to find a way to make money off of tips on how to get out of the selection process.

http://www.avoidingjuryduty.com/

The process begins with jurors being selected at random from an already compiled list of people (examples: listing of licensed drivers, public utility service records, or even polling precinct lists). After people are selected at random they are called in and go through a basic question/answer screening. If a juror has "passed" they will then be examined by the prosecution and defense teams (this is known as voir dire). This consists of general questions posed to the possible jury as a group, as well as more in-depth questions on a individual level.

There are actually quite a few aspects of psychology that tie in with this process of law. Possible jurors perceptions are tested, in which each response is judged. The entire process falls within social psychology since jurors are questioned on areas such as: race, opinions on stereotyping, and other "hot topic" areas. If the perspective juror has any sort of psychological disorder (choose any that fall under abnormal psychology) chances are they are going to be excused from duty.

In my opinion I feel that jury duty, even though it doesn't pay well (and in some instances is a "waste" of time), is still a duty we should all have to complete at some point in our lives. This should especially hit home for victims of crimes that would want a good set of jurors in choosing their fate in the courtroom.

For further readings and information please visit the following sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection
http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/jury-selection.html

http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/default.html

The government's National Institute of Drug Abuse published a significant amount of research that is available on-line. These reports are a great source of information for anyone looking for a lot of general information about composition, typical users, addiction, and side effects.   They are available in both standard webpage and printable .PDF file. This link takes you to all of their reports. I will be focusing on the MDMA/Ecstasy Report.

For those of you that don't know MDMA, ecstasy or 3,4-Methylendioxymethamphetamine is a DEA schedule 1 substance.  Schedule 1 means drugs under this category have no medical use and a high potential for abuse. It is classified as a psychoactive amphetamine, meaning it has both psychedelic and stimulant like effects. Known for its relationship with Intimacy, it also diminishes feelings of anxiety, fear and depression. The positive effects include mental stimulation, emotional warmth, empathy towards others, and a general sense of wellbeing.

 Before being made a schedule 1 controlled substance, ecstasy was actually used in psychotherapy, couples therapy and to treat anxiety disorders as well as clinical depression. Though there were no formal, documented clinical trials or FDA approval.  Therapists called it "penicillin for the soul" saying it allowed the user to communicate insight about their problems.  Though DEA still deemed it schedule 1 eventually, in late 2000 FDA actually approved MDMA for 2 sessions of psychotherapy for those experiencing PTSD.  Ecstasy was actually criminalized in all members of the United Nations in a UN agreement; this is for manufacture, sale or production of the drug. There are limited exceptions for scientific/medical research.

MDMA first broke out in the club scene, mostly at long extended dance parties called raves. It was mostly used by adolescents and young adults, but this typical profile has been changing. There is now widespread use outside of the club scene. Recent research has also shown the drug is moving from predominately white users to minority users. It also appears to be a rising trend in the "urban gay male" scene. This is a rising concern because of the existing high level of sexual activity in gay males; it causes an increase in high risk behavior that may lead to many sexually transmitted diseases.

Though it is not side effect free, many users have the assumption that it is and since it a drug used almost exclusively in social contexts, it proves difficult for many users to say no. I would be interested to find out, whether the drug is simply used for pleasure or to escape? Also since it has been used for therapy and the FDA and UN is allowing certain amounts to be distributed again is it possible we will see a re-emergence in therapy?  Is it such a topic of debate that its full therapeutic potential will never be realized?  Is it a conflict of interest that while use is increasing that stiffer penalties have been enforced yet more scientists and therapists are getting permissions to use the drug? All of these points would be very interesting research questions.

In my Cognitive Psychology textbook, Cognition: Theory and Applications by Reed, there's a box that talks about why we have trouble distinguishing faces of people who are a different race from us.

People are notoriously awful at recognizing faces from other races. It's a human foible often explained by the notion that we have more experience looking at members of our own race and thus acquire "perceptual expertise" for characteristics of our own kind.
One influential version of that hypothesis argues that the so-called cross-race recognition deficit can be modeled by assuming that faces of other races are more psychologically similar than are faces of one's own race. But Daniel Level, PhD, a cognitive psychologist at Kent State University, has been unsatisfied with that argument.
"The perceptual expertise position is pretty intuitive, and it makes sense," he says. "But I'm arguing that it's not really the case. The problem is not that we can't code the details of cross-race faces - it's that we don't."
Instead, he says, people place inordinate emphasis on race categories - whether someone is white, black, or Asian - ignoring information that would help them recognize people as individuals. In recent research, Levin has shown that people can, in fact, perceive fine differences among faces of people from other races - as long as they're using those differences to make race classifications.
For example, Levin explains, "When a white person looks at another white person's nose, they're likely to think to themselves, 'That's John's nose.' When they look at a black person's nose, they're likely to think, "That's a black nose."
The results are important, Levin maintains, because they help explain the long-standing question of why people are poor at recognizing the faces of people who  belong to other racial groups. Such an understanding could be useful in a variety of settings, including training police and others in the justice system to identify faces more accurately.

Source: From "Why do 'they all look alike'?" by Siri Carpenter, Monitor on Psychology, December, 2000, p. 44.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/world/europe/10iht-castrate.html

This may be a touchy subject to talk about, but it is one that would stir a good argument. Sex offenders and their sexual desires, is castration really the only option to help these sick men destroy the thoughts they are so tormented over that they have to take them out on young children and possibly kill them? Well the Czech Republic in Europe thinks so, and they have castrated 94 prisoners over the past decade successfully curing the men the procedure was performed on. The procedure is known as testicular pulpectomy, where over an one hour procedure the tissue on the male genitals that produces testosterone is removed. Thus, taking away any sexual urges that man will have in the future. Poland is the first country in the European Union to allow chemical castration on pedophiles that are convicted in the courtroom. There is much controversy in the U.S. but in countries where this is allowed, the offenders can be released if they go through with the procedure. Many protest, what about the rights of the offenders. What about them? What do we tell the little girl or boy who is only 5, were sorry that this happened, it could have been prevented if this previously convicted sex offender would have been castrated but were not concerned about the future of our children. Only about the rights of men who rape and kill them. There is a wide range of scenarios where this would qualify as an option and where it wouldn't. I believe for now we should at least give the option so the sex offender doesn't have the excuse, " I couldn't help myself, the sexual drive is too strong to control, I'm the victim."

More of this article is with the link attached giving the whole story on the situation.

I'm doing my book report on "Psychic Criminology" a book about the use of psychics in law enforcement.  My research brought me across the following article regarding the use of Remote Viewing by the CIA.

http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html

First a little background information.  Parapsychology is the branch of psychology studying various kinds of psychic phenomena, known to the scientific community at large as anomalous mental phenomena.  Parapsychology research encompasses various abilities including telepathy (communication between minds), clairvoyance (acquiring information without the use of the 5 known senses), Precognition (predicting something in the future), Dowsing (locating something, generally water or minerals with a dowsing rod or a pendulum), Psychometry (acquiring information about the history of an object by touching the object), and Remote viewing (the ability to describe very distant objects, really this is a form of clairvoyance).

http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/01/the-7-psychological-principles-of-scams-protect-yourself-by-learning-the-techniques.php

I found an interesting webpage on how to catch a liar by watching there eye movements. I thought this would be interesting to learn about. The website explains what direction if the eyes move a certain way (up and to the left would be making up facts) and what they might be thinking at the time. They said that it isn't a science but it is a good indicator of honesty. I know that this could be useful when questioning a witness or suspect to tell if they are actually lying about what happened. I am interested in body language and other forms of indicating what someone is feeling. Here is the website that I found and maybe you can learn by watching someone's eye movement if they are lying!

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2FVXYo/www.mondovista.com/liar.html

 

Not only can a person watch someone's eyes there is research on body language and how they are feeling during a conversation, or according to their body language, are they telling the truth, not just in their eyes. Most people do have to get a baseline when trying to figure out how someone is feeling, but our bodies will do certain things depending on how we are thinking and feeling at the time. This is a good way for an investigator to possible get a feel for the person they are questioning or interrogating. Here is an article by a well known body language expert Tonya Reiman.

http://www.tonyareiman.com/articles/body_language

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hypnosis.htm    

I found this article using StumbleUpon.com regarding how people conform to other people's expectations in various situations. This article does not really tie into a certain area of Law, however, I feel that the content contained within this article would be helpful to an investigator dealing with witnesses and perps. 

In a program series called Discovering Psychology, Philip Zimbardo narrates a particular program called Applying Psychology in Life.
 In the program, Research Psychologist Stephen Ceci is interviewed about child witness testimony. He discusses how investigators can inadvertently alter a child's memory by asking leading questions. His research has also laid down groundwork for interviewing children in many jurisdictions.
 This segment was extremely interesting to me and I encourage you all to watch it. It's roughly 7 minutes long but it is filled with a lot of  useful and interesting information.

http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=1521
*Please note, this video link is for the entire show. You may need to download Media Player 11 to watch it. To get to Ceci's segment, pull the video's progress bar to 12 minutes and 40 seconds into the video. Also, directly following the segment is a different segment about conflict management that begins with images from the Columbine incident (this begins around 19 minutes and 20 seconds). Please note that this segment is entirely different and strictly pertaining to conflict management among youth and not the judicial system. 

I found this article.  Researchers found that eye movements can show when a person can't remember something.  For example, if a person is shown a picture of someone they recognize but don't recall their name, their eyes move more than if they're shown a picture of someone they don't know at all. 

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/6UQAPL/blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/09/11/your-eyes-reveal-memories-that-your-conscious-brain-forgot/

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/research_documents/reports/violence/tv_violence_child.cfm

 

Many children watch cartoons on a daily basis, I know I did when I was a kid. But how much time do kids put into watching these cartoons and what do they walk away with when they do. Our growing environment and media portray things a certain way and TV has incorporated some of that into the cartoons. Many kids from the ages of 3-5 start picking up the images of TV and as the ages go up they seem to express some of what they watched through their lives during the day. A study was done on preschoolers, the children who watched cartoons with violent acts in them, shown more aggreession and were more likely to act out on the playground; not follow the rules. So, children who watched cartoons that were non-violent showed opposite symptoms, they were very calm and attentive. I would like to bring a case from another class of mine, the boy was 12 years old and he killed a 6 year old girl by abusing her. His defense was that he was practicing wrestle mania which he watched on TV. If this is true, which it may be, then as children grow up from cartoons around age 8 and start watching more violent, realistic TV. How are they developing socially and mentally; is this damaging them in the long run? 

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kuni/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1566455/news/Talk.of.Iowa.101509

Host Greg Shanley talks with the Director of Leadership Studies at the University of Northern Iowa, Gerri Perreault, about lying in personal and public life. Then, Shanley talks with psychology professor at UNI, Otto Maclin, about how the brain causes misperceptions.