American Psychology–Law Society



PSY 400: Senior Seminar Fall, 2015 Dr. HeathWrongful Conviction: Lessons From Psychological ResearchMandatory Requirement: This is a capstone course; you need to have at least 90 credits in order to enroll in this course.Dr. Heath’s Office: S-321CClass Time: Mondays 1:10-4:10Dr. Heath’s Office Hours: Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays 11:30-12:10, Tuesdays 5:30-6:30 and by appointment.Phone number: (609) 895-5425 E-mail address: heath@rider.eduClass descriptionAlthough the American criminal justice system incorporates numerous safeguards to prevent the conviction of innocent individuals, an increasing body of evidence has shown that wrongful convictions occur. Since 1989, over 1,300 in the US have been exonerated; each of these cases in which a person was wrongly convicted of a crime and later exonerated based on new evidence is profiled at The National Registry of Exonerations (). Over 300 of these individuals in the US were exonerated through the help of DNA; these are listed in the Innocence Project website (see ). In response to these errors, psychologists, criminologists, forensic scientists, journalists, and legal scholars have been examining cases of actual innocence for factors that may be responsible for such wrongful convictions. This seminar will focus on current research regarding the variety of factors that may lead to erroneous conviction (e.g., factors that affect eyewitness memory) and how scientific research can assist with minimizing the potential for these errors in the future. Although we will primarily focus on psychological aspects of wrongful conviction, we may also address other social and legal factors that contribute to these miscarriages of justice such as the impact of forensic “science.” This will be a seminar-based format in which we will discuss a number of classic and contemporary readings. Make sure you read the required information prior to the class time and come prepared to discuss, question, and evaluate the information. Students will be evaluated based on their class participation and discussion of topics as well as their individual projects (see below).PSY 400 Learning Goals: The Psychology Department has established 5 general learning goals for our courses. This capstone course focuses on portions of two of these goals:Students will develop and apply oral, written, analytical, and critical thinking skills to psychological issues, questions, and problems. They will learn how to evaluate and utilize primary resources in a research project, write a research paper according to the standards of the American Psychological Association, and prepare and deliver presentations.Students will learn to evaluate and apply psychological knowledge for solving real world problems. COURSE OBJECTIVES: Upon successful completion of the course, the student will be familiar with a variety of topics pertaining to wrongful conviction including:?the factors that can affect eyewitness memory and eyewitness testimony,?the limitations of using children as eyewitnesses,?the factors that can affect the criminal line-up decision-making process, ?the factors that can influence the likelihood of eliciting a false confession,?repressed memories,?the process of lie detection (e.g., how jury members decide if a defendant is lying; lie detection through the use of the polygraph),?informant testimony,?policy reform,?and the experience of wrongful convictionMethod of EvaluationYour course grade will be a reflection of: 1) your 12 weekly papers (“Reading Summaries”), (30%) (see grading guide below)2) your work as a discussion leader, (20%) (see rubric below)3) your final writing project, (20%) 4) one exam (20%) and the 5) quality of your participation in the class. (10%)More information about each assignment will follow. Reading Summaries: All students will be expected to read the 2 assigned articles/chapters prior to each class (all readings are available through the CANVAS site for this course—look under “Modules”). For each of the 12 classes noted, you will need to prepare a two page paper for each of the two readings (all of these papers together are worth 30% of your grade). Each paper will be graded on a 10-point scale. (See grading guide below.)Each paper should include a brief summary of the research (in your own words—see grading guide). Finally, your paper should end with a question for class discussion and an idea for future research. Discussion Leader: You will need to lead the discussion once during the semester. This is worth 20% of your final grade. You will be graded on a 15-point scale for this (see rubric below). For most of the classes, one student will be responsible for leading our discussion of the assigned readings (each student will be assigned to a presentation date during the first class). Discussion leaders will be assigned one additional article. The discussion leaders are expected to come to class prepared to present and then lead the discussion for an article that the whole class read (the 2nd article listed for each class period) and also present and lead a discussion detailing the 3rd article (this discussion leader will be the only student who has read the 3rd article listed on any given day). For some weeks, a 4th article will be available for a second discussion leader (because there are more students than there are weeks in a semester!). In weeks where there are two discussion leaders, this second discussion leader should come to class prepared to present and then lead the discussion for the 1st article that the whole class read and also present and lead a discussion detailing the 4th article (this discussion leader will be the only student who has read the 4th article listed on any given day). When you are presenting to the class, don’t just read the article to the class and don’t just read your PowerPoint slides to the class. Keep the information on your PowerPoint slides to a minimum (e.g., use the slides to present an outline of the information), and expand on the information verbally. Explain the reading to the class using your own words. Provide a context for your reading. Feel free to add information to your presentation that will help your audience understand the work presented. The discussion leader’s presentation should be about 20 minutes long. Turn in a copy of your PowerPoint presentation on the day you present. Final Writing Project (based on Adam Pearson’s 2014 Action Teaching Award Winner’s Project): Since the topic of this Seminar is such an important social problem, this writing assignment will give you an opportunity to engage in and potentially transform public debate. For your final project, you will write a science-based opinion piece (“science op-ed”). This piece will be 500-750 words that bring relevant psychological research to bear on an important topic that was covered in this class. Specifically, you will identify a specific issue (e.g., How should the wrongfully convicted be compensated for the time they spent in prison?), examine the problem in light of current scientific thinking (theory) and evidence (e.g., research findings), and communicate some novel insight about the nature of the problem or propose a solution based on the available evidence. You are required to use two or more external sources (beyond the course readings) to support your arguments. Your piece will be graded on whether a central thesis has been developed, whether the thesis has been defended scientifically, and whether the piece is written in a clear, coherent, and engaging style. You will be graded on a 10 point scale for this. This piece is due on Dec. 7th. For help with this assignment, see the following examples of op-ed pieces: see the following guideline from Duke University regarding how to write an op-ed piece:: Your instructor will provide a lecture at the beginning of each class. You will be held responsible for the lecture material. This exam will be worth 20% of your grade. Class Participation: You will get graded on the quality of your participation in class. This will be worth 10% of your grade. You will be graded on a 10-point scale for this. 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. Success in this course requires regular class attendance and participation in class discussions. It is critical that you complete the required readings PRIOR TO the date the readings will be discussed in class. As an capstone course, the most-enhanced learning experience is one in which all participants have a basic understanding of the material (developed through readings) allowing in-depth discussions of the phenomena rather than basic-level lecture on the content. Late Penalty: Any assignment not completed at the scheduled time without the benefit of an approved excuse will have the grade on that exam or assignment reduced by 10 percent. Letter Grades: Letter grades are assigned based on percentages using this scale:A=90+A-=88-89B+=86-87B=80-85B-=78-79C+=76-77C=70-75C-=68-69D=60-67F=<60Academic IntegrityAcademic dishonesty includes any unauthorized collaboration or misrepresentation in the submission of academic work. In all written work, whether in class or out of class, the student’s name on the work is considered to be a statement that the work is his or hers alone, except as otherwise indicated. Students are expected to provide proper citations for the statements and ideas of others whether submitted word for word or paraphrased. Failure to provide proper citations will be considered plagiarism and offenders will be subject to the charge of plagiarism specified in the statement of regulations.Similarly, students are expected to adhere to all regulations pertaining to examination conduct. These regulations are designed to insure that the work submitted by the student on examinations is an honest representation of that student’s effort and that it does not involve unauthorized collaboration, unauthorized use of notes during the exam, or unauthorized access to prior information about the examination.Disability ServicesIf you have a disability and believe you will need academic accommodations in this course, please make an appointment for an intake interview with Services for Students with Disabilities in the Vona Academic Annex, Room 8.? The phone number is (609) 895-5492 and the email is <serv4dstu@rider.edu>.? They will ask for documentation of your disability to support your accommodation request and to recommend services as appropriate to your individual situation.Note Regarding Technology Use in Class: The use of cell phones for calls, texts, or e-mails and the use of laptops in class for any purpose other than note taking is PROHIBITED. CLASS SCHEDULEDATETOPICS and ASSIGNED READINGS 9/14Introduction to Wrongful Conviction 9/21An Introduction to Elizabeth Loftus and Early Research into Eyewitness Misidentification1) McMurtrie, J. (2007). Incorporating Elizabeth Loftus’s research on memory into reforms to protect the innocent. In M. Garry & Hayne, H. Do justice and let the sky fall: Elizabeth F. Loftus and her contributions to science, law, and academic freedom. New York: Taylor & Francis. 2) Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 13, 585-589. 3) Loftus, E. F., & Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 86-88. Discussion Leader: _______________________________________9/28Eyewitness Misidentification: Examples of Factors That Can Affect Memory1) Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus.” Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55-62. doi:10.1007/BF01044839 2) Wells, G. L., & Hasel, L. E. (2007). Facial composite production by eyewitnesses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 6-10. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00465.x3) Assefi, S., & Garry, M. (2003). ABSOLUT? Memory distortions: Alcohol placebos influence the misinformation effect. Psychological Science, 14, 77-80. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.01422 4) Frenda, S., Patihis, L., Loftus, E. F., Lewis, H. C., & Fenn, K. M. (2014). Sleep deprivation and false memories. Psychological Science, 25, 1674-1681. doi:10.1177/0956797614534694Discussion Leader #1: _______________________________________Discussion Leader #2: _______________________________________10/5Eyewitnesses in the Real World1) Loftus, E. F. (2013). Eyewitness testimony in the Lockerbie bombing case. Memory, 21, 584-590. doi:10.1080/09658211.2013.7744172) Odinot, Wolters, & van Koppen (2009). Eyewitness memory of a supermarket robbery: A case study of accuracy and confidence after 3 months. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 506-514. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9152-x 3) Morgan, C. A., Southwick, S., Steffian, G., Hazlett, G. A., & Loftus, E. F. (2013). Misinformation can influence memory for recently experienced, highly stressful events. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36, 11-17. doi:10.1016/j.jilp.2013.11.0024) Granhag, P. A., Ask, K., Rebelius, A., Ohman, L., & Giolia, E. M. (2012). ‘I saw the man who killed Anna Lindh!’ A archival study of witnesses’ offender descriptions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 921-931. doi:10.1080/1068316x.2012.719620Discussion Leader #1: _______________________________________Discussion Leader #2: _______________________________________10/12Children as Eyewitnesses and Misidentification 1) McWilliams, K., Narr, R., Goodman, G. S., Ruitz, S., & Mendoza, M. (2013). Children’s memory for their mother’s murder: Accuracy, suggestibility, and resistance to suggestion. Memory, 21, 591-598. doi:10.1080/09658211.2013.7639832) Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. (2004). Forensic developmental psychology: Unveiling four common misconceptions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 229-232. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00314.x3) Goodman, G. S., & Quas, J. A. (2008). Repeated interviews and children’s memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 386-390. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00611.xDiscussion Leader #1: _______________________________________10/19Repressed Memories1) Kluft, R. P., & Loftus, E. F. (2007). In Jason Nier’s Taking sides: Clashing views in social psychology. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill. 2) Sharman, S. J., Manning, C. G., & Garry, M. (2005). Explain this: Explaining childhood events inflates confidence for those events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 67-74. doi:10.1002/acp.1041 3) Williams, L. M. (1994). Recall of childhood trauma: A prospective study of women’s memories of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1167-1176. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.62.6.1167 4) Patihis, L., Lavina, Y., Tingen, I., Lilenfeld, S. O., Loftus, E. F. (2014). Are the ‘memory wars’ over? A scientist-practitioner gap in beliefs about repressed memory. Psychological Science, 25(2), 519-530. doi:10.1177/0956797613510718Discussion Leader #1: _______________________________________Discussion Leader #2: _______________________________________10/26Lineups1) Zimmerman, D. M., Austin, J. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2012). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures. In B. Cutler’s (Ed.) Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological research. pp. 213-238. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.2) Pozzulo, J. D., & Dempsey, J. (2006). Biased lineup instructions: Examining the effect of pressure on children’s and adults’ eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1381-1394. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00064.x 3) Smalarz, L., & Wells, G. (2014). Confirming feedback following a mistaken identification impairs memory for the culprit. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 283-292. doi:10.1037/lhb00000784) Smalarz, L., & Wells, G. L. (2015). Contamination of eyewitness self-reports and the mistaken-identification problem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 120-124. doi:10.1177.0963721414554394Discussion Leader #1: _______________________________________Discussion Leader #2: _______________________________________11/2Confessions 1) Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 249-253. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00584.x 2) Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125-128. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00344.x 3) Kassin, S. M., Bogart, D., & Kerner, J. (2012). Confessions that corrupt: Evidence from the DNA exoneration case files. Psychological Science, 23, 41-45. 4) Madon, S., Guyll, M., Scherr, K. C., Greathouse, S., & Wells, G. L. (2012). Temporal discounting: The differential effect of proximal and distal consequences on confession decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 13-20. doi:10.1037/h0093962Discussion Leader #1: _______________________________________Discussion Leader #2: _______________________________________11/9Lie Detection (Using Polygraph/Using Observation)1) Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913-920. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.913 2) Grubin, D., & Madsen, L. (2005). Lie detection and the polygraph: A historical review. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 16(2), 357-369. doi:10.1080/14789940412331337353 3) Mann, Vrij, & Bull (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137-149. Doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.137 Discussion Leader: _______________________________________11/16Informant Testimony1) The Snitch System. Northwestern University School of Law, Center on Wrongful Convictions. 2) Neuschatz, J. S., Jones, N., Wetmore, S. A., & McClung, J. (2012). Unreliable informant testimony. In B. Cutler’s (Ed.) Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological research. pp. 213-238. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.3) Neuschatz, J. S., Lawson, D. S., Swanner, J. K., Meissner, C. A., & Neuschatz, J. S. (2008). The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 137-149. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9100-1 Discussion Leader: _______________________________________11/23Other Causes of Wrongful Conviction1) Garrett, B. L. (2011). Flawed forensics. In Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Harvard University Press. 2) Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42-52. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 3) Allison, M., Mathews, K. R., & Michael, S. W. (2012). Alibi believability: The impact of salacious alibi activities. Social Behavior and Personality, 40, 605-612. doi:10.2224/sbp.2012.40.4.605Discussion Leader: _______________________________________11/30Policy Reform1) Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-598. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.581 2) Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2001). The other-race effect in eyewitness identification: What do we do about it? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 230-246. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.230 3) Lassiter, G. D., & Lindberg, M. J. (2010). Video recording custodial interrogations: Implications of psychological science for policy and practice. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38, 177-192.Discussion Leader: _______________________________________12/7 The Experience of Being Wrongly Convicted1) Clow, K. A., Leach, A., & Ricciardelli, R. (2012). Life after wrongful conviction. In B. Cutler’s (Ed.) Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological research. pp. 327-341. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.2) Campbell, K., & Denov, M. (2004). The burden of innocence: Coping with a wrongful imprisonment. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 46(2), 140-163.3) Grounds, A. (2004). Psychological consequences of wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 46(2), 165-182.Discussion Leader: _______________________________________12/14 Final Exam (9:00-11:00 a.m.)Grading Guide for the Reading Summaries See below for how to review 1) primary sources and 2) secondary sources. Note that in each case, you should refer to the reading by citing the authors’ last names and the year the reading was published. Each source should be summarized in 2 pages. 1) Each primary source article summary should be prepared with text organized under the following section headings: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Question/Future Research. Your goal is to extract the key points from each section of the article. Each summary must be in your own words. Do not simply copy entire sentences directly from the article—you must be able to explain the key points in language that a layperson can understand. Introduction (2 points)What is the purpose of the article and how or why is the study important and/or relevant to law and psychology?What are the main study hypotheses and/or research questions?Method (2 points)Describe the sample that was used. How was the sample obtained?If the research was an experiment, what were the independent and the key dependent variables?How can the overall study be described in terms of research design (i.e., observational, correlations, quasi-experimental, experimental)Results (2 points)Describe the key findings.Discussion (2 points)What conclusions did the authors reach regarding the results?What implications do the findings have for the real world?What limitations are present?Why are the results of this study important?Question/Future Research (2 points)Prepare at least one question for class discussion.Provide an idea for future research. 2. Each secondary source article summary (e.g., book chapters, review articles) should extract the key points from the reading. Each summary must be in your own words. Do not simply copy entire sentences directly from the reading—you must be able to explain the key points in language that a layperson can understand. Introduction (3 points)What is the purpose of the reading and how or why is this important and/or relevant to law and psychology?Results (3 points)Describe the key findings.Discussion (2 points)What conclusions did the authors reach regarding the results?What implications do the findings have for the real world?Question/Future Research (2 points)Prepare at least one question for class discussion.Provide an idea for future research. Go to for hints on how to give a good presentation.Rubric for Oral PresentationDomain 1: Overview of/Rationale for Research 1Overview/rationale for research is missing or inaccurate2Presenter provides overview and rationale but does not identify research questions with sufficient detail3Presenter provides rationale and identifies key research questions or hypotheses with a good amount of detailDomain 2: Methodology1Overview of methodology is limited or inaccurate2Presenter addresses important aspects of methods but does not clearly reference research design3Presenter addresses the methodology employed so students can clearly understand how the study was completed.Domain 3: Key Findings1Little to no information on results related to the specific research questions or hypotheses2Presenter does a moderate job of explaining key findings.3Presenter does a good job explaining key study findings.Domain 4: Contextual Relevance1Presenter does not link the article to a broader topic.2Presenter does a moderate job of linking the article to a broader topic.3Presenter does a good job of linking the article to a broader topic. Clearly highlights relevance of the findings to the field of psychology and law.Domain 5: In Class Presentation1Presentation style was not polished (e.g., just read from slides without engaging the audience) and there was no meaningful class discussion.2Clear presentation but little effort at generating discussion.3Clear presentation with presenter including questions that generated discussion. Well-developed slides. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download