Term
| affective decision makers |
|
Definition
most people are primarily "right brained" like this
1. they are usually emotional and creative and are more interested in people than problems; they see trials as human dramas, not legal disputes
2. they use deductive reasoning which is primarily emotional and impulsive
3. once they make their decisions they become committed to them and validate them by selectively rejecting or distorting later info to 'fit' them
people have in internal need to be consistent and info inconsistent with their decision causes stress, they see and hear what they want to |
|
|
Term
| cognitive decision makers |
|
Definition
left brain
1. more interested in problems, than people; enjoy accumulating info and defer making decisions until they have all the information available
2. affectives "feel" cognitives "reason" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
beliefs (what we know about something) are how we perceive life works, our value system
attitudes (how we feel about something) are the expressions of our beliefs - our convictions, biases, and prejudices |
|
|
Term
| attitudes effect on how we see the world |
|
Definition
| attitudes subconsciously filter info about the world and help sort out conflicting info and fill in missing info; they are the rose colored glasses through which we "see" info in our own unique way, accepting what we like and rejecting or distorting that we dislike |
|
|
Term
| how attitudes affect jurors |
|
Definition
they don't passively sit and have open minds; rather they test new info by seeing how consistent it is with their preconceived ideas of how life works
the more familiar the subject matter of the trial, the more important jurors beliefs and attitudes become |
|
|
Term
| how to improve reliability of self-disclosed attitudes |
|
Definition
jurors need to fit in often leads them to give socially acceptable answers on sensitive issues
creating a relaxed, non-judgmental environment improves reliability; questioning them outside the presence of other jurors also helps |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. persuaders - make assertive statements, freely express opinions, actively build coalitions; usually about 25% of a group
2. participants - also engage in social discussions but are followers, not leaders; they value social approval and defer to those having stronger egos; are quick to join coalitions
3. nonparticipants - rarely engage in group discussions; usually followers who will go along with what majority decides to do; usually 25 percent of a group |
|
|
Term
| where to put a less impressive witness |
|
Definition
| in the middle of the presentation; people tend to forget the source of info over time (the sleeper effect) |
|
|
Term
| length of trial effects primacy/recency |
|
Definition
| shorter trial, primacy is more important; if trial is more than a few days, recency becomes more important |
|
|
Term
| forewarning and inoculation |
|
Definition
two specific techniques to deal effectively with two opposing sides bombarding jurors w/ conflicting info:
1. forewarning - giving the listeners advance warning that they are going to hear contrary info and appeals from the other side
2. inoculation - anticipating the other side's argument and giving listeners info and arguments they can use to resist the other side's arguments |
|
|
Term
| one sided vs two sided arguments |
|
Definition
when one side has a strong case and listeners are already favorably disposed, one sided arguments - discussing only that side's strengths - are more effective; but when both sides have reasonably equal cases, two sided arguments - including the other side's arguments and a refutation of them - is more persuasive
in most cases, two sided will be the more effective technique |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| should be able to be stated in a minute or two |
|
|
Term
| number of themes; where they should come from |
|
Definition
| should have no more than three to four themes; should be emotional; best themes come from time honored sources that contain universal truths about life (Bible, Aesop Fable) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| difference btw calling Dr. Helm and Ms. Helm |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| good stories organize, humanize, and dramatize; they have plot, character, and emotion and narrative structure |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. prepare from jury's POV
2. develop a theory of the case
3. select themes and lables
4. emphasize the people (motivations)
5. use storytelling techniques
6. focus on the key disputed facts and issues
7. understand your role as advocate |
|
|
