Media effects

Media effects on Criminal Justice10/6/15*

Jury Bias The effect: potential jurors acquire biasing beliefs

-Regarding specific defendants-Regarding defendants in general-Usually anti-defendant, but not always

Various explanations-Generic hostility towards accused-Priming and heuristic thinking: unconscious information retention/ Inability to set aside non-trial information

Social or individual Effect Individual aspects

-Bias is a belief—Thus individual-Exposure to media differs among individuals

Social aspects-A verdict is a social decision-A juror represents peers-A verdict is a public art

Remedies Source discounting: Reminding jurors to elaborate- Voir dire: interviewing prospective jurors - Judges instructions Before trial During trial Before deliberations Deliberation Priming decay: Continuance

Remedies II: create special populations Change of venue Imported jury from other location Sequestration New Trail

Press coverage and juror Bias

Most pretrial publicity violates ABA Model Rules against divulging prejudicial information Most pretrial publicity is against the defendant’s interest

-Most information comes from police and prosecutors-Even “Positive” Information can damage reputation

Pretrial publicity can survive remedies

Can pretrial publicity Help Defendants? Attract ambitious defense attorneys (e.g., Scott Peterson and Geragos) Attract witnesses Motivate Defense Provide scrutiny to prosecutor and judge Attract financial supporters

Prosecutors and a High Crime Agenda (Pritchard) Fewer plea bargains Less generous plea offers Tougher sentence requests at trail

Depictions of suspects and priming Pritchard & Hughes: “deviance” drives editors’ choices of crimes to cover

-Status deviance (high status victim)-Cultural deviance (sympathetic victims)

Dixon: Over-representation of ethnic minorities in crime coverage Entman: Physical custody of minority suspects and defendants

Depictions of Police: Cultivation

“Police procedural” shows (e.g., Law & Order) teach methods--Criminals learn how to hide evidence-- Audience as amateur sleuths--CSI effects on jurors

Few sympathetic suspects until 1990s Police as vigilantes (e.g., Dirty Harry, Die Hard, The shield)

Social learning and cognitive Theory10/8/15*

Social learning (Albert Bandura) The effect: Learning specific new behaviors through observation Independent variables

-Information about outcome -Motivation to learn-Capability of performing the behavior-Reinforcement-Selective attention and retentionLearning from consequences

Information-People learn possible outcomesPeople estimate likelihoods of good outcomes

Motivation-Anticipating good outcomes is motivational-Accurate information enhances this

Reinforcement-When anticipated results occur, learning is reinforced-Awareness of causes boosts reinforcement (Contrary to behaviorism)

Processes involved in modeling

Attention Process-Does the model get attention?-Is the viewer capable of paying attention?

Retention Process-is the behavior memorable?-Is the viewer capable of remembering the behavior?

Motor reproduction Process-Are there rewards for learning?-Can the viewer accurately estimate rewards?

The Modeling Process

Observation Identification with the model Recognition of the usefulness of the behavior being modeled Recalling the behavior when the opportunity arises, and reproducing it at that time Reinforcement of the behavior (or lack of reinforcement, or punishment) Repeating the behavior (When appropriate)

Exposure Attention Retention Motor Reproduction Motivation Learning

Attributes of a Good Model Similar Familiar Physical attractiveness

Where can good models be found?

Real life people are not always attractive Busy people might not always be available when we need them People are inconsistent

-Change behavior in different contexts-Different standards for different situations

Media figures, particularly fictional characters, are more likely to have the attributes of a good model

Agenda Planning10/15/15

Media may not be very successful in telling you what to think but they succeed in telling you what to think about (Cohen) 1963

The effect Exposure to media influences people’s agendas Media have agendas

-System-wide agenda-Individual outlet agenda

People have agendas-Collective agenda-Individual agenda

Studying Agenda Setting Study the media agenda Observe multiple outlets Aggregate references to all agenda items Survey public about all agenda items, look for correlation

Individual person’s agenda-Offer people a list of agenda items to rank-Compare people’s ranks to media agenda-Individual’s agendas rarely match media’s completely

When is agenda Setting Likely? Need for Orientation More effect when people feel need for action (e.g., orientation toward voting) Relevance and uncertainty (ambiguity) of issue increase effect Example presidential election

Issues and Attributes of issues

Issues are what to think about Attributes are how to think about issues

Examples:

Agenda item: leveraged buyouts Creative destruction in a free market Vulture capitalism? Necessary but unpleasant economic reality

Agenda item: Lobbying Corrupt practice? Necessary education of lawmakers Unfair access

Is Agenda Setting Bad?

Where should you learn the public agenda? Does it matter what you think about?

-Cultivation: Thinking about violence is unhealthy-Wertham: Thinking about sex is bad for Children

Who should influence the public agenda?-Elite media?-Public officials?-Interest groups?

Agenda-Setting and Priming

Priming provides short-cuts to attitude formation Connections between issue,attributes,and other objects

-Example: Unemploymentrate (issue), indicator of presidential performance (attribute), and idealized presidency ( other object)-Juxtaposition of objects changes attribute agenda(e.g., replace idealized presidency with class warfare—different attitudes result