Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2011 Media effects and the criminal justice system: An experimental test of the CSI effect Ryan Tapscott Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Tapscott, Ryan, "Media effects and the criminal justice system: An experimental test of the CSI effect" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 10254. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/10254 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Media effects and the criminal justice system: An experimental test of the CSI effect by Ryan Luke Tapscott A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major: Psychology Program of Study Committee Douglas Gentile, Major Professor Kevin Blankenship Matthew DeLisi David Vogel Gary Wells Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2011 Copyright © Ryan Luke Tapscott, 2011. All rights reserved. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES vii ABSTRACT viii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2. CORRELATIONAL STUDY METHODS AND PROCEDURE 33 CHAPTER 3. CORRELATIONAL STUDY RESULTS 49 CHAPTER 4. CORRELATIONAL STUDY SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 71 CHAPTER 5. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY METHODS AND PROCEDURE 74 CHAPTER 6. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY RESULTS 86 CHAPTER 7. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 114 CHAPTER 8. GENERAL DISCUSSION 117 ENDNOTES 135 BIBLIOGRAPHY 136 APPENDIX A. CRIME DRAMA VIEWING QUESTIONNAIRE 142 APPENDIX B. KNOWLEDGE OF LEGAL EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE 151 APPENDIX C. CRIME DRAMA INVENTORY 178 APPENDIX D. JUROR BIAS SCALE 228 APPENDIX E. GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARD THE LEGAL SYSTEM 230 APPENDIX F. GENERAL EXPECTATIONS FOR EVIDENCE 232 APPENDIX G. BURDEN OF PROOF 234 iii APPENDIX H. RETROSPECTIVE EXPECTATIONS FOR TRIAL EVIDENCE 236 APPENDIX I. MET EXPECTATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE 241 APPENDIX J. ANALYSIS OF TRIAL AND VERDICT 247 APPENDIX K. NEED FOR COGNITION 248 APPENDIX L. SENSATION SEEKING SCALE 249 iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Principal Component Analysis: Pattern Matrix Loadings for Retrospective Expectations for Trial Evidence 42 TABLE 2. Principal Component Analysis: Pattern Matrix Loadings for Met Expectations Questionnaire 46 TABLE 3. Study 1 Descriptive Statistics including Means, Standard Deviations, and T-value for Light and Heavy Crime Drama Viewers 50 TABLE 4. Study 1 Bivariate Correlations 51 TABLE 5. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, T-values, and Effect Sizes of General Expectations for Evidence for Light and Heavy Crime Drama Viewers 57 TABLE 6. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, F-values, and Effect Sizes of General Expectations for Evidence for Light and Heavy Crime Drama Viewers 58 TABLE 7. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, T-values, and Effect Sizes of General Expectations for Evidence for Light and Heavy CSI Viewers 58 TABLE 8. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, F-values, and Effect Sizes of Retrospective Expectations for Trial Evidence for Light and Heavy Crime Drama Viewers 60 TABLE 9. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, F-values, and Effect Sizes of Retrospective Expectations for Trial Evidence for CSI Viewers 61 TABLE 10. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, T-values, and Effect Sizes for Knowledge of the Criminal Justice System for Light and Heavy Crime Drama Viewers 61 TABLE 11. Study 1: Retrospective Expectations for Trial Evidence Predicting Met Expectations 63 TABLE 12. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, T-values, and Effect Sizes for Knowledge of the Criminal Justice System for Low and High Scorers On the Crime Drama Inventory 67 TABLE 13. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, F-values, and Effect Sizes of Retrospective Expectations for Trial Evidence for Low and High Scorers on the Crime Drama Inventory 67 v TABLE 14. Study 1: Assessing Ability of Amount of Television Viewing, Crime Drama Viewing, and CSI Viewing to Predict General Expectations for Scientific Evidence 70 TABLE 15. Study 2 Principal Component Analysis: Pattern Matrix Loadings for Retrospective Expectations for Trial Evidence 80 TABLE 16. Study 2 Principal Component Analysis: Pattern Matrix Loadings for the Met Expectations Questionnaire 83 TABLE 17. Study 2 Descriptive Statistics including Means, Standard Deviations, and T-Values for Light and Heavy Crime Drama Viewers 87 TABLE 18. Study 2 Bivariate Correlations 88 TABLE 19. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, T-Values, and Effect Sizes of General Expectations for Evidence for Light and Heavy Crime Drama Viewers 95 TABLE 20. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, T-Values, and Effect Sizes of General Expectations for Evidence for CSI Viewers 95 TABLE 21. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, F-Values, and Effect Sizes of Retrospective Expectations for Trial Evidence for Light and Heavy Crime Drama Viewers 96 TABLE 22. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, F-Values, and Effect Sizes of Retrospective Expectations for Trial Evidence for Light and Heavy CSI Viewers 97 TABLE 23. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, F-Values, and Effect Sizes of Retrospective Expectations for Trial Evidence for Low and High Scorers on the Crime Drama Inventory 97 TABLE 24. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, T-Values, and Effect Sizes of Knowledge of the Criminal Justice System for Light and Heavy Crime Drama Viewers at Time 1 98 TABLE 25. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, T-Values, and Effect Sizes of Knowledge of the Criminal Justice System for Light and Heavy Crime Drama Viewers at Time 2 99 TABLE 26. Relationship of the Background Predictors, Crime Drama Viewing, and Knowledge of the Criminal Justice System on the Outcome of Expectations for Scientific Evidence 103 vi TABLE 27. Study 2: Retrospective Expectations for Trial Evidence Predicting Met Expectations 105 TABLE 28. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, T-Values, and Effect Sizes of General Expectations for Evidence for Low and High Scorers on the Crime Drama Inventory 109 TABLE 29. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, T-Values, and Effect Sizes of Knowledge of the Criminal Justice System for Low and High Scorers on the Crime Drama Inventory 110 TABLE 30. Study 2: Ability of Amount of Television Viewing, Crime Drama Viewing, and CSI Viewing to Predict General Expectations for Scientific Evidence 113 TABLE 31. Study 2: Ability of Amount of Television Viewing, CSI Viewing, and Crime Drama Viewing to Predict General Expectations for Scientific Evidence 113 vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Short-term Processes in the General Learning Model 16 FIGURE 2. Long-term Processes in the General Learning Model 22 FIGURE 3. Average Knowledge Score on the KLEP (Knowledge of Legal Evidence And Procedure, 0-68), at Time 1 and Time 2 across the Three Conditions In Study 2 100 FIGURE 4. Standardized Regression Coefficients for the Relationship between Crime Drama Viewing and Expectations for Scientific Evidence as Mediated By Knowledge in the Criminal Justice System 122 viii ABSTRACT Across two studies, factors hypothesized to be involved in the CSI effect were examined. In study 1 (N = 245), a correlational design was used to determine relations between heavy crime drama viewers and their knowledge and expectations for scientific evidence. Heavy viewers were more knowledgeable about the criminal justice system and held greater expectations for scientific evidence than light crime drama viewers. In study 2 (N = 239), participants were randomly assigned to view four episodes of a crime drama, a medical drama, or no show and then complete measures of knowledge and expectations. Although no differences were found between conditions, results of study 2 replicated the results of study 1, showing that heavy crime drama viewers were more knowledgeable about the criminal justice system and held greater expectations for scientific evidence. Together, these studies provide support for the existence of the CSI effect. In addition, tests of mediation showed that knowledge completely mediated the relationship between crime drama viewing and expectations. Implications for future research on the CSI effect are discussed. 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION In 2005, Hollywood star Robert Blake, most well known for playing detective Tony Baretta in the 1970’s crime drama “Baretta”, was charged with first-degree murder in the 2001 death of his wife of six months, Bonnie Lee Bakley. Bakley was shot and killed while sitting in a parked car outside a restaurant in Studio City, CA. Blake stated that he had re- entered the restaurant to retrieve his gun which he had left at the table when the shooting occurred, though none of the other patrons could recall Blake re-entering the restaurant that evening (Steinhaus, 2007). The prosecution’s case, which lasted over five weeks, was mostly composed of circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence. Whereas direct evidence directly links a defendant to a crime (e.g., eyewitness testimony or physical evidence such as DNA, or blood), circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence in which the jury must use logic and reason to infer a defendant’s guilt or innocence (e.g., a defendant’s behavior around the time of the crime). Although direct evidence is viewed as more powerful, in many cases little or no evidence of this type is available. In the eyes of the law, circumstantial evidence is seen as equal to direct evidence, and a majority of successful prosecutions are based largely on circumstantial evidence alone, including such high profile cases as the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, and the Scott Peterson trial (Heller, 2006). In the Blake case, the prosecution presented circumstantial evidence in the form of testimony of more than 70 witnesses; some testified about Blake’s character (e.g., he was abusive to his wife) and others testified about the alleged murder plot.