Most obviously there is a general trend that people become less likely to make accurate deductions once they are emotionally invested in the decision (consider their reactions to the horrifying descriptions of the murder victim’s condition). Another issue is framing, previously it was a question of ‘Who committed this awful crime?’ now it has been reframed as ‘This awful criminal might go free.’ As gwern mentioned the fact that they are foreign is a factor, local media are unlikely to be kind to them, and punishing them/avenging a local feeds into our in/outgroup biases. And finally, the large publicity of the case means that enough people have heard about it that a significant percentage of them will attach to one side of the case for some arbitrarily bizarre psychological reason of their own whatever the facts of the case.
In addition, it could be that people see the foreign press’s interest in the case, and their support for Knox, as an unfair influence on the case, and they are protesting the court being swayed by the media.
Interesting, but surely if they were making a principled point about media interference in general they wouldn’t have booed the verdict? As the media interference had already happened the result was irrelevant.
Since the media was interfering in favor of the verdict that actually happened, the verdict is evidence that the court was swayed by the media. They may be (or believe they are) protesting the court’s “caving to media pressure” or some such.
Ok, I’ll run with that.
Most obviously there is a general trend that people become less likely to make accurate deductions once they are emotionally invested in the decision (consider their reactions to the horrifying descriptions of the murder victim’s condition). Another issue is framing, previously it was a question of ‘Who committed this awful crime?’ now it has been reframed as ‘This awful criminal might go free.’ As gwern mentioned the fact that they are foreign is a factor, local media are unlikely to be kind to them, and punishing them/avenging a local feeds into our in/outgroup biases. And finally, the large publicity of the case means that enough people have heard about it that a significant percentage of them will attach to one side of the case for some arbitrarily bizarre psychological reason of their own whatever the facts of the case.
What have I missed?
Meredith Kercher was a British exchange student, not an Italian citizen.
You’re right, sorry. Same applies regarding the other possible suspects and the Italian prosecutors and police.
Voted up for prompt admission of error. This is something I really like about this site, by the way.
In addition, it could be that people see the foreign press’s interest in the case, and their support for Knox, as an unfair influence on the case, and they are protesting the court being swayed by the media.
Interesting, but surely if they were making a principled point about media interference in general they wouldn’t have booed the verdict? As the media interference had already happened the result was irrelevant.
Since the media was interfering in favor of the verdict that actually happened, the verdict is evidence that the court was swayed by the media. They may be (or believe they are) protesting the court’s “caving to media pressure” or some such.
Yeah, that was kinda what I meant. Also, I wouldn’t assume they’re thinking particularly rationally!
Nor would I.