Effects of physical attractiveness on evaluations of a male employee's allegation of sexual harassment by his female employer

College students (N = 324) served as mock jurors in a simulated civil case in which a male plaintiff accused a female defendant of sexual harassment. The authors experimentally manipulated the physical attractiveness of the litigants. The authors asked mock jurors to decide whether the defendant was guilty and to rate their certainty of belief in the defendant's guilt (or lack of guilt). Jurors were more certain of the guilt of the defendant when the plaintiff was attractive than when he was unattractive. Plaintiff attractiveness significantly affected female jurors' individual recommended verdicts when the defendant was unattractive but not when she was attractive. With male jurors, plaintiff attractiveness significantly affected their verdicts when the defendant was attractive but not when she was unattractive. Female jurors were more likely than male jurors to conclude that sexual harassment had taken place but only when the litigants were different in attractiveness.     

Interactive effects of characteristics of defendant and mock juror on U.S. participants' judgment and sentencing recommendations.

The authors examined the effects of interactions (a) between defendant attractiveness and juror gender and (b) between defendant race and juror race on judgment and sentencing among 207 Black, Hispanic, and White participants in the United States. After reading a vehicular-homicide vignette in which the defendant's attractiveness and race varied, the participants rated guilt and recommended sentences. The women treated the unattractive female defendant more harshly than they treated the attractive female defendant; the men showed an opposite tendency. The Black participants showed greater leniency when the defendant was described as Black rather than White. The Hispanic participants showed an opposite trend, and the White participants showed no race-based leniency. The findings on racial effects were consistent (a) with in-group favorability bias among the Black participants and (b) with attribution effects unrelated to race among the White participants.     

Interactive Effects of Characteristics of Defendant and Mock Juror on U.S. Participants' Judgment and Sentencing Recommendations

Abstract

The authors examined the effects of interactions (a) between defendant attractiveness and juror gender and (b) between defendant race and juror race on judgment and sentencing among 207 Black, Hispanic, and White participants in the United States. After reading a vehicular-homicide vignette in which the defendant's attractiveness and race varied, the participants rated guilt and recommended sentences. The women treated the unattractive female defendant more harshly than they treated the attractive female defendant; the men showed an opposite tendency. The Black participants showed greater leniency when the defendant was described as Black rather than White. The Hispanic participants showed an opposite trend, and the White participants showed no race-based leniency. The findings on racial effects were consistent (a) with in-group favorability bias among the Black participants and (b) with attribution effects unrelated to race among the White participants.     

The effects of defendant conduct on jury damage awards

Laws of negligence dictate that jurors' decisions about damages be influenced by the severity of plaintiffs' injuries and not by the reprehensibility of defendants' conduct. The authors simulated an automobile negligence trial to assess whether jurors' decisions are in accord with those expectations. Conduct of the defendant and severity of the plaintiff's injuries were manipulated. Jurors listened to the evidence, completed predeliberation questionnaires, deliberated as a jury, and completed postdeliberation questionnaires. Severity of the plaintiff's injury had a strong impact on damage awards, but evidence related to the defendant's conduct was also influential, particularly when the plaintiffs injuries were mild. Here, jurors with any conduct-related evidence gave larger damage awards than jurors with no conduct-related evidence. Findings suggest an effect of defendant conduct on damage awards that may be mediated by judgments that the defendant was negligent.     

The Role of Death Qualification in Venirepersons' Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense1

Three hundred venirepersons from the 12^th Judicial Circuit in Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: one question that specified participants' level of support for the death penalty; one Witt death‐qualification question; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; verdict and sentencing preferences; a 16‐item measure that required participants to rate their receptiveness to the insanity defense on a 6‐point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death‐qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse certain insanity myths, find the defendant guilty, and sentence the defendant to death. Legal implications are discussed.     

Juror Decision‐making in Death Penalty Sentencing when Presented with Defendant's History of Child Abuse or Neglect

Previous studies have found aggravating, mitigating, and null effects of defendant histories of abuse and neglect on punishment preferences in capital sentencing. Perceiving these defendants as more dangerous, jurors may be more likely to favor the death penalty when such evidence is presented. This is counter to the intuition that abuse or neglect reduces culpability, and therefore mitigates the severity of punishment. We investigated the effect of defendant childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect on the probability of a prospective juror preferring the death penalty in an between‐subject experimental design. Using vignettes and two large samples (students and jurors), defendant histories were found to mitigate the probability that the hypothetical defendant received the death penalty, with sexual abuse having the most salient effect. Further, the effects were conditioned by preference for the death penalty – larger mitigating effects were observed among individuals who favor the death penalty. These findings suggest that initial judgments of abuse and neglect are related to juror leniency, and further research on the interaction of jury instructions and defendant histories is needed. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making

During the penalty phase of capital trials, defendants may introduce mitigating evidence that argues for a punishment "less than death." In the past few years, a novel form of mitigating evidence-brain scans made possible by technological advances in neuroscience-has been proffered by defendants to support claims that brain abnormalities reduce their culpability. This exploratory study assessed the impact of neuroscience evidence on mock jurors' sentencing recommendations and impressions of a capital defendant. Using actual case facts, we manipulated diagnostic evidence presented by the defense (psychosis diagnosis; diagnosis and neuropsychological test results; or diagnosis, test results, and neuroimages) and future dangerousness evidence presented by the prosecution (low or high risk). Recommendations for death sentences were affected by the neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence: defendants deemed at high risk for future dangerousness were less likely to be sentenced to death when jurors had this evidence than when they did not. Neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence also had mitigating effects on impressions of the defendant. We describe study limitations and pose questions for further research.     

The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases

Past research examining the effects of actuarial and clinical expert testimony on defendants' dangerousness in Texas death penalty sentencing has found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific pure clinical expert testimony and less influenced by more scientific actuarial expert testimony (Krauss & Lee, 2003; Krauss & Sales, 2001). By applying cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST) to juror decision-making, the present study was undertaken in an attempt to offer a theoretical rationale for these findings. Based on past CEST research, 163 mock jurors were either directed into a rational mode or experiential mode of processing. Consistent with CEST and inconsistent with previous research using the same stimulus materials, results demonstrate that jurors in a rational mode of processing more heavily weighted actuarial expert testimony in their dangerousness assessments, while those jurors in the experiential condition were more influenced by clinical expert testimony. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.     

The Role of Death Qualification in Capital Trials Involving Juvenile Defendants1

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of death qualification in capital trials involving juvenile defendants. Two hundred residents of the 12^th Judicial Circuit in Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: One question that measured participants' level of support for the death penalty; One Witt death‐qualification question; a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case involving either an adult or a juvenile defendant; sentence preference; the Revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire (RLAQ); and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death‐qualified participants were more likely to sentence both defendants to death. In addition, death‐qualified participants were more likely to recommend the death sentence for the juvenile defendant. Legal implications are discussed.     

Nature,nurture, and capital punishment: How evidence of a genetic–environment interaction,future dangerousness,and deliberation affect sentencing decisions

Research has shown that the low‐activity MAOA genotype in conjunction with a history of childhood maltreatment increases the likelihood of violent behaviors. This genetic–environment (G × E) interaction has been introduced as mitigation during the sentencing phase of capital trials, yet there is scant data on its effectiveness. This study addressed that issue. In a factorial design that varied mitigating evidence offered by the defense [environmental (i.e., childhood maltreatment), genetic, G × E, or none] and the likelihood of the defendant's future dangerousness (low or high), 600 mock jurors read sentencing phase evidence in a capital murder trial, rendered individual verdicts, and half deliberated as members of a jury to decide a sentence of death or life imprisonment. The G × E evidence had little mitigating effect on sentencing preferences: participants who received the G × E evidence were no less likely to sentence the defendant to death than those who received evidence of childhood maltreatment or a control group that received neither genetic nor maltreatment evidence. Participants with evidence of a G × E interaction were more likely to sentence the defendant to death when there was a high risk of future dangerousness than when there was a low risk. Sentencing preferences were more lenient after deliberation than before. We discuss limitations and future directions.     

Looking deathworthy: perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes

Researchers previously have investigated the role of race in capital sentencing, and in particular, whether the race of the defendant or victim influences the likelihood of a death sentence. In the present study, we examined whether the likelihood of being sentenced to death is influenced by the degree to which a Black defendant is perceived to have a stereotypically Black appearance. Controlling for a wide array of factors, we found that in cases involving a White victim, the more stereotypically Black a defendant is perceived to be, the more likely that person is to be sentenced to death.     

Attributions of guilt and punishment as functions of physical attractiveness and smiling

The authors found an interaction between sex of participant and sex of defendant in the leniency bias toward a smiling defendant. Differences occurred for male participants when levying punishment for a smiling male defendant vs. a smiling female defendant and for a smiling male defendant vs. a nonsmiling male defendant, whereas differences did not occur for female participants. The authors found moderating effects of physical attractiveness and smiling between guilt and punishment. The only significant positive relationship between guilt and punishment occurred for the defendant whom participants rated low in physical attractiveness and who was not smiling. When guilty, the smiling and unattractive defendant received less punishment than did the smiling and attractive defendant. The authors discussed complex relationships between physical attractiveness, smiling, guilt, and punishment.     

The effect of the psychopathy checklist – revised in capital cases: Mock jurors' responses to the label of psychopathy

Despite mixed empirical evidence regarding the ability of the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL‐R) to predict violence among incarcerated inmates, it continues to be used to address such questions, even in the context of capital cases. The purpose of this study was to examine if the PCL‐R has a prejudicial effect on mock jury members during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial. Results indicated that participants were more likely to sentence the defendant to death when the defendant exhibited a high likelihood to commit future violence, whether or not the diagnostic label “psychopath” was present. Interestingly, when asked to rate the defendant's likelihood for future violence and murder, the defendant who was a high risk for future violence and not labeled a psychopath received the highest rating. These results suggest an absence of juror bias as it pertains to the label “psychopath” when sentencing a defendant in a capital murder case. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

THE EFFECTS OF DEFENDANT AND COMPLAINANT INTOXICATION ON MOCK JURORS' JUDGMENTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

The present study investigates the impact of participant gender, rape-myth beliefs, and alcohol intoxication on the part of either the defendant and/or alleged victim on mock jurors' decisions within the context of a sexual-assault trial. Participants ( N = 152) were exposed to a sexual-assault case in which the beverage consumption (alcohol, cola) on the part of both the defendant and complainant prior to the sexual intercourse was varied systematically. Results indicated that when the defendant had consumed alcohol, as opposed to cola, participants were more likely to view the case as one of assault, to perceive the defendant as less credible, and to find the defendant guilty. When the complainant had consumed alcohol, as opposed to cola, participants found the complainant's claim less credible and were less likely to view the defendant as guilty. In addition, participants' rape-myth acceptance, which was related to guilt, mediated the relation between gender of participant and guilt.     

How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions

The authors investigated the effects of mock juror age (younger vs. older), defendant age (22 vs. 65), and type of excuse defense used by defendants (a highly self-inflicted condition, Cocaine Dependency Disorder, vs. a less self-inflicted condition, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) on mock juror decisions. Ninety-six younger and 96 older adults read a scenario and answered a questionnaire. Results indicated that the defendant using the highly self-inflicted excuse was more likely to receive a guilty verdict and a longer sentence than was the defendant using the less self-inflicted excuse. Older jurors were more certain of their verdicts and saw the defendant as more responsible for his condition than did younger jurors. Defendant age did not affect juror decisions. In addition, excuse type and juror age affected the jurors' perceptions of the victim's responsibility for the attack. The authors discuss the potential influence of juror age on perceptions of defendant responsibility.     

Head Over the Heart or Heart Over the Head? Cognitive Experiential Self‐Theory and Extralegal Heuristics in Juror Decision Making1

Cognitive experiential self‐theory (CEST), which maintains that information can be processed in both an experiential (emotional) and a rational mode. Experiential processing fosters a reliance on heuristic cues. Previous research has demonstrated that juror verdicts are influenced by a variety of extralegal heuristics, including a defendant attractiveness cue. This research examined whether experiential processing would produce a defendant‐attractiveness/leniency effect. Before awarding monetary damages in a civil trial, participants were motivated to think either rationally or experientially and were shown a photograph of either a high‐ or low‐attractiveness defendant. Experiential mode participants awarded significantly lower damages to the plaintiff when the defendant was attractive, but the attractiveness‐leniency effect was not operative for rational mode participants.     

When mitigation evidence makes a difference: effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials

Little empirical research has addressed the effects of psychological or psychosocial evidence on sentencing decisions. The present study found that death-qualified mock jurors were more likely to sentence a defendant to death without mitigating evidence than in a case with mitigating evidence present. Mock jurors were less likely to assign a death sentence in cases that contained one of the following types of mitigating evidence: The defendant was (i) diagnosed with schizophrenia, not medicated, and suffered from severe delusions and hallucinations, (ii) drug addicted and high at the time of the murder, (iii) diagnosed as borderline mentally retarded during childhood, or (iv) severely physically and verbally abused by his parents during childhood.     

Racial Attitudes and the Death Penalty1

This study investigated the relationship between overt and subtle forms of racism with Whites' recommendations for capital sentencing of Black and White offenders convicted of murder. White participants (n= 104) viewed 5 other “jurors” (all Whites or 4 Whites and 1 Black) on videotape individually presenting their decisions to vote for the death penalty in the case. It was hypothesized that the bias of high prejudice-scoring participants would be overt, but that the pattern for low prejudice-scoring participants would be more complex. As predicted, among high prejudice-scoring participants, Black defendants received stronger recommendations for the death penalty than did White defendants. Among low prejudice-scoring White participants, Black offenders received stronger recommendations for the death penalty only when a Black juror advocated the death penalty.