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.     

Defendant's Attractiveness as a Factor in the Outcome of Criminal Trials: An Observational Study1

Observers rated the physical attractiveness of 74 defendants in criminal court, covering a broad range of offenses. Seventy-three usable cases were obtained. For 67 defendants (excluding those who had drawn “flat sentences” of 99–199 years), attractiveness was predictive of both minimum and maximum sentences (p <.001)-the more attractive the defendant, the less severe the sentence imposed. No significant relationship was found between attractiveness and conviction/acquittal, although seriousness of the crime was found to correlate negatively with attractiveness (p <.01)). Race of the defendant showed a systematic relationship to punishment, with nonwhites drawing consistently more severe sentences than whites; a multiple regression analysis using attractiveness, race, and seriousness of crime as predictors of punishment yielded results which implied that this finding was largely due to a confounding of race and seriousness of the crime.     

Sentencing severity with mock jurors: Predictive validity of three variable categories

Previous studies have identified three categories of variables which influence decisions of mock jurors: type of crime, defendant characteristics, and personal characteristics of jurors. This study manipulated the following variables towards the ends of assessing their influence on mock jurors' sentencing severity: premeditated vs. unpremeditated murder, black vs. white defendant, low SES vs. high SES defendant. Only defendant SES predicted sentencing severity: low SES defendants were assigned significantly longer sentences than high SES defendants. None of the measures of juror characteristics correlated with sentencing severity. Failure to replicate significant relationships with most of these variables and sentencing severity suggest that results of studies which manipulate only one variable dimension may overestimate the influence of these variable dimensions in mock jurors' decisions.     

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 Race and Social Dominance Orientation in Simulated Juror Decision Making1

Recent mock‐jury research often has found no evidence that White jurors are more likely to convict and impose harsher sentences on Black compared to White defendants. Drawing on social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), this paper argues that this apparent null effect reflects that different racial biases shown by White jurors varying in social dominance orientation (SDO) cancel each other out. A mock‐jury study (n= 70) found no main effect for defendant race, but evidence for a crossover interaction with high SDO individuals showing an anti‐Black bias and with low SDO individuals showing a pro‐Black bias in their guilty judgments and sentence recommendations. The discussion argues race is still a critical factor in White jurors’ decision making.     

Assessing the "evolving standards of decency:" perceptions of capital punishment for juveniles

This study examines whether public opinion parallels recent judicial and statutory changes limiting the applicability of capital sentences to offenders younger than 18 years old. Two hundred and thirty-five undergraduate students were administered a vignette of a capital case and asked to render a sentence of death or life in prison without parole. Results revealed that age of the defendant was not a significant predictor of sentence type; participants sentenced 16- and 17-year-old defendants similarly to 18- and 25-year-old defendants. Therefore, public opinion appears inconsistent with legal and legislative changes to abandon the practice of executing juveniles. Findings also suggested that perceived level of the defendant's responsibility and general opinion about capital sentences significantly predicted sentence type; perceptions of greater responsibility were associated with an increased likelihood of a death sentence. However, participants did not perceive differences in responsibility between juvenile and adult defendants. In addition, participants were more comfortable sentencing defendants to death compared with life in prison.     

Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony

Past research examining the effects of expert testimony on the future dangerousness of a defendant in death penalty sentencing found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific clinical expert testimony and tend to devalue scientific actuarial testimony. This study was designed to determine whether these findings extend to civil commitment trials for sexual offenders and to test a theoretical rationale for this effect. In addition, we investigated the influence of a recently developed innovation in risk assessment procedures, Guided Professional Judgment (GPJ) instruments. Consistent with a cognitive-experiential self-theory based explanation, mock jurors motivated to process information in an experiential condition were more influenced by clinical testimony, while mock jurors in a rational mode were more influenced by actuarial testimony. Participants responded to clinical and GPJ testimony in a similar manner. However, participants' gender exerted important interactive effects on dangerousness decisions, with male jurors showing the predicted effect while females did not. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.     

Defendant characteristics and juridic decisions

Research has demonstrated that attractive defendants receive more preferential treatment than do less attractive defendants. The present study examined two explanations for this finding (liking-leniency and causal inference models). It varied both the attractiveness of the defendant's traits and their relevance to the likelihood of committing a traffic felony. Results indicated that the attractive defendant was found less guilty than the unattractive defendant only when the traits were associated with the likelihood of acting criminally. This suggests that a causal inference model was appropriate when subjects decided guilt. However, a liking-leniency model was supported for decisions on severity of punishment as the attractive defendant was treated more leniently than the unattractive defendant, regardless of the relevancy of the traits to the crime.     

Perceptions of rape victims and assailants: Effects of physical attractiveness,acquaintance, and subject gender

Subjects read different versions of a rape case in which the victim was walking alone at night and the defendant was obviously guilty. Female subjects saw the crime as more debilitating for the victim and were more punitive than male subjects. Female subjects considered the victim less responsible when the defendant was unattractive than when the defendant was attractive. Presence or absence of prior casual acquaintance between the victim and assailant interacted with other factors. With prior acquaintance, male subjects considered the victim more responsible than female subjects, unattractive victims were considered more responsible than attractive victims, and unattractive defendants were considered more likely to engage in future antisocial behavior than attractive defendants. Although biased by other factors, level of victim blame was low overall. Yet subjects seemed reluctant to believe the rapist and his victim were unacquainted and seemed to consider the rape as sexually, rather than aggressively, motivated.The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Andrea R. Halpern and T. Joel Wade. Portions of this paper were presented at the meetings of the Eastern Psychological Association, Buffalo, New York, April 1988.     

Jurors' locus of control and defendants' attractiveness in death penalty sentencing

The authors examined the relationship between jurors' locus of control and defendants' attractiveness in death penalty sentencing. Ninety-eight participants voluntarily served as mock jurors. The authors administered J. B. Rotter's (1966) Internal-External Locus of Control Scale to participants and then randomly assigned them to a group with either an attractive or an unattractive defendant (represented by photographs). Participants read a murder vignette and selected a punishment--either a lifetime jail sentence or the death penalty-for the defendant. Results indicated that neither jurors' locus of control nor defendants' attractiveness influenced sentencing. However, jurors' age and gender significantly influenced sentencing. Men, with the exception of the youngest men, were more likely than women to choose the death penalty. Additionally, young women were more likely than older women to select the death penalty. The authors discuss the implications of these results for the study of jury behavior and bias.     

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.     

Juveniles tried as adults: the age of the juvenile matters

Serious juvenile crimes require evaluation of a child as a criminal defendant in adult court. In such cases, it is crucial to understand jurors' attitudes, biases, and ability to follow legal instructions and maintain fairness. 308 undergraduate psychology students served as mock jurors, were randomly separated into four groups, and each group read the same realistic summary of a trial with the defendant's age presented as 13, 15, 17, or 21 years. Participants were asked to render guilty or not guilty verdicts and, if guilty, to suggest sentences. Chi-squared analysis indicated 13- and 15-year-old defendants were convicted less often than 17- and 21-year-old defendants, showing that jurors distinguished between juvenile defendants of different ages, but not minors and adults as defined by law. Additional analysis showed that age did not affect sentencing recommendations. Decision processes jurors use for juveniles tried as adults are discussed.     

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.     

Effects of Defendant Ethnicity on Juries' Dispositions of Felony Cases1

This research examined jury decisions in 317 noncapital felony cases in El Paso, Texas, and assessed the impact of juror ethnicity on jury trial outcomes. Results revealed that there was no relation between defendant ethnicity and the probability of conviction. Anglo American defendants, however, received sentences that were approximately twice as severe as Hispanic defendants. Sentences imposed by juries were significantly related to defendant ethnicity and type of crime for which they were tried. Sentences were also influenced by defendant ethnicity in interaction with jury ethnic composition. Important differences appeared when there was a critical mass of 6 or more Hispanics on juries. This study, using criminal court data, provides a unique opportunity to examine the utility of social psychological theories for understanding actual trial outcomes.     

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.     

Guidelines are not enough: The need for written sentencing opinions

Guideline sentencing systems, including the new federal guidelines, have not settled on a clear conception of when and how a trial judge should explain sentences. Indeterminate sentencing systems did not have a tradition of written sentencing decisions and recent sentencing reforms do not focus on the trial judge's role. This article suggests the many advantages of written sentencing opinions. Initial experience under the federal sentencing guidelines bolsters the conclusion that written sentencing opinions in appropriate cases—including both sentences “within” guidelines and guideline “departures”—are the next step in the evolving law of sentencing and the best way to recognize trial judges as an essential engine of principled change.     

Sex,Sexual Orientation,and Sexism: What Influence Do These Factors Have on Verdicts in a Crime-of-Passion Case?

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the influence of defendant sex, sexual orientation, and participant sex on perceptions of a crime-of-passion. An online sample of 458 individuals read a scenario describing a homicide and provided judgments of verdict, sentence length, legal elements, and sexism. We hypothesized heterosexual female defendants would most likely receive a verdict of manslaughter, be found less guilty, and receive shorter sentences. We were also interested in whether benevolent sexism would contribute to defendant culpability decisions. Lastly, perceptions of legal elements for manslaughter (e.g., great provocation) and murder (e.g., intentionality of actions) were explored. Results demonstrated heterosexual female defendants were less guilty and received the shortest sentences. Also, heterosexual defendants were most likely to meet the manslaughter legal elements. Benevolent sexism contributed significantly to guilt perceptions.