Abstract This research investigated the extent to which taking notes influenced the quality of mock jurors’ decisions. High quality decisions were defined in this research as those which did not reflect the influence of the offender stereotype. The impact of note taking on the quality of jurors’ decisions is central to the judicial community’s concerns about note taking as a jury aid and their willingness to offer it in trial contexts. Previous research has argued that note takers make better quality decisions than non-note takers because note takers recall more trial content and make judgements that better reflect the evidence presented. However, according to dual process models of persuasion, high quality decisions should show evidence of both effortful processing of information and no influence of peripheral cues, such as stereotypes. To date, the existing literature has neglected to consider the extent to which note takers, as compared to non-note takers, are influenced by peripheral cues. The current research sought to address this by investigating the extent to which note taking and non-note taking mock jurors were influenced by stereotypes when making decisions in a mock criminal trial. In particular, note taking and non-note taking mock jurors were presented with a criminal trial in which either a male or female defendant had been charged with a stereotypically masculine crime (e.g., aggravated robbery or murder). The extent to which mock jurors were more likely to convict the male defendant and acquit the female defendant was used as a marker of the extent that stereotypes about offenders influenced participants in these studies. Across studies, note takers’ perceptions of guilt, evaluation of the defendant, and, in some instances, recall of trial content, reflected stereotype-based processing while the corresponding measures for non-note takers did not. This research then went on to investigate why note takers were more vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes than non-note takers. It was proposed that one reason might be the requirement that note takers simultaneously record and evaluate trial content. Previous research has shown that persons engaged in dual tasks rely on stereotypes to increase information processing efficiency and are therefore able to re-direct cognitive resources to the additional task. Consistent with previous studies, the current research found that both note takers and mock jurors engaged in an additional task during the trial were more vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes than non-note takers. Furthermore, whilst investigating interventions designed to reduce the influence of stereotypes on note takers’ decisions, results revealed that such interventions were less successful in improving decision quality than interventions that removed the requirement to engage in dual tasks. In particular, the influence of stereotypes was reduced when note takers were encouraged to elaborate on the content of their notes during designated review periods. Whilst methodological features of this research program--namely a reliance on student samples and the relative brevity of mock trials used--may have led to an underestimation of the reliance on stereotypes for note takers, the research has implications for the instructions given to jurors about note taking in judicial contexts. Specifically, the central conclusion of the thesis is that it would seem prudent to amend instructions to direct note takers to engage in the effortful review of their notes prior to coming together to reach a verdict.

Abstract This research investigated the extent to which taking notes influenced the quality of mock jurors’ decisions. High quality decisions were defined in this research as those which did not reflect the influence of the offender stereotype. The impact of note taking on the quality of jurors’ decisions is central to the judicial community’s concerns about note taking as a jury aid and their willingness to offer it in trial contexts. Previous research has argued that note takers make better quality decisions than non-note takers because note takers recall more trial content and make judgements that better reflect the evidence presented. However, according to dual process models of persuasion, high quality decisions should show evidence of both effortful processing of information and no influence of peripheral cues, such as stereotypes. To date, the existing literature has neglected to consider the extent to which note takers, as compared to non-note takers, are influenced by peripheral cues. The current research sought to address this by investigating the extent to which note taking and non-note taking mock jurors were influenced by stereotypes when making decisions in a mock criminal trial. In particular, note taking and non-note taking mock jurors were presented with a criminal trial in which either a male or female defendant had been charged with a stereotypically masculine crime (e.g., aggravated robbery or murder). The extent to which mock jurors were more likely to convict the male defendant and acquit the female defendant was used as a marker of the extent that stereotypes about offenders influenced participants in these studies. Across studies, note takers’ perceptions of guilt, evaluation of the defendant, and, in some instances, recall of trial content, reflected stereotype-based processing while the corresponding measures for non-note takers did not. This research then went on to investigate why note takers were more vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes than non-note takers. It was proposed that one reason might be the requirement that note takers simultaneously record and evaluate trial content. Previous research has shown that persons engaged in dual tasks rely on stereotypes to increase information processing efficiency and are therefore able to re-direct cognitive resources to the additional task. Consistent with previous studies, the current research found that both note takers and mock jurors engaged in an additional task during the trial were more vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes than non-note takers. Furthermore, whilst investigating interventions designed to reduce the influence of stereotypes on note takers’ decisions, results revealed that such interventions were less successful in improving decision quality than interventions that removed the requirement to engage in dual tasks. In particular, the influence of stereotypes was reduced when note takers were encouraged to elaborate on the content of their notes during designated review periods. Whilst methodological features of this research program--namely a reliance on student samples and the relative brevity of mock trials used--may have led to an underestimation of the reliance on stereotypes for note takers, the research has implications for the instructions given to jurors about note taking in judicial contexts. Specifically, the central conclusion of the thesis is that it would seem prudent to amend instructions to direct note takers to engage in the effortful review of their notes prior to coming together to reach a verdict.

abstract: This study investigates the presence of a dual identity defendant, and how sharing an in-group can create a judgment bias. A sample of 256 participants was used to test whether there was a relationship between judgment punitiveness, perceptions of shared identity, hypocrisy and the social identities (religion and sexual orientation) of the participants and a defendant charges with a sexual offence. Results suggest that Christian participants selected more punitive outcomes for the defendant compared to non-Christian participants. Further, participants were more punitive when the defendant was gay compared to when the defendant was heterosexual. Also, when the defendant was straight there was a stronger feeling of similarity between the participants and defendant compared to when the defendant was gay, and non-Christian participants had a stronger feeling of closeness to the defendant compared to Christian participants. There was a significant interaction found, suggesting that when the defendant was Christian and gay he was seen as more hypocritical compared to when he was Christian and straight; there was no interaction when the defendant was not Christian. These findings should aid in future research and a better understanding of how dual identity defendants are perceived in the courtroom. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.S. Psychology 2014

In response to public opposition to the insanity defense, the Guilty But Mentally Ill(GBMI) verdict was enacted with the intention of limiting the number of insanity acquittals and alleviating the public’s concerns. Prior research suggests, however, that many jurors are making verdict decisions with limited knowledge of the dispositional consequences of the GBMI and NGRI verdicts. Further, jurors may erroneously assume that the GBMI verdict is a compromise between a NGRI and guilty verdict, which mitigates punishment. In reality, the dispositional consequences of a GBMI verdict are equivalent to or more restrictive than a guilty verdict. The current study examined the impact of informing jurors of the dispositional consequences of the GBMI and NGRI verdicts. In addition, it explores whether mock jurors’ attitudes toward the insanity defense, individuals with mental illness, and perceptions of the defendant’s dangerousness strengthens or attenuates the impact of informing mock jurors of dispositional consequences. Participants (N = 488) read a case summary of an apparently mentally ill male defendant charged with first-degree murder. Half of the participants were informed of the dispositional consequences of GBMI and NGRI verdicts, while the other half of participants received no such information. Then, they were asked to choose individual verdicts and complete a questionnaire that assessed attitudes toward the insanity defense, attitudes toward individuals with mental illness, and perceptions of the defendant’s dangerousness. Results indicate that informing participants of dispositional consequences of the GBMI and NGRI verdicts increases the likelihood that the NGRI verdict is selected over the GBMI verdict. In addition, participants who had more favorable attitudes toward the insanity defense and perceived the defendant as less dangerous selected the NGRI verdict over the GBMI verdict at an even higher rate when they were informed of dispositional consequences. The implications for educating jurors in trials that include the GBMI verdict option are discussed.

This dissertation examines predictors of juror-determined damage awards among 377 juror eligible mock jurors. Citizens reporting for jury duty in a large metropolitan county on five days when the study was conducted were invited to participate. Scenarios were created that varied both case facts and witness emotion during trial testimony. Results indicate that Affect Control Theory can be applied to the situation of juror-determined damage awards and is helpful in scientifically explaining some of the variation of both compensatory and punitive damage awards.

Our jury system is predicated upon the expectation that jurors engage in systematic processing when considering evidence and making decisions. They are instructed to interpret facts and apply the appropriate law in a fair, dispassionate manner, free of all bias, including that of emotion. However, emotions containing an element of certainty (e.g., anger and happiness, which require little cognitive effort in determining their source) can often lead people to engage in superficial, heuristic-based processing. Compare this to uncertain emotions (e.g., hope and fear, which require people to seek out explanations for their emotional arousal), which instead has the potential to lead them to engage in deeper, more systematic processing. The purpose of the current research is in part to confirm past research (Tiedens & Linton, 2001; Semmler & Brewer, 2002) that uncertain emotions (like fear) can influence decision-making towards a more systematic style of processing, whereas more certain emotional states (like anger) will lead to a more heuristic style of processing. Studies One, Two, and Three build upon this prior research with the goal of improving methodological rigor through the use of film clips to reliably induce emotions, with awareness of testimonial details serving as measures of processing style. The ultimate objective of the current research was to explore this effect in Study Four by inducing either fear, anger, or neutral emotion in mock jurors, half of whom then followed along with a trial transcript featuring eight testimonial inconsistencies, while the other participants followed along with an error-free version of the same transcript. Overall rates of detection for these inconsistencies was expected to be higher for the uncertain/fearful participants due to their more effortful processing compared to certain/angry participants. These expectations were not fulfilled, with significant main effects only for the transcript version (with or without inconsistencies) on overall inconsistency detection rates. There are a number of plausible explanations for these results, so further investigation is needed.

abstract: Biases have been studied in many legal contexts, including sexual assault cases. Sexual assault cases are complex because there are many stages that biases can come into play and have lasting effects on the rest of the case proceedings. One aspect that has not been widely explored is how people perceive institutions’ liability in sexual assault cases based on an obligation to create non-discriminating environments for members and employees according to laws like Title VII and Title IX. The current project focused on how and why cognitive biases affect laypeople’s judgment. Specifically, laypeople’s ability to discern the strength of evidence in civil sexual assault cases against institutions. This was addressed in a series of two studies, with samples collected from Prolific Academic (n = 90) and Arizona State University students (n = 188) for Study 1 (N = 278), and Prolific Academic in Study 2 (N = 449). Both studies used Latin-square design methods, with within and between subject elements, looking at how confirmation bias influenced decisions about whether an institution demonstrated negligence, and thus liability, in the way they responded to sexual assault allegations within their institution. Results from these studies suggest that jurors are overall accurately able to differentiate between weak and strong cases. However, consistent with previous literature, jurors may be susceptible to confirmation bias from outside information (e.g., news stories) and negatively influenced by their personal attitudes (e.g., rape myth acceptance). Given the increased attention of the Me Too movement, these results provide an initial insight into how individuals may be judging these types of cases against institutions. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Law and Psychology 2020

abstract: In a trial, jurors are asked to set aside their emotions and make judgments based solely on evidence. Research suggests jurors are not always capable of this, particularly when exposed to gruesome photographic evidence. However, previous research has not looked at the potentially moderating effect of when and for how long jurors are exposed to emotionally disturbing photographs, nor how many photographs they see. In two experiments I tested the impact of the timing of and extent of exposure to gruesome photographs on jurors’ emotions, verdicts, and punishment recommendations. In Study 1, I investigated the effect of timing and exposure duration to a single gruesome photograph of a victim in a murder case (no exposure, brief early exposure, brief late exposure, and prolonged exposure) on mock jurors’ emotions and case judgments. Prolonged exposure (relative to no or brief exposure, regardless of timing) increased disgust, which in turn was associated with harsher punishment. Contrary to previous research, the photograph manipulation did not influence verdicts. The results were mixed and inconclusive regarding brief early versus late exposure. In Study 2, I compared repeatedly viewing a single gruesome photograph to viewing a set of four similar, but unique gruesome photographs—holding the exposure time constant—to assess the impact of quantity of photos on jurors’ emotions and case judgments. Viewing multiple gruesome photos (relative to no photos) led to increase in guilty verdicts through increased disgust, replicating previous research. Viewing a single gruesome photo (relative to no photo) led to increase in guilty verdicts through disgust, differing from Study 1 findings. Viewing multiple gruesome photos and a single gruesome photo led to more disgust, compared to viewing no photo. However, differing from Study 1, gruesome photographs did not lead to an increase in punishment recommendations. There were no significant differences between exposure to a single or multiple gruesome photos on disgust, verdicts, or punishments. Overall, greater exposure to gruesome evidence led to increased disgust and punitiveness, relative to those with less exposure. However, jurors with greater exposure to the same or different photographs did not differ in reported emotions, verdicts, or punitiveness. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Psychology 2020

This study investigated whether a defendant?s history of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) and/or personality disorder (PD) diagnosis affected juror decision-making in a child sexual abuse trial. The personality disorders in the study were borderline personality disorder (BPD) and antisocial personality disorder (APD). Participants were 186 college students who read a summary of the trial and then made various juror decisions. The defendant?s CSA history, alone or combined with PD diagnosis, did not affect guilt ratings or sentence recommendations, indicating that jurors did not automatically assume that a defendant who had been abused as a child was guilty (as an adult) of being an abuser. However, when the defendant had a PD diagnosis, there were higher guilt ratings than when there was no PD diagnosis. PD diagnosis was the best predictor of guilt ratings, suggesting that jurors perceive defendants more negatively if they have borderline or antisocial personality disorder.

No description available.