Research has shown that attractive individuals are viewed more favorably than unattractive counterparts across different types of criminal trials, contributing to the belief that “what is beautiful is good” (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). However, this research has not been replicated in cases involving sexually coercive tactics. In the present experiment, participants read a case file that included one of two (attractive or unattractive) digitally altered photographs of a defendant and one of two vignettes (physical or verbal coercion). They then completed a questionnaire about the case. The results indicated that more women than men found the defendant guilty, and jurors assigned significantly longer sentences to the defendant in the physical tactic condition than in the verbal tactic condition. In contrast to two of the hypotheses, the more attractive defendant was evaluated more harshly than the unattractive defendant and an interaction between attractiveness and tactic was not found. / Department of Psychological Science

Thesis (M.A.)--University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves: [70]-77)

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Delaware, 2009. / Principal faculty advisor: Benjamin D. Fleury-Steiner, Dept. of Sociology & Criminal Justice. Includes bibliographical references.

This thesis describes research about potential jurors' beliefs about children as witnesses. Jurors' knowledge of memory, suggestibility and child sexual abuse was collected and analysed. The aim was to identify strengths or weaknesses in jurors' knowledge to further inform discussion on whether experts should provide evidence to jurors about children's memory, suggestibility and behaviour, in cases which involve child witnesses. This research showed that jurors from both Australia and America had correct beliefs about some characteristics of child witnesses, however they also had incorrect beliefs. The main areas where both Australian and American jurors' beliefs were incorrect was in the suggestibility and interrogation category, and the memory and ability to testify category; however both had some incorrect beliefs with respect to reactions to sexual abuse and disclosure about sexual abuse categories. These findings support the proposition that expert evidence would be beneficial in improving jurors' knowledge of child witnesses, particularly in the areas of children's suggestibility and responses to interrogation. Jurors' assessment of children's testimony is fundamental in some criminal cases, and therefore information obtained in this study has implications for any case where a child witness testifies.

The present study examined jurors' evaluations of retracted confessions as a function of the amount of trivial detail within the confession and level of interrogation pressure. Participants in the experimental conditions read a transcript of a murder trial involving a suspect who confessed in a high-pressure or low-pressure situation and provided either a high or low amount of detail. A no-confession control version, in which the suspect denied all allegations against him, was also included in the study. Although one analysis suggested that a high-amount of detail within the confession might make it more likely that jurors would give higher estimates of guilt, it did not lead jurors to give more guilty verdicts. In contrast to previous findings, the presence of a confession did not make it more likely that a juror would render a guilty verdict or give higher estimates of guilt, as no difference was found between the experimental groups and the control group. / Department of Psychological Science

Within the framework of the Story Model of juror decision making, using an actual personal injury automobile accident case, this thesis investigated the influence of mock jurors??? emotional response to an injured plaintiff on decisions about defendant liability and the plaintiff???s contributory negligence as well as the efficacy of procedural legal safeguards to control any such biases. Study One validated the Story Model of juror decision making in individual decisions, and revealed that mock jurors failed to consider the requisite legal elements in rendering a verdict. Study Two ascertained participants??? affective response to a mock trial in which evidence relevant to liability was held constant and the severity of the plaintiff???s injuries differed. A multiple mediator model revealed that sympathy for the plaintiff and anger toward the defendant mediated the relation between injury severity and determinations of the relative culpability of the parties. Study Three demonstrated that mock jurors exposed to emotionally evocative damages evidence constructed stories about the defendant???s liability and the plaintiff???s contributory negligence that differed from those constructed in response to emotionally neutral evidence. Study Four showed that the process of group deliberation failed to correct the misuse of evidence relevant to damages in liability decisions. However, Study Five demonstrated that judicial admonitions both acknowledging mock jurors??? emotional response to the evidence and explaining why this response was irrelevant to judgments of liability moderated the influence of emotional states on decisions about liability and contributory negligence. Study Six indicated that jury-eligible citizens??? conceptions of negligence law closely matched the normative model of negligence law, and that their mental models of negligence cases that ended successfully for the plaintiff featured more severely injured plaintiffs than those that ended unsuccessfully for the plaintiff. These studies addressed analytical and methodological weaknesses in previous research, resolved conflicting findings on fusion of liability and damages, provided direct empirical support for the central premise of the Story Model of juror decision making, and advanced knowledge on the influence of emotion on decisions in civil legal cases.

Within the framework of the Story Model of juror decision making, using an actual personal injury automobile accident case, this thesis investigated the influence of mock jurors??? emotional response to an injured plaintiff on decisions about defendant liability and the plaintiff???s contributory negligence as well as the efficacy of procedural legal safeguards to control any such biases. Study One validated the Story Model of juror decision making in individual decisions, and revealed that mock jurors failed to consider the requisite legal elements in rendering a verdict. Study Two ascertained participants??? affective response to a mock trial in which evidence relevant to liability was held constant and the severity of the plaintiff???s injuries differed. A multiple mediator model revealed that sympathy for the plaintiff and anger toward the defendant mediated the relation between injury severity and determinations of the relative culpability of the parties. Study Three demonstrated that mock jurors exposed to emotionally evocative damages evidence constructed stories about the defendant???s liability and the plaintiff???s contributory negligence that differed from those constructed in response to emotionally neutral evidence. Study Four showed that the process of group deliberation failed to correct the misuse of evidence relevant to damages in liability decisions. However, Study Five demonstrated that judicial admonitions both acknowledging mock jurors??? emotional response to the evidence and explaining why this response was irrelevant to judgments of liability moderated the influence of emotional states on decisions about liability and contributory negligence. Study Six indicated that jury-eligible citizens??? conceptions of negligence law closely matched the normative model of negligence law, and that their mental models of negligence cases that ended successfully for the plaintiff featured more severely injured plaintiffs than those that ended unsuccessfully for the plaintiff. These studies addressed analytical and methodological weaknesses in previous research, resolved conflicting findings on fusion of liability and damages, provided direct empirical support for the central premise of the Story Model of juror decision making, and advanced knowledge on the influence of emotion on decisions in civil legal cases.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wyoming, 2006. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on Nov. 27, 2007). Includes bibliographical references (p. 33-36).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wyoming, 2007. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on Feb. 6, 2009). Includes bibliographical references (p. 33-38).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of North Carolina Wilmington, 2009. / Title from PDF title page (January 15, 2010) Includes bibliographical references (p. 51-56)