Relations among mock jurors' attitudes, trial evidence, and their selections of an insanity defense verdict: A path analytic approach

Psychological Reports

Volumn 82, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 3-16

  Poulson, Ronald L ^a   Brown, Henry ^b   Brondino, Michael J ^b   Braithwaite, Ronald L ^b  

^a EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; PUNISHMENT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ATTITUDE; CAPITAL PUNISHMENT; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; INSANITY DEFENSE; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 0031992236     PISSN: 00332941     EISSN: 1558691X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1998.82.1.3     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. BERNSTEIN, I. H., & TENG, G. (1989) Factoring Items and factoring scales are different: spurious evidence for multidimensionality due to item categorization. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 467-477.
2. BOLLEN, K. A. (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
3. BOLLEN, K. A., & BARB, K. (1981) Pearson's r and coarsely categorized data. American Sociological Review, 46, 232-239.
4. ELLSWORTH, P. C., BUKATY, R. M., COWAN, C. L., & THOMPSON, W. C. (1984) The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 81-93.
5. FINKEL, N. J., & HANDEL, S. F. (1989) How jurors construe "insanity." Law and Human Behavior, 13, 41-59.
6. JAMES, R. M. (1960) Jurors' evaluation of psychiatric testimony. Ohio State Law Journal, 21, 75-95.
7. JÖRESKOG, K. G., & SÖRBOM, D. (1996) LISREL 8: user's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
8. JÖRESKOG, K. G., & SÖRBOM, D. (1996) PRELIS 2: user's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
9. OLSSON, U. (1979) On the robustness of factor analysis against crude classification of the observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 485-500.
10. PEDHAZUR, E. J. (1982) Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
11. PERLIN, M. L. (1996) Myths, realities, and the political world: the anthropology of insanity defense attitudes. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 24, 5-23.
12. POULSON, R. L. (1988) The effects of legal and extralegal factors on juror attribution of criminal responsibility: an empirical analysis. (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern Univer., 1988) Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 5065B.
13. POULSON, R. L. (1990) Mock juror attribution of criminal responsibility: effects of race and the guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict option. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1596-1611.
14. POULSON, R. L., BRAITHWAITE, R. L., BRONDINO, M. J., & WUENSCH, K. L. (in press) Mock juror insanity defense verdict selections: the role of evidence, attitudes, and verdict options. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.
15. ROBERTS, C. F., & GOLDING, S. L. (1991) The social construction of criminal responsibility: decision making and the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 349-376.
16. ROBERTS, C. F., GOLDING, S. L., & FINCHAM, F. D. (1987) Implicit theories of criminal responsibility: decision making and the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 207-232.
17. ROBERTS, C. F., SARGENT, E. L., & CHAN, A. S. (1993) Verdict selection processes in insanity cases: juror construals and the effects of guilty but mentally ill instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 261-275.
18. THOMPSON, W. C., COWAN, C. L., ELLSWORTH, P. C., & HARRINGTON, J. C. (1984) Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 95-113.
19. UPDIKE, C. E., & SHAW, G. A. (1995) Differences in attitudes toward the temporary insanity defense and the insanity defense. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 13, 59-67.
20. WRIGHT, S. (1921) Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557-585.