On finding for defendants who plead insanity: The crucial impact of dispositional instructions and opportunity to deliberate

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 167-183

  Wheatman, Shannon R ^a   Shaffer, David R ^a  

^a University of Georgia ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; UNITED STATES; VIDEORECORDING;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; HOMICIDE; HUMANS; INSANITY DEFENSE; JUDGMENT; MALE; UNITED STATES; VIDEOTAPE RECORDING;

EID: 0035321798     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1005645414992     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Anderson, L. R. & Ager, J. W. (1978). Analysis of variance in small group research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 341-345.
2. Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mediator-moderator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3. Callahan, L. A., Steadman, H. S., McGreevy, M. A., & Robbins, P. C. (1991). The volume and characteristics of insanity defense pleas: An eight-state study. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 19(4), 331-338.
4. Cohen, M. I., Spodak, M. K., Silver, S., & Williams, G. (1988). Predicting outcome of insanity acquittees released to the community. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6(4), 515-530.
5. Cutler, B. L., Moran, G. P., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165-182.
6. Georgia Annotated Code, § 17-7-131.
7. Izzett, R. & Leginski, W. (1974). Group discussion and the influence of defendant characteristics in a simulated jury setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 93, 271-279.
8. Johnson, B. T. & Eagly, A. H., (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106(6), 290-314.
9. Kerwin, J. & Shaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberation in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153-162.
10. Lungren, S. R. & Prislin, R. (1998). Motivated cognitive processing and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(7), 715-726.
11. Lyles v. United States, 254 F.2d 725 (1957).
12. Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts. New York: Guilford Press.
13. Ogloff, J. R., Roberts, C. F., & Roesch, R. (1993). The insanity defense: Legal standards and clinical assessment. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 2, 163-178.
14. Pope v. United States, 298 F.2d 507 (1962).
15. Shaffer, D. R. & Wheatman, S. R. (in press). Does personality influence reactions to judicial instructions?: Some preliminary findings and possible implications. Psychology, Public Policy and Law.
16. Shannon v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 2419 (1994).
17. Silver, E., Cirincione, C., & Steadman, H. J. (1994). Demythologizing inaccurate perceptions of the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 18(1), 63-70.
18. Steadman, H. J. & Braff, J. (1983). Defendants not guilty by reason of insanity. In J. Monahan & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Mentally disordered offenders: Perspectives from law and social science. New York: Plenum Press.
19. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 74-83.
20. United States v. Hinckley, 525 F. Supp. 1342 (D.D.C 1981).
21. United States v. Neavill, 868, F.2d 1000 (1989).
22. United States v. Portis, 542 F.2d 414 (1976).
23. United States v. Thigpen, 4 F.3d 1573 (1993).
24. Wheatman, S. R. (1993). Effects of inadmissible evidence and judicial admonishment in individual versus group decisions in a mock jury simulation. Unpublished honors thesis, Millersville University of Pennsylvania.
25. Whittemore, K. E. & Ogloff, J. R. (1995). Factors that influence jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 283-303.