On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: Selective compliance, need for cognition, and the overcorrection bias

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Volumn 27, Issue 10, 2001, Pages 1368-1377

  Sommers, Samuel R ^a   Kassin, Saul M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b WILLIAMS COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035539152     PISSN: 01461672     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/01461672012710012     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037-1049.
2. Broeder, D. (1959). The University of Chicago Jury Project. Nebraska Law Review, 38, 744-760.
3. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
4. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W.B.G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
6. Carretta, T. R., & Moreland, R. L. (1983). The direct and indirect effects of inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 291-309.
7. DeSteno, D., Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Rucker, D. D. (2000). Beyond valence in the perception of likelihood: The role of emotion specificity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 397-416.
8. Dexter, H. R., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1992). A test of voir dire as a remedy for the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 819-832.
9. Dunne, D. (1995). The "N" word: Not guilty. Vanity Fair, pp. 134-148.
10. Edwards, K., & Bryan, T. S. (1997). Judgmental biases produced by instructions to disregard: The (paradoxical) case of emotional information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 849-864.
11. Elliot, R., Farrington, B., & Manheimer, H. (1988). Eyewitnesses credible and discredible. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1411-1422.
12. Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215-1226.
13. Fein, S., Morgan, S. J., Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Hype and suspicion: The effects of pretrial publicity, race, and suspicion on jurors' verdicts. Journal of Social Issues, 53, 487-502.
14. Fleming, M. A., Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1999). Procedural and legal motivations to correct for perceived judicial biases. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 186-203.
15. Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 67-78.
16. Haney, C. (1984). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death qualification process. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 121-132.
17. Horowitz, I. A., & Willging, T. E. (1991). Changing views of jury power: The nullification debate, 1787-1988. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 165-182.
18. Johnson, H. M. (1994). Processes of successful intentional forgetting. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 274-292.
19. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420-1436.
20. Kagehiro, D. K. (1990). Defining the standards of proof in jury instructions. Psychological Science, 1, 194-200.
21. Kassin, S. M., Reddy, M. E., & Tulloch, W. F. (1990). Juror interpretations of ambiguous evidence: The need for cognition, presentation order, and persuasion. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 43-52.
22. Kassin, S. M., & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1046-1054.
23. Kassin, S. M., & Studebaker, C. A. (1998). Instructions to disregard and the jury: Curative and paradoxical effects. In J. M. Golding & C. M. MacLeod (Eds.), Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Kassin, S. M., Williams, L. N., & Saunders, C. L. (1990). Dirty tricks of the cross-examination: The influence of conjectural evidence on the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 373-384.
25. Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153-162.
26. Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438.
27. Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., & Crelia, R. A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27-37.
28. Pickel, K. L. (1995). Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 407-424.
29. Schul, Y., & Burnstein, E. (1985). When discounting fails: Conditions under which individuals use discredited information in making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 894-903.
30. Schul, Y., & Manzury, F. (1990). The effects of type of encoding and strength of discounting appeal on the success of ignoring invalid testimony. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 337-349.
31. Schuller, R. A. (1995). Expert evidence and hearsay: The influence of "secondhand" information on jurors' decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 345-362.
32. Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1367-1379.
33. Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law, and common sense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 428-460.
34. Sue, S., Smith, S. E., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 345-353.
35. Wegener, D. T., Kerr, N. L., Fleming, M. A., & Petty, R. E. (2000). Flexible corrections of juror judgments: Implications for jury instructions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 629-654.
36. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36-51.
37. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29). New York: Academic Press.
38. Weinberg, H. I., & Baron, R. S. (1982). The discredible eyewitness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 60-67.
39. Wissler, R. L., & Saks, M. J. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 37-48.
40. Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205-219.