Validity beliefs and ideology can influence legal case judgments differently

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 507-526

  Giner Sorolla, Roger ^a   Chaiken, Shelly ^b   Lutz, Stacey ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Ideology; Juror bias; Juror decision making; Time pressure

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COGNITION; COURT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IDEOLOGY; LAW SUIT; LEGAL ASPECT; RECALL; SEX ROLE; SEXISM; TIME; CIVIL RIGHTS; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; FEMINISM; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE; CIVIL RIGHTS; CULTURE; FEMALE; FEMINISM; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEW YORK CITY; PREJUDICE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0036779628     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1020251921659     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper Collins.
2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of behavioral research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
3. Bagby, R. M., & Rector, N. A. (1992). Prejudice in a simulated legal context: A further application of social identity theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 397-406.
4. Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5-19.
5. Boehm, V. (1968). Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring techniques to the problems of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 734-750.
6. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
7. Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. (1987). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. In L. S. Wrightsman, S. M. Kassin, & C. E. Willis (Eds.), In the jury box: Controversies in the courtroom (pp. 83-94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
9. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic processing. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking motivation and cognition to behavior (pp. 553-578). New York: Guilford Press.
11. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.
12. Chaiken, S., & Lutz, S. (1993. October). Time pressure and social judgment. Paper presented at the Society of Experimental Social Psychology meeting, Santa Barbara, CA.
13. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
14. Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575-630.
15. Chapman, L. I. & Chapman, J. P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 14, 271-280.
16. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press.
17. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-393.
19. Cutler, B. L., Moran, G., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165-182.
20. Dijksterhuis, A., van Knippenberg, A., & Vermuelen, D. (1999). Judgement and memory of a criminal act: The effects of stereotypes and cognitive load. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 191-201.
21. Dovidio, J. F., Smith, J. K., Donnella, A. G., & Gaertner, S. L. (1997). Racial attitudes and the death penalty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1468-1487.
22. Duncan, S. L. (1976). Differential group perception and attribution of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping of blacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 590-598.
23. Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can't not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 221-233.
24. Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1994). The causes of hostile media effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 165-180.
25. Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1997). Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 84-97.
26. Goodman v. London Metals Exchange, Inc., 86 N. J. 19 (1981).
27. Goodman-Delahunty, J., Greene, E., & Hsiao, W. (1998). Construing motive in videotaped killings: The role of jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 257-271.
28. Gordon, R. A. (1993). The effect of strong versus weak evidence on the assessment of race stereotypic and race nonstereotypic crimes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 734-749.
29. Gordon, R. A., & Anderson, K. S. (1995). Perceptions of race-Stereotypic and race-nonstereotypic crimes: The impact of response-time instructions on attributions and judgments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 455-470.
30. Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1982). Jury selection. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 39-82). New York: Academic Press.
31. Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 401-413.
32. Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 38. pp. 369-425).
33. Horowitz. I. A., ForsterLee, L., & Brolly, I. (1996). Effects of trial complexity on decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 757-768.
34. Howard, W. G. & Redfering, D. (1985). The dynamics of jury decision-making: A case study. Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 83-89.
35. Jones, M. (1997). Preventing the application of stereotypic biases in the courtroom: The role of detailed testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 27, 1767-1784.
36. Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443-1455.
37. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423-442.
38. Kerr, N. L., Hymes, R. W., Anderson, A. W., & Weathers, J. E. (1995). Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 545-567.
39. Kressel, N. J. (1987). Biased judgments of media bias: A case study of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Political Psychology, 8, 211-227.
40. Kruglanski, A. W. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2. pp. 333-368). New York: Guilford Press.
41. Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 669-679.
42. Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1231-1243.
43. Lord. C, G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
44. Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
45. Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The "black sheep effect": Extremity of judgments toward ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1-16.
46. Martin, L. L. (1986). Set/reset: Use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 493-504.
47. 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.
48. Moran, G., & Comfort, J. C. (1986). Neither "tentative" nor "fragmentary": Verdict preference of impaneled felony jurors as a function of attitude toward capital punishment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 146-155.
49. Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & De Lisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law and Psychology Review, 18, 309-328.
50. Myers, B., & Lecci, L. (1998). Revising the factor structure of the Juror Bias Scale: A method for the empirical validation of theoretical constructs. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 239-256.
51. Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34-42.
52. Pfeifer, J. E., & Ogloff, J. R. (1991). Ambiguity and guilt determinations: A modern racism perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1713-1725.
53. Poulson, R. L., Brondino, M. J., Brown, H., & Braithwaite, R. L. (1998). Relations among mock jurors' attitudes, trial evidence, and their selections of an insanity defense verdict: A path analytic approach. Psychological Reports, 82, 3-16.
54. Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 52-62.
55. Saks, M. J. (1976, January). Social scientists can't rig juries. Psychology Today, 48-57.
56. Schul, Y., & Manzury, F. (1990). The effects of type of encoding and strength of discounting appeal on the success fo ignoring an invalid testimony. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 337-349.
57. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530.
58. 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.
59. Strack, F., Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Kubler, A., & Wanke, M. (1993). Awareness of the influence as a determinant of assimilation and contrast. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 53-62.
60. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
61. Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.
62. 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.
63. Wegener, D. T. Petty, R. E., & Dunn, M. (1998). The metacognition of bias correction: Naive theories of bias and the flexible correction model. In V. Y. Yzerbyt & G. Lories (Eds.), Metacognition: Cognitive and social dimensions (pp. 202-227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64. Weir, J. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1990). The determinants of mock jurors' verdicts in a rape case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 901-919.
65. Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgment and evaluations. Psychological Review, 116, 117-142.