Head over the heart or heart over the head? Cognitive experiential self-theory and extralegal heuristics in juror decision making

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 32, Issue 12, 2002, Pages 2526-2553

  Lieberman, Joel D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036914482     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02755.x     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Belli, M. (1982). Modern trials. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
2. Berry, D. S., & Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. (1988). What's in a face? Facial maturity and the attribution of legal responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 23-33.
3. Beskind, D. H., Bocchino, A. J., Ordover, A. P., & Seckinger, J. H. (1988). Problems and cases in trial advocacy. Notre Dame, IN: The National Institute for Trial Advocacy.
4. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
5. Branson, E. R. (1960). The law of instructions to juries in civil and criminal cases. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill.
6. Castellow, W. A., Wuensch, K. L., & Moore, C. H. (1990). Effects of physical attractiveness of the plaintiff and defendant in sexual harassment judgments. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 547-562.
7. 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.
8. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford.
9. Dane, F. C., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1982). Effects of defendants' and victims' characteristics on jurors' verdicts. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 83-118). New York, NY: Academic Press.
10. Darrow, C. (1936). Attorney for the defense. Esquire, 5, 36.
11. Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819-829.
12. Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
13. Donovan, S., & Epstein, S. (1997). The difficulty of the Linda conjunction problem can be attributed to its simultaneous concrete and unnatural representation, and not to conversational implicature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 1-20.
14. Eades, R. W. (1993). Jury instructions on damages in tort actions (3rd ed.). Charlottesville, VA: Mitchie.
15. 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.
16. Efran, M. G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 45-54.
17. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
18. Epstein, S., Denes-Raj, V., & Pacini, R. (1995). The Linda problem revisited from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1124-1138.
19. Epstein, S., Lipson, A., Holstein, C., & Huh, E. (1992). Irrational reactions to negative outcomes: Evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 328-339.
20. Epstein, S., & Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 462-483). New York, NY: Guilford.
21. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive relative to analytical processing of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390-405.
22. Hoffman, E. (1981). Social correlates of perceived offender typicality. Psychological Reports, 49, 347-400.
23. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201-208). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
24. Kassin, S. M., & Garfield, D. A. (1991). Blood and guts: General and trial-specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1459-1472.
25. Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
26. Kirkpatrick, L., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 534-544.
27. Kulka, R. A., & Kessler, J. B. (1978). Is justice really blind? The influence of litigant physical attractiveness on juridical judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 366-381.
28. Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438.
29. Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (1997). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 1-56.
30. Lieberman, J. D., & Greenberg, J. (2001). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and displaced aggression. Manuscript submitted for publication, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
31. Lieberman, J. D., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). A hot new measure of aggression: Hot sauce allocation. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 331-348.
32. Mauet, T. (1992). Fundamentals of trial techniques. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
33. Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analyses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315-1344.
34. McGlynn, R. P., Megas, J. C., & Benson, D. H. (1976). Sex and race as factors affecting the attribution of insanity at a murder trial. The Journal of Psychology, 93, 93-99.
35. Morling, B., & Epstein, S. M. (1997). Compromises produced by the dialectic between self-verification and self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1268-1283.
36. Pacini, R., Muir, F., & Epstein, S. (1998). Depressive realism from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1056-1088.
37. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York, NY: Academic Press.
38. Rokeach, M., & Vidmar, N. (1973). Testimony concerning possible jury bias in a Black Panther murder trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 19-29.
39. Sannito, T., & McGovern, P. J. (1993). Courtroom psychology for trial lawyers: 1993 cumulative supplement. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
40. Sherman, S. J., Beike, D. R., & Ryalls, K. R. (1999). Dual-processing accounts of the inconsistencies in responses to general versus specific cases. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 203-227). New York, NY: Guilford.
41. Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N. (1975). Beautiful but not dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 410-414.
42. Simon, R. J. (1980). The jury: Its role in American society. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co.
43. Simon, L., Greenberg, J., Harmon-Jones, E., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., & Abend, T. (1997). Terror management and cognitive experiential self-theory: Evidence that terror management occurs in the experiential system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1132-1146.
44. Stephan, C., & Tully, J. C. (1977). The influence of physical attractiveness of a plaintiff on the decisions of simulated jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 149-150.
45. Stewart, J. E. (1980). Defendant's attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal trials: An observational study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 348-361.
46. Stewart, J. E. (1985). Appearance and punishment: The attraction-leniency effect in the courtroom. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 373-378.
47. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
48. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgments of and by representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 84-100). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49. Ugwuegbu, D. C. E. (1979). Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 133-146.
50. United States Courts of Appeals (9th Circuit), Committee on Model Jury Instructions. (1993). Manual for model civil jury instructions. St. Paul, MN: West.
51. Vinson, D. E. (1993). Jury persuasion: Psychological strategies and trial techniques. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Law & Business.
52. Whalen, D. H., & Blanchard, F. A. (1982). Effects of photographic evidence on mock juror judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 30-41.
53. Wuensch, K. L., Castellow, W. A., & Moore, C. H. (1991). Effects of defendant attractiveness and type of crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 713-724.