How processing resources shape the influence of stealing thunder on mock-juror verdicts

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 60-66

  Howard, Mark V A ^a   Brewer, Neil ^b   Williams, Kipling D ^c  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GUILT; HUMAN; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LAWYER; LEGAL EVIDENCE; LEGAL PROCEDURE; MACHIAVELLIANISM; MALE; MOTIVATION; PSYCHOLOGY; THEFT;

EID: 33746337897     PISSN: 13218719     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1375/pplt.13.1.60     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Axsom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30-40.
2. Bergman, P. (1979). Trial advocacy in a nutshell. St Paul, MN: West.
3. Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J.W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
4. Cacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
5. 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.
6. Chaiken, S., & Mahaswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
7. Cooper, J., Bennett, E.A., & Sukel, H.L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
8. Dolnik, L., Case, T.I., & Williams, K.D. (2003). Stealing thunder as a courtroom tactic revisited: Processes and boundaries. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 267-287.
9. Doob, A.N., & Kirshenbaum, H.M. (1972). Some empirical evidence on the effect of s. 12 of the Canada Evidence Act upon the accused. Criminal Law Quarterly, 15, 88-96.
10. Eagly, A. H. (1974). Comprehensibility of persuasive arguments as a determinant of opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 758-773.
11. Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424-435.
12. Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 67-78.
13. Hass, R.G. (1981). Effects of source characteristics on the cognitive processing of persuasive messages and attitude change. In R. Petty, T. Ostrom, & T. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 141-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Hovland, C.I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
15. Hurwitz, S.D., Miron, M.S., & Johnson, B.T. (1992). Source credibility and the language of expert testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1909-1939.
16. Klonoff, R.H., & Colby, P.L. (1990). Sponsorship strategy: Evidentiary tactics for winning jury trials. Charlottesville, VA: Michie Press.
17. Lingle, J.H., & Ostrom, T.M. (1979). Retrieval selectivity in memory-based impression judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 180-194.
18. Mahaswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low motivation settings: Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
19. Mauet, T.A. (1992). Fundamentals of trial techniques (3rd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.
20. McElhaney, J.W. (1987). Stealing their thunder. Litigation, 13, 59-60, 68.
21. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
22. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer/Verlag.
23. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 134-148.
24. Petty, R.E., & Wegener, D.T. (1993). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Correcting for context-induced contrast. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 137-165.
25. Petty, R.E., Wells, G.L., & Brock, T.C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884.
26. 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.
27. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
28. Williams, K.D., Bourgeois, M.J. & Croyle, R.T. (1993). The effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil trials. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 597-609.
29. Williams, K.D., & Dolnik, L. (2001). Revealing the worst first: Stealing thunder as a social influence strategy. In J.P. Forgas & K.D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 213-231). Philadelphia: The Psychology Press.
30. Williams, K.D., & Jones, A. (2005). Trial strategy and tactics. In N. Brewer & K.D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 276-321). New York: Guilford.
31. Wood, W., & Eagly, A.M. (1981). Stages in analysis of persuasive messages: The role of causal attributions and message comprehension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 246-259.
32. Wood, W., & Kallgren, C. (1988). Communicator attributes and persuasion: Recipients' access to attitude relevant information in memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 172-182.