Guilty or innocent? Women's Reliance on inadmissible evidence in a simulated rape case

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 717-739

  Isbell, Linda M ^a   Tyler, James M ^a   DeLorenzo, Allyson ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947615075     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: 15591816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00182.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
2. Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372-386.
3. Carretta, T. R., & Moreland, R. L. (1983). The direct and indirect effects of inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 291-309.
4. Davis, J. H., Holt, R. W., Spitzer, C. E., & Stasser, G. (1981). The effects of consensus requirements and multiple decisions on mock juror verdict preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 1-15.
5. Dunn v. the United States, 307 F.2d 883, 886 (5th Cir. 1962).
6. 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.
7. Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163-189.
8. 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.
9. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Scuito, 623 F.2d 869, 875 (3d Cir. 1980).
10. Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 67-78.
11. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409-430.
13. Johnson, H. M. (1994). Processes of successful intentional forgetting. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 274-292.
14. 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.
15. Kassin, S. M., & Studebaker, C. A. (1998). Instructions to disregard and the jury: Curative and paradoxical effects. In Golding J. M., MacLeod C. M., & Colin M. (Eds.), Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 413-434). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877-1887.
17. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
18. Lyons, A. W., & Regina, J. (1986). Mock jurors' behavior as a function of sex and exposure to an educational videotape about jury duty. Psychological Reports, 58, 599-604.
19. McNamara, K., Vattano, F., & Viney, W. (1993). Verdict, sentencing, and certainty as a function of sex of juror and amount of evidence in a simulated rape trial. Psychological Reports, 72, 575-583.
20. Pickel, K. L. (1995). Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 407-424.
21. Pugh, M. D. (1983). Contributory fault and rape convictions: Loglinear models for blaming the victim. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 233-242.
22. 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.
23. Schutte, J. W., & Hosch, H. M. (1997). Gender differences in sexual assault verdicts: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 759-773.
24. Scroggs, J. R. (1976). Penalties for rape as a function of victim provocativeness, damage, and resistance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6, 360-368.
25. Smith, V. L. (1991). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors' information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 220-228.
26. Sommers, S. R., & Kassin, S. M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: Selective compliance, need for cognition, and the over-correction bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1368-1377.
27. Sue, S., Smith, R. 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.
28. Wegner, D. M., & Erber, R. (1992). The hyperaccessibility of suppressed thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 903-912.
29. Wenzlaff, R. M., & Wegner, D. M. (2000). Thought suppression. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 59-91.
30. Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205-219.