Five factor model personality traits, jury selection, and case outcomes in criminal and civil cases

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 641-660

  Clark, John ^a   Boccaccini, Marcus T ^b   Caillouet, Beth ^b   Chaplin, William F ^c  

^a TROY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ST JOHN'S UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Big Five; Extraversion; Five Factor Model; Jury selection; Personality

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247401069     PISSN: 00938548     EISSN: 15523594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093854806297555     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79(1986).
2. Benet-Martinez, V., John, O.P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729-750.
3. Bornstein, B.H. (2004). The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors' liability decisions. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 10, 424-446.
4. Butler, J.C. (2000). Personality and emotional correlates of right-wing authoritarianism. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 1-14.
5. 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.
6. Cockroft, R.D. (1996). Personality and authoritarian moral systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas AM University.
7. Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional manual Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
8. Costa, P.T., Jr., Widiger, T.A. (2002). Introduction: Personality disorders and the Five-Factor Model of personality. In P. T. Costa, Jr. T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the Five-Factor Model of personality (2 nd ed., p. 6). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
9. Cutler, B.L., Moran, G., Narby, D.J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165-182.
10. Devine, D.J., Clayton, L.D., Dunford, B.B., Seying, R., Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 622-727.
11. Fulero, S.M., Penrod, S.D. (1990). Attorney jury selection folklore: What do they think and how can psychologists help ? Forensic Reports, 3, 235-259.
12. Funder, D.C. (2004). The personality puzzle (3 rd ed.). New York: Norton.
13. Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992).
14. Gerbasi, K.C., Zuckerman, M., Reis, H.T. (1977). Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 323-345.
15. Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
16. Graziano, S.J., Panter, A.T., Tanaka, J.S. (1990). Individual differences in information processing strategies and their role in juror decision making and selection. Forensic Reports, 3, 279-301.
17. Greene, E., Chopra, S.R., Kovera, M.B., Penrod, S.D., Rose, V.G., Schuller, R., et al. (2002). Jurors and juries: A review of the field. In J.R.P. Ogloff (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century (pp. 225-284). New York: Kluwer Press.
18. Heaven, P.C., Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European Journal of Personality, 15, 49-56.
19. John, O.P., Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2 nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
20. Johnson, C., Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire: An exploratory study of its content and effect. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 487-506.
21. Kerr, N.L., Kramer, G.P., Caroll, J.S., Alfini, J.J. (1991). On the effectiveness of voire dire in criminal cases with prejudicial pretrial publicity: An empirical study. American University Law Review, 40, 665-701.
22. Lecci, L., Myers, B. (2002). Examining the construct validity of the original and revised JBS: A cross-validation of sample and method. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 455-463.
23. Leippe, M.R., Eisenstadt, D., Rauch, S.M., Seib, H.M. (2004). Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 524-541.
24. Levett, L.M., Danielsen, E.M., Bull Kovera, M., Cutler, B.L. (2005). The psychology of jury and juror decision making. In N. Brewer K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 365-406). New York: Guilford Press.
25. Marcus, D.K., Lyons, P.M., Jr., Guyton, M.R. (2000). Studying perceptions of juror influence in vivo: A social relations analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 24 (2). 173-186.
26. 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.
27. Mueller, D.J. (1986). Measuring social attitudes: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. New York: Teachers College Press.
28. 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.
29. Nietzel, M.T., McCarthy, D.M., Kern, M.J. (1999). Juries: The current state of the empirical literature. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, J.R.P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 23-52). New York: Kluwer Press.
30. Nussbaum, E.M., Bendixen, L.D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573-595.
31. Olczak, P.V., Kaplan, M.F., Penrod, S. (1991). Attorneys' lay psychology and its effectiveness in selecting jurors: Three empirical studies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 431-452.
32. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
33. Phraes, E., Wilson, K. (1972). Responsibility attribution: Role of outcome severity, situational ambiguity, and internal-external control. Journal of Personality, 40, 392-406.
34. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y.F., Congdon, R. (2001). HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
35. Robbennolt, J.K., Groscup, J.L., Penrod, S. (2006). Evaluating and assisting jury competence in civil cases. In I. B. Weiner A. K. Hess (Eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology (3 rd ed., pp. 392-425). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
36. Rose, M.R. (1999). The peremptory challenge accused of race and gender discrimination? Some data from one county. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 695-702.
37. Rotenberg, K.J., Hewlett, M.G., Siegwart, C.M. (1998). Principled moral reasoning and self monitoring as predictors of jury functioning. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 173.
38. Sadowski, C.J., Cogburn, H.E. (1997). Need for cognition in the Big-Five Factor structure. The Journal of Psychology, 131, 307-312.
39. Sealy, A.P. (1981). Another look at social psychological aspects of juror bias. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 187-200.
40. Shestowsky, D., Horowitz, L.M. (2004). How the need for cognition scale predicts behavior in mock jury deliberations. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 305-337.
41. Shestowsky, D., Wegener, D.T., Fabrigar, L.R. (1998). Need for cognition and interpersonal influence: Individual differences in impact on dyadic decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1317-1328.
42. Sosis, R. (1974). Internal-external control and the perception of responsibility of another for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 393-399.
43. Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5 th ed.). Boston: Allyn Bacon.
44. Tuten, T.L., Bosnjak, M. (2001). Understanding differences in web usage: The role of need for cognition and the Five Factor Model of personality. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 391-398.
45. Wigley, C.J. (1999). Verbal aggressiveness and communicator style characteristics of summoned jurors as predictors of actual jury selection. Communication Monographs, 66, 266-275.