The role of death qualification and need for cognition in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 561-571

  Butler, Brooke ^a   Moran, Gary ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEGAL PROCEDURE; MALE; PUNISHMENT; STANDARDIZATION;

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; FLORIDA; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HOMICIDE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 34548227377     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.758     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bersoff, D. N. (1987). In the Supreme Court of the United States: Lockhart v. McCree. American Psychologist, 42, 59-68.
2. Brekke, N. J., Enko, P. J., Clavet, G., & Seelau, E. (1999). Of juries and court-appointed experts: The impact of nonadversarial testimony versus adversarial expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 451-475.
3. Butler, B. (2007). The role of death qualification in jurors' susceptibility to pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(1), 115-123.
4. Butler, B. (2007). The role of death qualification in capital trials involving juvenile defendants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(3), 115-123.
5. Butler, B., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons' perceptions of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 175-184.
6. Butler, B., & Moran, G. (2007) The impact of death qualification, belief in a just world, legal authoritarianism, and locus of control on venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25(1), 57-68.
7. Butler, B., & Wasserman, A. W. (2006). The role of death qualification in venirepersons' attitudes toward the insanity defense. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(1), 1744-1757.
8. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. P. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 119, 306-307.
9. Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W. C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53-79.
10. Cutler, B. L., Moran, G., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165-182.
11. Diamond, S. S. (1993). Instructing on death: Psychologist, juries, and judges. American Psychologist, 48, 423-434.
12. Dillehay, R. C., & Sandys, M. R. (1996). Life under Wainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualification. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 147-165.
13. Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). Due process vs. crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 31-51.
14. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence on mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215-227.
15. Grigsby v. Mabry. (1985). 758 F. 2d 226.
16. Haney, C. (1984a). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death qualification process. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 121-132.
17. Haney, C. (1984b). Examining death qualification: Further analysis of the process effect. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 133-151.
18. Haney, C., Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. (1994). "Modern" death qualification: New data on its biasing effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 619-633.
19. Kassin, S. M., Reddy, M. E., & Tulloch, W. F. (1990). Juror interpretations of ambiguous evidence: The need for cognition, presentation order, and persuasion. Law and Human Behavior, 14, (1990).
20. Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191.
21. Kovera, M. B., Russano, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2002). Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: Legal decision-makers' abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 180-200.
22. 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.
23. Lockhart v. McCree. (1986). 476 U.S. 162.
24. Luginbuhl, J. (1992). Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial: Focus on mitigating circumstances. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 203-218.
25. Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 337-358.
26. Moran, G., & Comfort, J. C. (1982). Scientific juror selection: Sex as a moderator of demographic and personality predictors of impaneled felony juror behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1052-1063.
27. 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.
28. Ring v. Arizona. (2002). 536 U.S. 584.
29. Robinson, R. J. (1993). What does "unwilling to impose the death penalty mean anyway? Another look at excludable jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 471-477.
30. Sargent, M. J. (2004). Less thought, more punishment: Need for cognition predicts support for punitive response to crime. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1485-1493.
31. 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.
32. Stevens, J. P. (2005 , August). The American Bar Association Thurgood Marshall Awards Dinner Honoring Abner Mikva. Address given at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Chicago, IL.
33. Thompson, W. C., Cowan, C. L., Ellsworth, P. C., & Harrington, J. C. (1984). Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness: The translation of attitudes into verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 95-113.
34. Wainwright v. Witt. (1985). 469 U.S. 412.
35. Wiener, R. L., Prichard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 455-467.