Constructing insanity: Jurors' prototypes, attitudes, and legal decision-making

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 449-470

  Louden, Jennifer Eno ^a   Skeem, Jennifer L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO MENTAL ILLNESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL COMPETENCE; LEGAL PROCEDURE; MALE; MENTAL DISEASE; VALIDATION STUDY;

ATTITUDE; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; INSANITY DEFENSE; NEVADA; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 34548237677     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.760     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abbott, W., Hall, F., & Linville, E. (1993). Jury research: A review and bibliography. Philadelphia, PA: American Bar Association.
2. Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude structure and behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and behavior (pp. 241-274). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Appelbaum, P. S. (1994). Almost a revolution: Mental health law and the limits of change. London: Oxford University Press.
4. Bailis, D., Darley, J., Waxman, T., & Robinson, P. (1995). Community standards of criminal liability and the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 425-446.
5. Borgen, F. H., & Barnett, D. C. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 456-468.
6. Bueker, J. (1997). Jury source lists: Does supplementation really work? Cornell Law Review, 82, 390-431.
7. Claghorn, J., Hays, J. R., Webb, L., & Lewis, N. (1991). Juror personality characteristics and the insanity defense. Forensic Reports, 4, 61-65.
8. Corrigan, P. W., River, L. P., Lundin, R. K., Penn, D. L., Uphoff-Wasowski, K., Campton, J., Mathisen, J., Gagnon, C., Bergman, M., Goldstein, H., & Kubiak, M. A. (2001). Three strategies for changing attributions about severe mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 27(2), 187-195.
9. Cronbach, L., & Gleser, G. (1953). Assessing similarity between profiles. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 456-473.
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. Dane, F. C. (1992). Applying social psychology in the courtroom: Understanding stereotypes in jury decision making. Contemporary Social Psychology, 16(3), 33-36.
12. Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
13. Eagly, A., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543-558.
14. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1988). A note on assessing stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(4), 676-680.
15. Eighth Judicial District Court Jury Services. (2003). Information for jurors. Retrieved March 19, 2003, from http://www.co.clark.nv.us/district_court/ jury_services.htm
16. Ellsworth, P. C., Bukaty, R. M., Cowan, C. L., & Thompson, W. C. (1984). The death qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1/2), 81-93.
17. Faulstich, M. E. (1984). Effects upon social perceptions of the insanity plea. Psychological Reports, 55, 183-187.
18. Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and behavior (pp. 153-180). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Finger v. State, 117 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 48. (2001).
20. Finkel, N. J. (1988). Insanity on trial. New York: Plenum.
21. Finkel, N. J. (1995). Commonsense justice: Jurors' notions of the law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
22. Finkel, N. J., & Groscup, J. L. (1997). Crime prototypes, objective versus subjective culpability, and commonsense balance. Law and Human Behavior, 21(2), 209-230.
23. Finkel, N., Shaw, R., Bercaw, S., & Koch, J. (1985). Insanity defenses: From the jurors' perspective. Law and Psychology Review, 9, 77-92.
24. Foley, L. A., & Chamblin, M. H. (1982). The effect of race and personality on mock jurors' decisions. The Journal of Psychology, 112, 47-51.
25. Fraley, C., & Raftery, A. E. (1998). How many clusters? Which clustering method? - Answers via Model-Based Cluster Analysis. Technical Report No. 329, Department of Statistics, University of Washington.
26. Fraley, C., & Raftery, A. E. (2000). Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation. Technical Report No. 380, Department of Statistics, University of Washington.
27. Fraley, C., & Raftery, A. E. (2002). MCLUST: Software for model-based clustering, density estimation and discriminant analysis. Technical Report No. 415, Department of Statistics, University of Washington.
28. Hafemeister, T. L. (2000). Supreme Court examines impact of errors in detecting bias during jury selection. Violence and Victims, 15(2), 209-224.
29. Hans, V. (1986). An analysis of public attitudes toward the insanity defense. Criminology, 24, 383-414.
30. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604.
31. Homant, R., & Kennedy, D. (1987). Subjective factors in clinicians' judgments of insanity: Comparison of a hypothetical case and an actual case. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 5, 439-446.
32. Jeffrey, R., & Pasewark, R. (1984). Altering opinions about the insanity plea. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 11, 29-40.
33. Johnson, C., & Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire: An exploratory study of its content and effect. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 487-506.
34. Krzanowski, W. J. (1979). Between-groups comparison of principal components. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(367), 703-707.
35. Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social Cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93-120.
36. Maeder, T. (1985). Crime and madness: The origins and evolution of the insanity defense. New York: Harper and Row.
37. McCaughey, T. J., & Strohmer, D. C. (2005). Prototypes as an indirect measure of attitudes toward disability groups. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 48(2), 89-99.
38. McGraw, S. L., & Foley, L. A. (2000). Perceptions of insanity based on occupation of defendant and seriousness of crime. Psychological Reports, 86, 163-174.
39. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q Methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40. Morey, L. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
41. Olson, J., & Zanna, M. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 4, 117-154.
42. Penn, D. L., Kommana, S., Mansfield, M., & Link, B. G. (1999). Dispelling the stigma of schizophrenia: II. The impact of information on dangerousness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 25(3), 437-446.
43. Perlin, M. L. (1999). The hidden prejudice: Mental disability on trial. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
44. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609-647.
45. Poulson, R. L., Braithwaite, R. L., Brondino, M. J., & Wuensch, K. L. (1997). Mock jurors' insanity defense verdict selections: The role of evidence, attitudes, and verdict options. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(3), 743-758.
46. Pratkanis, A. R. (1989). The cognitive representation of attitudes. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and behavior (pp. 71-98). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Richards, L. (2001). N5 [computer software]. Doncaster, Victoria, Australia: QSR International.
48. Roberts, C., & Golding, S. (1991). The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 349-376.
49. Roberts, C. F., Golding, S. L., & Fincham, F. D. (1987). Implicit theories of criminal responsibility: Decision making and the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 11(3), 207-232.
50. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 192-232.
51. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
52. Schutte, J. W., & Hosch, H. M. (1997). Gender differences in sexual assault verdicts: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(3), 759-772.
53. Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994).
54. Skeem, J., Eno Louden, & Evans, J. (2004). Venirepersons's attitudes toward the insanity defense: Developing, refining, and validating a scale. Law and Human Behavior, 286, 623-648.
55. Skeem, J. L., & Golding, S. L. (2001). Describing jurors' personal conceptions of insanity and their relationship to case judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 561-621.
56. Smith, V. L. (1993). When prior knowledge and law collide: Helping jurors use the law. Law and Human Behavior, 17(6), 507-536.
57. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd Ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
58. United States Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171). Retrieved March 1, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/ support/PLData.html
59. Werner, C. M., Kagehiro, D. K., & Strube, M. J. (1982). Conviction proneness and the authoritarian juror: Inability to disregard information or attitudinal bias? Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(5), 629-636.
60. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).