When emotionality trumps reason: A study of individual processing style and juror bias

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 850-877

  Gunnell, Justin J ^a   Ceci, Stephen J ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; EMOTION; FEMALE; GUILT; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; EMOTIONS; FEMALE; GUILT; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; PREJUDICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78649653832     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.939     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Abel, M. H., & Watters, H. (2005). Attributions of guilt and punishment as functions of physical attractiveness and smiling. Journal of Social Psychology. 145(6).
2. Beckham, C. M., Spray, B. J., & Pietz, C. A. (2007). Jurors' Locus of Control and Defendants' Attractiveness in Death Penalty Sentencing. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 285-298.
3. Berger, C. R. (2007). A Tale of Two Communication Modes: When Rational and Experiential Processing Systems Encounter Statistical and Anecdotal Depictions of Threat. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 215-233.
4. Bergeron, C. E., & McKelvie, S. J. (2004). Effects of Defendant Age on Severity of Punishment for Different Crimes. 144(1), 75-90.
5. Berry, D. S., & Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. Z. (1988). What's in a face? Facial Maturity and the Attribution of Legal Responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 23-33.
6. Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., Wright, R., & Mojardin, A. H. (2003). Recollection rejection: False-memory editing in children and adults. Psychological Review, 110, 762-784.
7. Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. (1978). Authoritarianism and Decision of Mock Juries: Evidence of a Jury Bias and Group Polarization. Soc. Psychol. 36(12), 1424-1430.
8. Bureau of Justice Statistics of State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons. (1996). Available online at:
9. Burns, L. R., & D'Zurilla, T. J. (1999). Individual differences in perceived information-processing styles in stress and coping situations: Development and validation of the Perceived Modes of Processing Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research 23, 345-371.
10. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
11. Catlin, G., & Epstein, S. (1992). Unforgettable experiences: The relation of life events to basic beliefs about self and world. Soc. Cogn. 10, 189-209.
12. Carlson, K., & Russo, E. (2001). Biased Interpretation of Evidence by Mock Jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 91-103.
13. Cialdini, R., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 354-407.
14. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
15. nd Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. De La Fuente Solana, E., Garcia, J., & Martin Tamayo, I. (1998). Some individual differences in perception of the evidence and the verdict choice. Psychology, Crime-and-Law. 1998 Dec; Vol 4(4), 361-373.
17. Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819-829.
18. DeSantis, A., & Kayson, W. A. (1997). Defendants' characteristics of attractiveness, race, and sex and sentencing decisions. Psychological Reports, 81, 679-683.
19. Donovan, S., & Epstein, S. (1997). The Difficulty of the Linda Conjunction Problem Can Be Attributed to Its Simultaneous Concrete Unnatural Representation, and Not to Conversational Implicature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
20. Downs, C., & Lyons, P. (1991). Natural observations of the links between attractiveness and initial legal judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 541-547.
21. Efran, M. G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and the severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 45-54.
22. Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In Milton T. & Lerner, M. J. (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology Volume 5: Personality and Social Psychology. (pp. 159-184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
23. Epstein, S. (1991). Cognitive-experiential self-theory: an integrative theory of personality. In R. Curtis (Ed.), The relational self: convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology (pp. 111-137). New York: Guilford.
24. Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (1989). Constructive thinking: A broad coping variable with specific components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 332-350.
25. Epstein, S. (1983). The ego-strength scale. University of Massachusetts. Amherst.
26. Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory, an integrative psychodynamic theory of personality. Bulletin of the Academy of Clinical Psychology.
27. Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (1989). Constructive thinking: A broad coping variable with specific components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 332-350.
28. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390-405.
29. Erian, M., Lin, C., Patel, N., Neal, A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1998). Juror verdicts as a function of victim and defendant attractiveness in sexual assault cases. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16, 25-40.
30. Genovese, J. (2005). Paranormal beliefs, schizotypy, and thinking styles among teachers and future teachers. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 93-102.
31. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
32. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777-830.
33. Hoffmann, M. B. (2003). The Case for Jury Sentencing. Duke Law Journal 52, 951-1010.
34. Horowitz, M. R., Tressler, J. H., & Read, G. C. (1998). We, the Jury: The IADC-backed National Jury Trial Innovations Project. Defense Counsel Journal, 65(3), ABI/INFORM Global pg. 331.
35. Iontcheva, J. (2003). Jury Sentencing as Democratic Practice. Virginia Law Review 89, 311-383.
36. Johnson, S. D. (1985). Religion as a defense in a mock-jury trial. Journal of Social Psychology. 125(2), 213-220.
37. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
38. Kalven, H. Jr., (1964). The dignity of the civil jury system. Virginia Law Review, 50, 1055-1075.
39. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1988). The American Jury on Trial. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis publishing.
40. King, N. & Noble, R., (2005). Jury Sentencing in Non-Capital Cases: Comparing Severity and Variance with Judicial Sentences in Two States. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2, 331-367.
41. Krauss, D., Lieberman, J., & Olson, J. (2004). The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6, 801-822.
42. Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A., & Neale, J. M. (1994). Individual differences in dispositional expressiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 934-949.
43. Kuhn, D., Weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994). How well do Jurors Reason? Complete Dimensions of Individual Variation in a Juror Reasoning Task. Psychological Science, 5(5), 289-296.
44. Kulka, R. A., & Kessler, J. B. (1978). Is Justice Really Blind? -The Influence of Litigant Physical Attractiveness on Juridical Judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8(4), 366-381.
45. Lanni, A. (1999). Jury Sentencing in Noncapital Cases: An Idea Whose Time Has Come (Again?). The Yale Law Journal, 108, 1775-1803.
46. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York: Plenum Press.
47. Lieberman, J. D. (2002). Head over the Heart or Heart over the Head CEST and extralegal heuristics in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 32(12), 2526-2553.
48. Lieberman, J., D Krauss, D., Kyger, M., & Lehoux, M. (2007). Determining dangerousness in Sexually Violent Predator evaluations: Cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 507-526.
49. Loeffler, L. R., & Lawson, J.T. (2002). Age and Occupational Status of Defendant in Relation to Mock Juror Sentencing Recommendations. Current Psychology, 21(3).
50. Marks, A., Hine, D. W., Blore, R. L., & Phillips, W. (2008). Assessing individual differences in adolescents' preference for rational and experiential cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 42-52.
51. Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Race, Socioeconomic-Status, and Gender of Defendants and Victims on Judgments of Mock Jurors a MetaAnalysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315-1344.
52. McCoy, M. L., & Gray, J. M. (2007). The impact of defendant gender and relationship to victim on juror decisions in a child sexual abuse case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1578-1593.
53. McGuire, M. V., & Bermant, G. (1977). Individual and group decisions in response to a mock trial: A methodological note. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 220-226.
54. Monahan, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). The Pyschology of Law. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 441-475.
55. Mueller-Johnson, K., Toglia, M., Sweeney, C., & Ceci, S. J. (2007). The perceived credibility of older adults as witnesses and its relation to ageism. Behavioral Science and the Law, 25, 355-375.
56. Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiencial information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972-987.
57. Perez, D. A., Hosch, H. M., Ponder, B., & Trejo, G. C. (1993). Ethnicity of defendants and jurors as influences on jury decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1249-1262.
58. Pretz, J. E., & Totz, K. S., (2007). Measuring individual differences in affective, heuristic, and holistic intuition. Personality and Individual Differences, 435, 1247-1257.
59. Robbennolt, J. K. (2002). Punitive damage decision making: The decisions of citizens and trial court judges. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 315-342.
60. Sargent, M. J., & Bradfield, A. L. (2004). Race and information processing in criminal trials: Does the defendant's race affect how the facts are evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 995-1008.
61. Shiloh, S., Salton, E., & Sharabi, D. (2002). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 415-429.
62. Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N. (1975). Beautiful but dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 410-414.
63. Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2001). White juror bias: An investigation of prejudice against Black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 201-229.
64. Stewart, J. E. (1980). Defendant's attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal trials: An observational study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10(4).
65. Stewart, J. E. (1985). Appearance and Punishment: The Attraction-Leniency effect in the courtroom. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 373-378.
66. Warling, D., & Badali-Peterson, M. (2003). The Verdict on Jury Trials for Juveniles: the Effects of Defendant's Age on Trial Outcomes. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 21(1), 63-82.
67. Wissler, R. L., Hart, A. J., & Saks, M. J. (1999). Decision-making about general damages: A comparison of jurors, judges, and lawyers. Michigan Law Review, 98, 751-826.
68. Wuesch, K. L., Castellow, W. A., & Moore, C. H. (1991). Effects of defendant attractiveness and type of crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 713-724.
69. Verosky, S. C., & Todorov, A. (2010). Generalization of Affective Learning About Faces to Perceptually Similar Faces. Psychological Science, 21, 619-622.
70. Zebrowistz, A. L., & McDonald, M. S. (1991). The Impact of Litigants' Baby-Facedness and Attractiveness on Adjudications in Small Claims Court. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 603-623.