Positive and negative pretrial publicity: The roles of impression formation, emotion, and predecisional distortion

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 511-534

  Ruva, Christine L ^a   Guenther, Christina C ^b   Yarbrough, Angela ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA SARASOTA MANATEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

emotion; juror bias; juror decision making; predecisional distortion; pretrial publicity

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953850808     PISSN: 00938548     EISSN: 15523594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093854811400823     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Bodenhausen, G.V., Sheppard, L.A., & Kramer, G.P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 45-62. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240104.
3. Bornstein, B.H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-92. doi:10.1023/A:1022326807441.
4. Bottoms, B.L., & Goodman, G.S. (1994). Perceptions of children's credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 702-732. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00608.x.
5. Bright, D.A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 183-202. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9027-y.
6. Bruschke, J., & Loges, W.E. (2004). Free press vs. fair trials. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Carlson, K.A., & Russo, J.E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 91-103. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.7.2.91.
8. Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D., & Dexter, H.R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191. doi:10.1007/BF01062972.
9. Dearing, E., & Hamilton, L.C. (2006). Contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71, 88-104. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5834.2006.00406.x.
10. Deitz, S.R., & Sissman, P.L. (1984). Investigating jury bias in a child molestation case. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2, 423-434. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370020409.
11. Dexter, H.R., Cutler, B.L., & Moran, G. (1992). A test of voir dire as a remedy for the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 819-832. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00926.x.
12. Diamond, S.S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571. doi:10.1023/A:1024831908377.
13. Dube, L., & Morgan, M.S. (1996). Trend effects and gender differences in retrospective judgments of consumption emotions. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 156-162.
14. Feigenson, N., & Park, J. (2006). Emotions and attributions of legal responsibility and blame: A research review. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 143-161. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9026-z.
15. Feigenson, N., Park, J., & Salovey, P. (2001). The role of emotions in comparative negligence judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 576-603. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02057.x.
16. Freedman, J.L., & Burke, T.M. (1996). The effect of pretrial publicity: The Bernardo case. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38, 253-270.
17. Hastie, R. (2001). Emotions in jurors' decisions. Brooklyn Law Review, 66, 991-1009.
18. Hayes, A.F. & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924-936. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.3.924.
19. Honess, T.M., Charman, E.A., & Levi, M. (2003). Factual and affective/evaluative recall of pretrial publicity: Their relative influence on juror reasoning and verdict in a simulated fraud trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1404-1416. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01955.x.
20. Hope, L., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2004). Understanding pretrial publicity: Predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 111-119. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.10.2. 111.
21. Hosman, L.A., & Wright, J.W. (1987). The effects of hedges and hesitations on impression formation in a simulated court-room context. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, 173-188.
22. Imrich, D.J., Mullin, C., & Linz, D. (1995). Measuring the extent of prejudicial pretrial publicity in major American newspapers: A content analysis. Journal of Communication, 45, 94-117.
23. Irvin v.Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961).
24. Jones, C.S., & Kaplan, M.F. (2003). The effects of racially stereotypical crimes on juror decision-making and information-processing strategies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1-13. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2501_1.
25. Judd, C.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619. doi:10.1177/0193841X8100500502.
26. Kerr, N.L., Niedermeier, K.E., & Kaplan, M.F. (1999). Bias in jurors vs. bias in juries: New evidence from the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70-86. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2855.
27. Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D.R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153-162. doi:10.1177/0146167294202002.
28. Kovera, M.B. (2002). The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: An examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 43-72. doi:10.1023/A:1013829224920.
29. Kramer, G.P., & Kerr, N.L. (1989). Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior: A methodological note. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 89-99. doi:10.1007/BF01056165.
30. Kramer, G.P., Kerr, N.L., & Carroll, J.S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438. doi:10.1007/BF01044220.
31. Lerner, J.S., Goldberg, J.H., & Tetlock, P.E. (1998). Sober second thought: The effects of accountability, anger and authoritarian-ism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 563-574. doi:10.1177/0146167298246001.
32. Lerner, J.S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 473-493.
33. Lerner, J.S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146-159. doi:10.1037//O022-3514.81.1.146.
34. Lerner, J.S., & Tiedens, L.Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger's influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 115-137. doi:10.1002/bdm.515.
35. Lieberman, J.D., & Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 677-711. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.6.3.677.
36. Lieberman, J.D., & Sales, B.D. (2006). Scientific jury selection. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
37. Linz, D., & Penrod, S.D. (1992). Exploring the First and Sixth Amendments: Pretrial publicity and jury decision making. In D. K. Kagehiro & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and law (pp. 3-20). New York: Springer-Verlag.
38. Litras, M., & Golmant, J.R. (2006). A comparative study of juror utilization in U.S. district courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 3, 99-120. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2006.00064.
39. Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In R. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 619-642). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40. London, K., & Nunez, N. (2002). Examining the efficacy of truth/lie discussions in predicting and increasing the veracity of children's reports. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 131-147. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00119-4.
41. MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.
42. Meyers-Levy, J. (1989). Gender differences in information processing: A selectivity interpretation. In P. Cafferata & A. M. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive and affective responses to advertising (pp. 219-260). Lexington, MA: Lexington.
43. Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (1991). Exploring differences in males' and females' processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 63-70. doi:10.1086/209241.
44. Moran, G., & Cutler, B.L. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345-367. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00524.x.
45. Ogloff, J.R.P., & Vidmar, N. (1994). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors a study to compare the relative effects of television and print media in a child sex abuse case. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 507-525. doi:10.1007/BF01499171.
46. Otto, A.L., Penrod, S.D., & Dexter, H.R. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453-469. doi:10.1007/BF01499050.
47. Posey, A.J., & Wrightsman, L.S. (2005). Change of venue. In R. Roesch (Ed.), Trial consulting (pp. 53-78). New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717-731.
49. Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
50. Pritchard, M.E., & Keenan, J.M. (1999). Memory monitoring in mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 152-168. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.5.2.152.
51. Pritchard, M.E., & Keenan, J.M. (2002). Does jury deliberation really improve jurors' memories? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 589-601. doi:10.1002/acp.81.
52. Putrevu, S. (2001). Exploring the origins and information processing differences between men and women: Implications for advertisers. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 1-16.
53. Russo, J.E., Carlson, K.A., Meloy, M.G., & Yong, K. (2008). The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(3), 456-470. doi:10.1037/a0012786.
54. Russo, J.E., Meloy, M.G., & Medvec, V.H. (1998). Predecisional distortion of product information. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 438-452. doi:10.2307/3152163.
55. Russo, J.E., Meloy, M.G., & Wilks, T.J. (2000). Predecisional distortion of information by auditors and salesperson. Management Science, 46, 13-27. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.1.13.15127.
56. Ruva, C.L., & Bryant, J.B. (2004). The impact of age, speech style, and question form on perceptions of witness credibility and trial outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1919-1944. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02593.x.
57. Ruva, C.L., & McEvoy, C. (2008). Negative and positive pretrial publicity affect juror memory and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 226-235. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.14.3.226.
58. Ruva, C.L., McEvoy, C., & Bryant, J.B. (2007). Effects of pretrial publicity and collaboration on juror bias and source monitoring errors. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 45-67. doi:10.1002/acp.1254.
59. Salerno, J.M., & Bottoms, B.L. (2009). Emotional evidence and jurors' judgments: The promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 273-296. doi:10.1002/bsl.861.
60. Schmidt, C.W., & Brigham, J.C. (1996). Jurors' perceptions of child victim-witnesses in a simulated sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 581-606. doi:10.1007/BF01499233.
61. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362 (1966).
62. Shrout, P.E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.
63. Sipes, D.A., & Oram, M.E. (1988). On trial: The length of civil and criminal trials. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice.
64. Spielberger, C.D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
65. Spielberger, C.D., & Reheiser, E.C. (2003). Measuring anxiety, anger, depression, and curiosity as emotional states and personality traits with the STAI, STAXI, and STPI. In M. J. Hilsenroth, D. L. Segal, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, Vol. 2: Personality assessment (pp. 70-86). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
66. Spielberger, C.D., & Reheiser, E.C. (2009). Assessment of emotions: Anxiety, anger, depression, and curiosity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1, 271-302. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01017.x.
67. Steblay, N.M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S.M., & Jiminez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219-235. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7.
68. Studebaker, C.A., & Penrod, S.D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law, and common sense. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 3, 428-460. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.428.
69. Tiedens, L.Z. (2001). The effect of anger on the hostile inferences of aggressive and nonaggressive people: Specific emotions, cognitive processing, and chronic accessibility. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 233-251. doi:10.1023/A:1012224507488.
70. Tiedens, L.Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81, 973-988. doi:10.1037//OO22-3514.81.6.973.
71. Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
72. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S.S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71-93. doi:10.1007/BF01039149.
73. Wilson, J.R., & Bornstein, B.H. (1998). Methodological considerations in pretrial publicity research: Is the medium the message? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 585-597. doi:10.1023/A:1025743614951.
74. Wilson, T., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117-142. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117.
75. Wilson, T., Centerbar, D., & Brekke, N. (2002). Mental contamination and the debiasing problem. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 185-200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
76. Zillmann, D. (1983). Transfer of excitation in emotional behavior. In J. Cacioppo & R. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology (pp. 215-240). New York: Guilford.