Relationships Between Support for the Death Penalty and Cognitive Processing: A Comparison of Students and Community Members

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 732-750

  Miller, Monica ^a   Wood, Steve M ^a   Chomos, Julianna C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

death penalty; Faith in Intuition; information processing; jury decision making; Need for Cognition

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899757812     PISSN: 00938548     EISSN: 15523594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093854813509369     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bornstein B. H.The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?.Law and Human Behavior. 1999;23:75-91.
2. Bornstein B. H.,McCabe S. G.Jurors of the absurd? The role of consequentiality in jury simulation research.Florida State University Law Review. 2005;32:443-467.
3. Bothwell R. K.,Pigott M. A.,Foley L. A.,McFatter R. M.Racial bias in juridic judgment at private and public levels.Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2006;36:2134-2149.
4. Butler B.,Moran G.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. 2007a;25:57-68.
5. Butler B.,Moran G.The role of death qualification and need for cognition in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials.Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2007b;25:561-571.
6. Cacioppo J. T.,Petty R. E.Interfaces in psychology: Social perception in clinical and counseling psychology. McGlynn R. P.Maddux J. E.Stoltenberg C. D.Harvey J. H., ed. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press; 1984:113-139.
7. Cacioppo J. T.,Petty R. E.,Feinstein J. A.,Jarvis W. G.Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition.Psychological Bulletin. 1996;119:197-253.
8. Cacioppo J. T.,Petty R. E.,Kao C. P.The efficient assessment of need for cognition.Journal of Personality Assessment. 1984;119:306-307.
9. Daniels v. North Carolina, 115 S.Ct. 953 (1995).
10. Devine D. J.,Clayton L. D.,Dunford B. B.,Seying R.,Pryce J.Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2001;7:622-727.
11. Epstein S.The self-concept revisited or a theory of a theory.American Psychologist. 1973;28:404-416.
12. Epstein S.,Lipson A.,Holstein C.,Huh E.Irrational reactions to negative outcomes: Evidence for two conceptual systems.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1992;62:328-339.
13. Epstein S.,Pacini R.,Denes-Raj V.,Heier H.Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;71:390-405.
14. Epstein S.,Pacini R.Dual-process theories in social psychology. Chaiken S.Trope Y., ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 1999:462-482.
15. Fox P.,Wingrove T.,Pfeifer C.A comparison of students' and jury panelists' decision making in split recovery cases.Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2011;29:358-375.
16. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
17. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S 349 (1977).
18. Black's law dictionary. 1999). Black's law dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Garner B. A., ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing; 1999:.
19. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
20. Groscup J.,Tallon J.Jury psychology: Social aspects of trial processes. Lieberman J. D.Krauss D. A., ed. Burlington, VT: Ashgate; 2009:41-66.
21. Kahneman D.,Tversky A.Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Kahneman D.Slovic P.Tversky A., ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1982:201-208.
22. Keller S. R.,Wiener R. L.What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity.Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 2011;29:376-394.
23. Krauss D.,Lieberman J.,Olson J.The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases.Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2004;6:801-822.
24. Krauss D.,McCabe J.,Lieberman J.Dangerously misunderstood: Representative jurors' reactions to expert testimony on future dangerousness in a sexually violent predator trial.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2012;18:18-49.
25. Lieberman J. D.Head over the heart or heart over the head? Cognitive experiential self-theory and extralegal heuristics in juror decision making.Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2002;32:2526-2553.
26. Lieberman J.,Krauss D.,Kyger M.,Lehoux M.Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: Cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony.Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2007;25:507-526.
27. Martin L. L.Set/reset: Use and disuse of concepts in impression formation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51:493-504.
28. McCabe J. G.,Krauss D. A.The effect of acknowledging mock jurors' feelings on affective and cognitive biases: It depends on the sample.Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2011;29:331-357.
29. McCabe J. G.,Krauss D. A.,Lieberman J. D.Reality check: A comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment.Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2010;28:730-750.
30. Miller D. T.,Turnbull W.,McFarland C.Counterfactual thinking and social perception: Thinking about what might have been.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 1990;23:305-331.
31. Miller M. K.Religion in criminal justice. New York, NY: LFB Publishing; 2006:.
32. Miller M. K.,Hayward R. D.Religious characteristics and the death penalty.Law and Human Behavior. 2008;32:113-123.
33. Miller M. K.,Maskaly J.,Green M.,Peoples C. D.The effects of deliberations and religious alibi on mock jurors' pre- and post-deliberation verdicts.Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. 2011;14:517-532.
34. O'Neil K. M.,Patry M. W.,Penrod S. D.Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2004;10:443-470.
35. Pacini R.,Epstein S.The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;76 (6): 972-987.
36. Reichert J.,Miller M. K.,Bornstein B. H.,Shelton D.How reason for surgery and juror bias against overweight patients affect verdicts in medical malpractice trials.Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2011;29:395-418.
37. ShestowskyD.HorowitzL. M. (2004). How the need for cognition scale predicts behavior in mock jury deliberations. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 305-337. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000029141.46850.fb.
38. Sladek R. M.,Bond J. J.,Phillips P. A.Age and gender differences in preferences for rational and experiential thinking.Personality and Individual Differences. 2010;49:907-911.
39. Strack F.The construction of social judgments. Martin L. L.Tesser A., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1992:249-275.
40. Wiener R. L.,Krauss D. A.,Lieberman J. D.Mock jury research: Where do we go from here?.Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2011;29:467-479.
41. Wiener R. L.,Rogers M.,Winter R.,Hurt L.,Hackney A.,Kadela K., Morasco B.Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2004;10:516-576.
42. Young R. L.Religious orientation, race and support for the death penalty.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 1992;31:76-87.