Matching Items (3)
Description
Factors affecting juror decision-making have been studied extensively to determine what drives juror's decisions (Skorinko, Laurent, Bountress, Nyein, and Kuckuck, 2014). In utero androgen exposure measured using the 4D:2D ratio has been studied to understand how the amount of in utero androgen individuals are exposed to affects their personality and emotional development (Manning et. al., 2010; Kempe and Heffernan, 2011; Hampson, Ellis and Tenk, 2008; Fink, Manning and Neave, 2004; Knickmeyer, Baron-Cohen, Raggatt, Taylor and Hackett, 2006; Knickmeyer and Baron-Cohen, 2006; Wakabayashi and Nakazawa, 2010). Using 106 undergraduate students, the current study sought to understand how the 4D:2D ratio affects juror decision-making in civil cases by having participants assign a proportion of liability to a defendant. Participants reviewed jury instructions, as well as three case vignettes. One of these case vignettes was removed due to a description error that led almost all of the participants to find the plaintiff at fault. This study had three different experimental groups where age of the plaintiff was counterbalanced to control age as a factor in the amount of liability assigned. It was hypothesized that a higher 4D:2D ratio would result in lower defendant liability. Here we show that there was a significantly lower proportion of defendant liability assigned by the high 4D:2D ratio group as compared to the low 4D:2D ratio group; t(210) = 2.89, p < 0.01, d = 0.36. Interestingly, despite the difference between the group means, variability was such that the 4D:2D ratio was not predictive of the proportion of defendant liability assigned for experimental conditions.
ContributorsAnderson, Kayla Jo (Author) / Holloway, Steven (Thesis director) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Van Etten, Kathy (Committee member) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-12
Description
There is conflicting evidence regarding whether a biasing effect of neuroscientific evidence exists. Early research warned of such bias, but more recent papers dispute such claims, with some suggesting a bias only occurs in situations of relative judgment, but not in situations of absolute judgment. The current studies examined the neuroimage bias within both criminal and civil court case contexts, specifically exploring if a bias is dependent on the context in which the neuroimage evidence is presented (i.e. a single expert vs. opposing experts). In the first experiment 408 participants read a criminal court case summary in which either one expert witness testified (absolute judgment) or two experts testified (relative judgment). The experts presented neurological evidence in the form of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data and the evidence type varied between a brain image and a graph. A neuroimage bias was found, in that jurors who were exposed to two experts were more punitive when the prosecution presented the image and less punitive when the defense did. In the second experiment 240 participants read a summary of a civil court case in which either a single expert witness testified or two experts testified. The experts presented fMRI data to support or refute a claim of chronic pain and the evidence type again varied between image and graph. The expected neuroimage bias was not found, in that jurors were more likely to find in favor of the plaintiff when either side proffered the image, but more likely to find for the defense when only graphs were offered by the experts. These findings suggest that the introduction of neuroimages as evidence may affect jurors punitiveness in criminal cases, as well as liability decisions in civil cases and overall serves to illustrate that the influence of neuroscientific information on legal decision makers is more complex than originally thought.
ContributorsHafdahl, Riquel J (Author) / Schweitzer, Nicholas (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Neal, Tess (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
In a trial, jurors are asked to set aside their emotions and make judgments based solely on evidence. Research suggests jurors are not always capable of this, particularly when exposed to gruesome photographic evidence. However, previous research has not looked at the potentially moderating effect of when and for how long jurors are exposed to emotionally disturbing photographs, nor how many photographs they see. In two experiments I tested the impact of the timing of and extent of exposure to gruesome photographs on jurors’ emotions, verdicts, and punishment recommendations. In Study 1, I investigated the effect of timing and exposure duration to a single gruesome photograph of a victim in a murder case (no exposure, brief early exposure, brief late exposure, and prolonged exposure) on mock jurors’ emotions and case judgments. Prolonged exposure (relative to no or brief exposure, regardless of timing) increased disgust, which in turn was associated with harsher punishment. Contrary to previous research, the photograph manipulation did not influence verdicts. The results were mixed and inconclusive regarding brief early versus late exposure. In Study 2, I compared repeatedly viewing a single gruesome photograph to viewing a set of four similar, but unique gruesome photographs—holding the exposure time constant—to assess the impact of quantity of photos on jurors’ emotions and case judgments. Viewing multiple gruesome photos (relative to no photos) led to increase in guilty verdicts through increased disgust, replicating previous research. Viewing a single gruesome photo (relative to no photo) led to increase in guilty verdicts through disgust, differing from Study 1 findings. Viewing multiple gruesome photos and a single gruesome photo led to more disgust, compared to viewing no photo. However, differing from Study 1, gruesome photographs did not lead to an increase in punishment recommendations. There were no significant differences between exposure to a single or multiple gruesome photos on disgust, verdicts, or punishments. Overall, greater exposure to gruesome evidence led to increased disgust and punitiveness, relative to those with less exposure. However, jurors with greater exposure to the same or different photographs did not differ in reported emotions, verdicts, or punitiveness.
ContributorsBean, Samantha Rae (Author) / Salerno, Jessica M (Thesis advisor) / Schweitzer, Nicholas (Committee member) / Duran, Nicholas (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020