Juror interpretations of ambiguous evidence

In the context of a mock jury study, we tested the hypothesis that people's interpretations of ambiguous evidence depend on how (i.e., by whom) that evidence is introduced. Subjects watched a 45-min interrogation of a murder suspect who emphatically asserted her innocence but told an imperfect story. Before the tape, subjects read either the prosecution or defense lawyer's arguments concerning the suspect's interrogation performance; after the tape, they read counter-arguments from the opposing side. Results indicated that subjects high in the need for cognition (NC) were influenced more by arguments that preceded the evidence, whereas low-NC subjects were more influenced by arguments that followed the evidence. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

[1]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[2]  L. Wrightsman,et al.  The Effects of Opening Statements on Mock Jurors' Verdicts in a Simulated Criminal Trial1 , 1981 .

[3]  Stephen J. Read,et al.  Acquiring Self-Knowledge: The Search for Feedback That Fits , 1981 .

[4]  S. Asch.  Forming impressions of personality. , 1946, Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

[5]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Basic group processes , 1983 .

[6]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring ☆ , 1983 .

[7]  Harry Kalven,et al.  The American Jury , 1967 .

[8]  C. F. Kao,et al.  The efficient assessment of need for cognition. , 1984, Journal of personality assessment.

[9]  Garold Stasser,et al.  Group decision making and social influence: A social interaction sequence model. , 1981 .

[10]  S. Belmore.  Determinants of attention during impression formation. , 1987 .

[11]  H. Gerard,et al.  Attributed intentions and informational selectivity , 1974 .

[12]  L. Wrightsman,et al.  The American Jury on Trial: Psychological Perspectives , 1988 .

[13]  S. Chaiken.  The heuristic model of persuasion. , 1987 .

[14]  Harry Kalven,et al.  The American Jury , 1967 .

[15]  M. Zanna,et al.  Context effects in impression formation: Changes in connotative meaning. , 1974 .

[16]  George R. Goethals,et al.  Order effects in impression formation: Attribution context and the nature of the entity. , 1987 .

[17]  D. K. Kagehiro,et al.  Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof , 1985 .

[18]  W. Mischel,et al.  Maintaining trait consistency in the resolution of behavioral inconsistency: The wolf in sheep's clothing? , 1976 .

[19]  N. Kerr,et al.  Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research , 2015 .

[20]  Claudia E. Cohen,et al.  Person categories and social perception: Testing some boundaries of the processing effect of prior knowledge. , 1981 .

[21]  S. Penrod,et al.  Jury Deliberations: Discussion Content and Influence Processes in Jury Decision Making1 , 1986 .

[22]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Recall of Previously Unrecallable Information Following a Shift in Perspective. Technical Report No. 41. , 1977 .

[23]  P. Tetlock.  Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions. , 1983 .

[24]  L. Ross,et al.  Perseverance of Social Theories: The Role of Explanation in the Persistence of Discredited Information , 1980 .

[25]  L. Wrightsman,et al.  On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. , 1979 .

[26]  James A. Kulik,et al.  Confirmatory attribution and the perpetuation of social beliefs. , 1983 .

[27]  M. Snyder,et al.  Reconstructing the Past: Some Cognitive Consequences of Person Perception , 1978 .

[28]  Charles E. Miller,et al.  Group Discussion and Judgment , 1983 .

[29]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. , 1987 .

[30]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Effects of concomitant verbal recall on order effects in personality impression formation , 1963 .

[31]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  L. Ross,et al.  Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence , 1979 .

[33]  J. Darley,et al.  A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. , 1983 .

[34]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. , 1983 .

[35]  C. I. Hovland.  The Order Of Presentation In Persuasion , 1966 .

[36]  Eugene Borgida,et al.  Personal involvement: An examination of processing differences. , 1986 .

[37]  W. Swann,et al.  Hypothesis-Testing Processes in Social Interaction , 1978 .

[38]  A T Panter,et al.  Dimensions of the Need for Cognition: Subscales and Gender Differences. , 1988, Multivariate behavioral research.

[39]  N. Anderson.  Foundations of information integration theory , 1981 .

[40]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Communication and persuasion , 1986 .

[41]  L. Wrightsman,et al.  The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure , 1985 .

[42]  M. Benassi.  Effects of order of presentation, primacy, and physical attractiveness on attributions of ability. , 1982 .