Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T09:18:12.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Social Cognition of Jury Decision-Making

from Part III - Trial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
Charles Edwards ,
Riquel Hafdahl  and
Monica K. Miller
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses the growing body of research that examines the social cognitive processes of jurors used when making verdict or sentencing decisions. This includes the empirical findings related to priming ideas and attitudes and impression formation. The chapter then discusses heuristics, or cognitive “shortcuts,” that jurors employ during their decision-making processes in trials and deliberations. For instance, there is a tendency for jurors to over-rely on dispositional attributions, stereotypes, and schemas. Cognitive biases that jurors are prone to, such as the hindsight bias, the outcome bias, and counterfactual thinking, will also be discussed in the context of evaluating evidence and making verdict decisions, along with the potential of debiasing techniques. Finally, jurors’ biases and prejudices regarding factors, such as race, gender, and religion, and how they relate to decision-making are examined. The chapter also addresses areas of social cognition that have not yet been explored in current research and provides recommendations for future directions.

Keywords

jury decision-makingsocial cognitionbiasstereotypesschemasimpression formationprejudice
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 309 - 323
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aimone, J. A., North, C., & Rentschler, L. (2019). Priming the jury by asking for donations: An empirical and experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 160, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.01.022.Google Scholar
Alicke, M. (2008). Blaming badly. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 8(1–2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1163/156770908X289279.Google Scholar
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Alvarez, M. J. (2018). Impact of class-based prejudice toward defendants and victims on mock jurors’ decision-making (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest. (Order Number 10815208). www.proquest.com/openview/489ceb0bfdc20fcf470c505fc5df62c7/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750. Full article: https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/3391.Google Scholar
Alvarez, M. J., & Miller, M. K. (2016). Counterfactual thinking about crime control theater: Mock jurors’ decision making in an AMBER Alert trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000098.Google Scholar
Alvarez, M. J., & Miller, M. K. (2017). How defendants’ legal status and ethnicity and participants’ political orientation relate to death penalty sentencing decisions. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(3), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000128.Google Scholar
Baptiste, N. (2019). This inmate argued he was sentenced to death because he’s gay. SCOTUS just refused to hear his case. Mother Jones, April 15. www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/04/scotus-wont-hear-lgbt-bias-death-pentalty-case/.Google Scholar
Blais, J., & Forth, A. E. (2014). Potential labeling effects: Influence of psychopathy diagnosis, defendant age, and defendant gender on mock jurors’ decisions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(2), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2012.749473.Google Scholar
Bodenhausen, G. V. (1990). Second‐guessing the jury: Stereotypic and hindsight biases in perceptions of court cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(13), 1112–1121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00394.x.Google Scholar
Bordens, K. S., & Horowitz, I. A. (1986). Prejudicial joinder of multiple offenses: Relative effects of cognitive processing and criminal schema. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7(4), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0704_1.Google Scholar
Bottoms, B. L., Davis, S. L., & Epstein, M. A. (2004). Effects of victim and defendant race on jurors’ decisions in child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Branscombe, N. R., Owen, S., Garstka, T. A., & Coleman, J. (1996). Rape and accident counterfactuals: Who might have done otherwise and would it have changed the outcome? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(12), 1042–1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01124.x.Google Scholar
Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9027-y.Google Scholar
Cantone, J. A. (2018). Counterfactual thinking, causation, and covariation in mock juror assessments of negligence: Twenty‐five years later. Psychological Reports, 123(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118816945.Google Scholar
Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. L. (1989). Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067031.Google Scholar
Clarkson, P. M., Emby, C., & Watt, V. W. S. (2002). Debiasing the outcome effect: The role of instructions in an audit litigation setting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 21(2), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2002.21.2.7.Google Scholar
Cox, J., & Kopkin, M. R. (2016). Defendant and victim sex, sexism, and decision making in an ambiguous assault case. Women & Criminal Justice, 26(5), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2016.1167153.Google Scholar
Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 414–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414.Google Scholar
de Vogue, A. (2019, March 18). Supreme Court declines to take up Georgia death penalty case. CNN. www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/politics/supreme-court-georgia-death-penalty/index.html.Google Scholar
Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision-making: The state of the science. New York University Press.Google Scholar
Dinos, S., Burrowes, N., Hammond, K., & Cunliffe, C. (2015). A systematic review of juries’ assessment of rape victims: Do rape myths impact on juror decision-making? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.07.001.Google Scholar
Eisen, M. L., Gomes, D. M., Wandry, L., et al. (2013). Examining the prejudicial effects of gang evidence on jurors. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2012.713831.Google Scholar
Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009). Of “normal sex” and “real rape”: Exploring the use of socio-sexual scripts in (mock) jury deliberation. Social & Legal Studies, 18(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663909339083.Google Scholar
Fahmy, W., Snook, B., Luther, K., & McCardle, M. I. (2019). Unveiling the truth: The effect of Muslim garments and face covering on the perceived credibility of a victim’s court testimony. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 51(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000116.Google Scholar
Finch, E., & Munro, V. E. (2005). Juror stereotypes and blame attribution in rape cases involving intoxicants: The findings of a pilot study. British Journal of Criminology, 45(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azh055.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture (2nd ed.). Sage.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. A. (1990). Attributions for blue‐collar and white‐collar crime: The effects of subject and defendant race on simulated juror decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(12), 971–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00385.x.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. A., Bindrim, T. A., McNicholas, M. L., & Walden, T. L. (1988). Perceptions of blue-collar and white-collar crime: The effect of defendant race on simulated juror decisions. Journal of Social Psychology, 128(2), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1988.9711362.Google Scholar
Hahn, P. W., & Clayton, S. D. (1996). The effects of attorney presentation style, attorney gender, and juror gender on juror decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 20(5), 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF014.Google Scholar
Hafdahl, R., Edwards, C. P., & Miller, M. K. (2022). Social cognitive processes of jurors. Washburn Law Review, 6(2), 305–344.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., & Sweigart, K. (1993). Jurors’ views of civil lawyers: Implications for courtroom communication. Indiana Law Journal, 68(4), 1297–1332.Google Scholar
Harley, E. M. (2007). Hindsight bias in legal decision making. Social Cognition, 25(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.1.48.Google Scholar
Hill, J. M. (2000). The effects of sexual orientation in the courtroom: A double standard. Journal of Homosexuality, 39(2), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v39n02_05.Google Scholar
Hodell, E. C., Wasarhaley, N. E., Lynch, K. R., & Golding, J. M. (2014). Mock juror gender biases and perceptions of self-defense claims in intimate partner homicide. Journal of Family Violence, 29(5), 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9609-2.Google Scholar
Kamin, K. A., & Rachlinski, J. J. (1995). Ex post ≠ ex ante. Law and Human Behavior, 19(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499075.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L., Hymes, R. W., Anderson, A. B., & Weathers, J. E. (1995). Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19(6), 545–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499374.Google Scholar
Lessmiller, K. (2019, March 18). Justices won’t hear death row inmates claim of racist juror. Courthouse News Service. www.courthousenews.com/justices-wont-hear-death-row-inmates-claim-of-racist-juror/.Google Scholar
Livingston, T. N., Rerick, P. O., & Miller, M. K. (2019). Psychology explains how gender relates to perceptions and outcomes at trial. In Bornstein, B. H. & Miller, M. K. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 4, pp. 136–173). Springer.Google Scholar
Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 602–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602.Google Scholar
MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.95.1.15.Google Scholar
Maeder, E. M., & Burdett, J. (2013). The combined effect of defendant race and alleged gang affiliation on mock juror decision-making. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(2), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.633330.Google Scholar
Maeder, E. M., Dempsey, J., & Pozzulo, J. (2012). Behind the veil of juror decision making: Testing the effects of Muslim veils and defendant race in the courtroom. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(5), 666–678.Google Scholar
Malavanti, K. F., Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & WeaverIII, C. A. (2012). Subtle contextual influences on racial bias in the courtroom. The Jury Expert, 24(3), 1–15.Google Scholar
Maurer, T. W., & Robinson, D. W. (2008). Effects of attire, alcohol, and gender on perceptions of date rape. Sex Roles, 58(5–6), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9343-9.Google Scholar
McDermott, C. M., Miller, M. K., & DeVault, A. D. (2020). They should have known: Hindsight and outcome biases in child abduction cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(7), 430–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12671.Google Scholar
McKimmie, B. M., Masters, J. M., Masser, B. M., Schuller, R. A., & Terry, D. J. (2013). Stereotypical and counterstereotypical defendants: Who is he and what was the case against her? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(3), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030505.Google Scholar
Miller, M. K., Adya, M., Chamberlain, J., & Jehle, A. (2010). The effects of counterfactual thinking on reactions to victimization. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 6(1), 17–30.Google Scholar
Miller, M. K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2006). The use of religion in death penalty sentencing trials. Law and Human Behavior, 30(6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9056-6.Google Scholar
Miller, M. K., Clark, J., & Alvarez, M. J. (2020). Exploring the boundaries of societally acceptable bias expression toward Muslim and atheist defendants in four mock-juror experiments. The Social Science Journal, 59(3), 439–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.004.Google Scholar
Miller, M. K., Maskaly, J., Green, M., & Peoples, C. D. (2011). The effects of deliberations and religious identity on mock jurors’ verdicts. Group Process & Intergroup Relations, 14(4),517–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210377458.Google Scholar
Minero, L. P., & Espinoza, R. E. (2016). The influence of defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on juror decisions: An aversive racism explanation for juror bias. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 38(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986315620374.Google Scholar
Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Social cognition: Understanding self and others. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Nuñez, N., McCrea, S. M., & Culhane, S. E. (2011). Jury decision making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(3), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.967.Google Scholar
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008.Google Scholar
Ragatz, L. L., & Russell, B. (2010). Sex, sexual orientation, and sexism: What influence do these factors have on verdicts in a crime-of-passion case? The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(4), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366677.Google Scholar
Raitt, F. E., & Zeedyk, M. S. (1997). Rape trauma syndrome: Its corroborative and educational roles. Journal of Law and Society, 24(4), 552–568.Google Scholar
Rerick, P. O., Livingston, T. N., & Miller, M. K. (2021). Guilt by association: The effects of criminal family members on mock jurors’ perceptions of victims and defendants. Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(3), 282–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1798428.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K., & Sobus, M. S. (1997). An integration of hindsight bias and counterfactual thinking: Decision-making and drug courier profiles. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 539–560. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024879824307.Google Scholar
Rye, B. J., Greatrix, S. A., & Enright, C. S. (2006). The case of the guilty victim: The effects of gender of victim and gender of perpetrator on attributions of blame and responsibility. Sex Roles, 54(9–10), 639–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9034-y.Google Scholar
Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1367–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263005.Google Scholar
Starr, S. B. (2015). Estimating gender disparities in federal criminal cases. American Law and Economics Review, 17(1), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahu010.Google Scholar
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In Oskamp, S. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stuart, S. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2019). Rape perpetrators on trial: The effect of sexual assault-related schemas on attributions of blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(2), 310–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516640777.Google Scholar
Sweeney, L. T., & Haney, C. (1992). The influence of race on sentencing: A meta‐analytic review of experimental studies. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 10(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370100204.Google Scholar
Tillyer, R., Hartley, R. D., & Ward, J. T. (2015). Differential treatment of female defendants: Does criminal history moderate the effect of gender on sentence length in federal narcotics cases? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(7), 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814560624.Google Scholar
Trahan, A., & Stewart, D. M. (2011). Examining capital jurors’ impressions of attorneys’ personal characteristics and their impact on sentencing outcomes. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 7(2), 93–105.Google Scholar
Vrij, A., & Firmin, H. R. (2001). Beautiful thus innocent? The impact of defendants’ and victims’ physical attractiveness and participants’ rape beliefs on impression formation in alleged rape cases. International Review of Victimology, 8(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975800100800301.Google Scholar
Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wiley, T. R., & Bottoms, B. L. (2009). Effects of defendant sexual orientation on jurors’ perceptions of child sexual assault. Law and Human Behavior, 33(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9131-2.Google Scholar
Wolf, S. (2010). Counterfactual thinking in the jury room. Small Group Research, 41(4), 474–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410369562.Google Scholar
Yelderman, L. A., & Miller, M. K. (2017). Religious fundamentalism, religiosity, and priming: Effects on attitudes, perceptions, and mock jurors’ decisions in an insanity defense case. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1239097.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×