Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validity Beliefs and Ideology Can Influence Legal Case Judgments Differently

  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

Jurors sometimes enter a case both with prior beliefs about its likely validity and with more general ideologies that are relevant to the case. Although prior validity beliefs may serve as heuristics, directly biasing decisions when cognitive capacity is low, we hypothesized that ideology may bias systematic thought even when cognitive capacity is high. This experiment studied simulated individual juror decisions in a sex-discrimination case, measuring validity beliefs about such cases as well as feminist ideology, and exposing participants to 1 of 3 case versions under time pressure or no time pressure. Validity beliefs had a direct, heuristic impact on judgment only under time pressure. However, feminist ideology had a mediated influence on judgment via valenced thoughts about the evidence, even under no time pressure. Also, people with initially proplaintiff beliefs judged a woman's sex-discrimination suit more negatively than did prodefendants if the evidence was weak. The results suggest that when jurors can fully process information, validity expectancies might backfire if not supported by case evidence, but ideology can have a more pervasive influence on the decision-making process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations:Atheoretical analysis and review of behavioral research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagby, R. M., & Rector, N. A. (1992). Prejudice in a simulated legal context: A further application of social identity theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 397-406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, V. (1968). Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring techniques to the problems of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 734-750.

  • Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. (1987). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. In L. S. Wrightsman, S. M. Kassin, & C. E. Willis (Eds.), In the jury box: Controversies in the courtroom (pp. 83-94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic processing. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking motivation and cognition to behavior (pp. 553-578). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., & Lutz, S. (1993, October). Time pressure and social judgment. Paper presented at the Society of Experimental Social Psychology meeting, Santa Barbara, CA.

  • Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575-630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 14, 271-280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Moran, G., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165-182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijksterhuis, A., van Knippenberg, A., & Vermuelen, D. (1999). Judgement and memory of a criminal act: The effects of stereotypes and cognitive load. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 191-201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J. F., Smith, J. K., Donnella, A. G., & Gaertner, S. L. (1997). Racial attitudes and the death penalty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1468-1487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, S. L. (1976). Differential group perception and attribution of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping of blacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 590-598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can't not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 221-233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1994). The causes of hostile media effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 165-180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1997). Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 84-97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman v. London Metals Exchange, Inc., 86 N. J. 19 (1981).

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J., Greene, E., & Hsiao, W. (1998). Construing motive in videotaped killings: The role of jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 257-271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. A. (1993). The effect of strong versus weak evidence on the assessment of race stereotypic and race nonstereotypic crimes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 734-749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. A., & Anderson, K. S. (1995). Perceptions of race-stereotypic and race-nonstereotypic crimes: The impact of response-time instructions on attributions and judgments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 455-470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1982). Jury selection. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 39-82). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 401-413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 369-425).

  • Horowitz, I. A., ForsterLee, L., & Brolly, I. (1996). Effects of trial complexity on decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 757-768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, W. G., & Redfering, D. (1985). The dynamics of jury decision-making: A case study. Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 83-89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. (1997). Preventing the application of stereotypic biases in the courtroom: The role of detailed testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1767-1784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443-1455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423-442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., Hymes, R. W., Anderson, A. W., & Weathers, J. E. (1995). Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 545-567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kressel, N. J. (1987). Biased judgments of media bias: A case study of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Political Psychology, 8, 211-227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 333-368). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 669-679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1231-1243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments toward ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. L. (1986). Set/reset: Use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 493-504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., & Crelia, R. A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27-37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., & Comfort, J. C. (1986). Neither “tentative” nor “fragmentary”: Verdict preference of impaneled felony jurors as a function of attitude toward capital punishment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 146-155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & De Lisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law and Psychology Review, 18, 309-328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., & Lecci, L. (1998). Revising the factor structure of the Juror Bias Scale: A method for the empirical validation of theoretical constructs. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 239-256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). Ameta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeifer, J. E., & Ogloff, J. R. (1991). Ambiguity and guilt determinations: A modern racism perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1713-1725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulson, R. L., Brondino, M. J., Brown, H., & Braithwaite, R. L. (1998). Relations among mock jurors' attitudes, trial evidence, and their selections of an insanity defense verdict: Apath analytic approach. Psychological Reports, 82, 3-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 52-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. J. (1976, January). Social scientists can't rig juries. Psychology Today, 48-57.

  • Schul, Y., & Manzury, F. (1990). The effects of type of encoding and strength of discounting appeal on the success fo ignoring an invalid testimony. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 337-349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530.

    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, 1367-1379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F., Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Kubler, A., & Wanke, M. (1993). Awareness of the influence as a determinant of assimilation and contrast. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 53-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36-51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Dunn, M. (1998). The metacognition of bias correction: Naive theories of bias and the flexible correction model. In V. Y. Yzerbyt & G. Lories (Eds.), Metacognition: Cognitive and social dimensions (pp. 202-227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weir, J. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1990). The determinants of mock jurors' verdicts in a rape case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 901-919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgment and evaluations. Psychological Review, 116, 117-142.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom

    Roger Giner-Sorolla

  2. New York University, New York, New York

    Shelly Chaiken & Stacey Lutz

Authors
  1. Roger Giner-Sorolla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shelly Chaiken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stacey Lutz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Giner-Sorolla, R., Chaiken, S. & Lutz, S. Validity Beliefs and Ideology Can Influence Legal Case Judgments Differently. Law Hum Behav 26, 507–526 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020251921659

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020251921659

Search

Navigation