Advertisement

Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 597–609 | Cite as

The effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil trials

  • Kipling D. WilliamsEmail author
  • Martin J. Bourgeois
  • Robert T. Croyle
Articles

Abstract

The effectiveness of a persuasion technique referred to asstealing thunder was assessed in two simulated jury trials. Stealing thunder is defined as revealing negative information about oneself (or, in a legal setting, one's client) before it is revealed or elicited by another person. In Study 1, 257 college students read or heard one of three versions of a criminal assault trial in which a damaging piece of evidence about the defendant was absent (no thunder), brought up by the prosecutor (thunder), or brought up by the defense attorney and repeated by the prosecutor (stolen thunder). In Study 2, 148 college students heard a civil negligence trial in which damaging evidence about the key plaintiff's witness was absent (no thunder), brought up by the defendant's attorney (thunder), or brought up by the witness himself (stolen thunder). In both studies, stealing thunder significantly reduced the impact of the negative information. A path analysis of the processes underlying the effect suggested that verdicts were affected because of enhanced credibility.

Keywords

College Student Social Psychology Path Analysis Negative Information Defense Attorney 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Archer, R. L., & Burleson, J. A. (1980). The effects of timing of self-disclosure on attraction and reciprocity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 120–130.Google Scholar
  2. Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.Google Scholar
  3. Asch, S. E. (1948). The doctrine of suggestion, prestige, and imitation in social psychology.Psychological Review, 55, 250–276.Google Scholar
  4. Bergman, P. (1979).Trial advocacy in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
  5. Brock, T. C. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change. In A. Greenwald, T. Brock, & T. Ostrom (Eds.),Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brock, T. C., & Brannon, L. A. (1992). Liberalization of commodity theory.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 135–144.Google Scholar
  7. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97–109.Google Scholar
  8. Cialdini, R. B., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Anticipatory opinion effects. In R. Petty, T. Ostrom, & T. Brock (Eds.),Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 217–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Craik, F. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.Google Scholar
  10. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424–435.Google Scholar
  11. Jones, E. E., & Gordon, E. M. (1972). Timing of self-disclosure and its effects on personal attraction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 358–365.Google Scholar
  12. Jörkeskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989).Lisrel 7 user's reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  13. Kassin, S. M., Reddy, M. E., & Tulloch, W. F. (1990). Juror interpretation of ambiguous evidence: The need for cognition, Presentation order, and persuasion.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 43–56.Google Scholar
  14. Keeton, R. (1973).Trial tactics and methods. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  15. Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. I. (1953). “Reinstatement” of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 327–335.Google Scholar
  16. Klonoff, R. H., & Colby, P. L. (1990).Sponsorship strategy: Evidentiary tactics for winning jury trials. Charlottesville, VA: Michie Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity: Judicial remedies and jury bias.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–438.Google Scholar
  18. Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448–468.Google Scholar
  19. Lingle, J. H., & Ostrom, T. M. (1979). Retrieval selectivity in memory-based impression judgments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 180–194.Google Scholar
  20. Lorge, I. (1936). Prestige, suggestion, and attitudes.Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 386–402.Google Scholar
  21. Mauet, T. A. (1992). Fundamentals of trial techniques (3rd. Ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  22. McGuire, W. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, T. O. (1977). Repetition and depth of processing.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 151–172.Google Scholar
  24. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986).Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Pyszczynski, T. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). The effects of opening statements on mock jurors' verdicts in a simulated criminal trial.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 301–313.Google Scholar
  26. Rundus, D. (1971). Analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 63–77.Google Scholar
  27. Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 325–342.Google Scholar
  28. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.Google Scholar
  29. Wyer, R. S. Jr., Srull, T. K., & Gordon, S. (1984). The effects of predicting a person's behavior on subsequent trait judgments.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 29–46.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kipling D. Williams
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin J. Bourgeois
    • 1
  • Robert T. Croyle
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ToledoToledo
  2. 2.University of UtahUSA

Personalised recommendations