Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 597–620 | Cite as

The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes

  • Regina A. Schuller


The impact of “battered woman syndrome” testimony on jury decision processes in trials of battered women who kill their abusers was investigated in two separate studies. It was hypothesized that the presence of the testimony would influence jurors' verdicts via its mediating effect on the jurors' interpretations of the battered woman's beliefs and actions and that its impact would vary as a function of the degree to which it was linked to the woman on trial. In Experiment I, subjects read a homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her husband. They received either no expert testimony (control), expert testimony presenting general research findings on the battered woman syndrome (general expert), or expert testimony in which the expert supplemented the general information with an opinion that the defendant fit the syndrome (specific expert). The presence of the specific expert, compared to the control, led to interpretations that were more consistent with the woman's account of what occurred; these interpretations, in turn, were related to more lenient verdicts. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of the testimony on small groups of deliberating jurors. Compared to the control condition, a moderate shift in verdicts from murder to manslaughter was found in both expert conditions. Content analyses of the deliberations, as well as postdeliberation judgments, indicated that the presence of the testimony led to interpretations that were more favorable to the battered woman's claim of self-defense.


Small Group Social Psychology Content Analysis Research Finding General Information 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acker, J. R., & Toch, H. (1985). Battered women, straw men and expert testimony: A comment on State v. Kelly.Criminal Law Bulletin, 21, 125–155.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. R., & Ager, J. W. (1978). Analysis of variance in small group research.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 341–345.Google Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgida, E., & Brekke, N. (1981). The base rate fallacy in attribution and prediction. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.),New directions in attribution research, (Vol. 3, pp. 63–95). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372–386.Google Scholar
  6. Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Kelly, J. R. (1988). Cognitions, attitudes and decision making in search and seizure cases.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 93–113.Google Scholar
  7. Crocker, P. L. (1985). The meaning of equality for battered women who kill men in self defense.Harvard Women's Law Journal, 8, 121–153.Google Scholar
  8. Cross, M. R. (1982). The expert as educator: A proposed approach to the use of battered woman syndrome expert testimony.Vanderbilt Law Review, 35, 741–768.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Holt, R. & Meek, D. (1975). The decision process of 6-and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1–14.Google Scholar
  10. Dodge, M., & Greene E. (1991). Jurors and expert conceptions of battered women.Violence and Victims, 6, 271–282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ewing, C. P. (1987).Battered women who kill: Psychological self defense as legal justification. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
  12. Ewing, C. P., & Aubrey, M. (1987). Battered woman and public opinion: Some realities about the myths.Journal of Family Violence, 2, 257–264.Google Scholar
  13. Ewing, C. P. (1990). Psychological self-defense: A proposed justification for battered women who kill.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 579–594.Google Scholar
  14. Faigman, P. C. (1986). The battered woman syndrome and self-defense: A legal and empirical dissent.Virginia Law Review, 72, 619–647.Google Scholar
  15. Farmer, L. C., Cundick, B. P., Williams, G. R., Howell, R. J., Lee, R. E., & Rooker, C. K. (1977). Juror perceptions of trial testimony as a function of method of presentation. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.),Psychology and the law (pp. 209–238). Lexington, MA: Lexington.Google Scholar
  16. Fienberg, S. E. (1977).The analysis of cross-classified categorical data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Finkel, N. J., Meister, K. H., & Lightfoot, D. M. (1991). The self-defense defense and community sentiment.Law and Human Behavior, 15, 585–602.Google Scholar
  18. Follingstad, D. R., Polek, D. S., Hause, E. S., Deaton, L. H., Bulger, M. W., & Conway, Z. D. (1989). Factors predicting verdicts in cases where battered women kill their husbands.Law and Human Behavior, 13, 253–269.Google Scholar
  19. Gentemann, K. M. (1984). Wife beating: Attitudes of a non-clinical population.Victimology: An International Journal, 9, 109–119.Google Scholar
  20. Gelles, R. S., & Straus, M. A. (1988).intimate violence. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  21. Gillespie, C. K. (1989).Justifiable homicide. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Greene, E., Raitz, A., & Lindblad, H. (1989). Juror's knowledge of battered women.Journal of Family Violence, 4, 105–125.Google Scholar
  23. Grizzle, J. E., Starmer, C. F., Koch, G. G. (1969). Analysis of categorical data by linear models.Biometrics, 25, 489–504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawthorne v. State (1982). 408 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1982).Google Scholar
  25. Hosch, H. M., Beck, E. L., & McIntyre, P. (1980). Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions.Law and Human Behavior, 4, 287–296.Google Scholar
  26. Ibn-Tamas v. United States, 455 A 2d 893 (1983).Google Scholar
  27. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966).The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  28. Kinports, K. (1988). Defending battered women's self-defense claims.Oregon Law Review, 67, 393–465.Google Scholar
  29. Littleton, C. A. (1989). Women's experience and the problem of transition: Perspectives on male battering of women.The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 23–57.Google Scholar
  30. Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mass, A., Brigham, J. C., & West, S. G. (1985). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advise is not always persuasive.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 207–229.Google Scholar
  32. McCord, D. (1986). Expert psychological testimony about child complaints in sexual abuse prosecutions: A foray into the admissibility of novel psychological evidence.The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 2–68.Google Scholar
  33. Morse, S. J. (1990). The misbegotten marriage of soft psychology and bad law: Psychological self-defense as a justification for homicide.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 595–618.Google Scholar
  34. Mosteller, R. P. (1989). Legal doctrines governing the admissibility of expert testimony concerning social framework evidence.Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 85–132.Google Scholar
  35. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.Google Scholar
  36. Saks, M., & Hastie, R. (1978).Social psychology in the court. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  37. Saunders, D. G., Lynch, A. B., Grayson, M., & Linz, D. (1987). The inventory of beliefs about wife beating: The construction and initial validation of, a measure of beliefs and attitudes.Violence and Victims, 2, 39–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Schneider, E. M. (1986). Describing and changing women's self-defense work and the problem of expert testimony on battering.Women's Rights Law Reporter, 9, 195–222.Google Scholar
  39. Schuller, R. A. (1991). The impact of battered woman syndrome testimony on jury decision making: Lavallee v. R. considered.Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 10, 105–126.Google Scholar
  40. Schuller, R. A., & Vidmar, N. (1992). Battered woman syndrome evidence: A review of the literature.Law and Human Behavior, 16, 273–291.Google Scholar
  41. Serrato, V. (1988). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse prosecutions: A spectrum of uses.Boston University Law Review, 68, 155–192.Google Scholar
  42. Shaver, K. G. (1985).The attribution of blame. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Spinner, B., & Gabriel, R. M. (1981). Factorial analysis of variance with unequal cell frequencies.Canadian Psychology, 22, 260–270.Google Scholar
  44. State v. Thomas, 423 N.E. 2d 137 (Ohio 1981).Google Scholar
  45. Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1986). Jury deliberations: Content and influence processes in jury decision making.Journal of Applied Psychology, 16, 322–347.Google Scholar
  46. Tetlock, P. E., & Levi, A. (1982). Attribution bias: On the inconclusiveness of the cognition-motivation debate.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 68–88.Google Scholar
  47. Vidmar, N. (1979). The other issues in jury simulation research.Law and Human Behavior, 3, 95–106.Google Scholar
  48. Vidmar, N., & Schuller, R. A. (1989). Juries and expert evidence: Social framework testimony.Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 133–176.Google Scholar
  49. Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1987). Social frameworks: A new use of social science in law.Virgina Law Review, 73, 559–598.Google Scholar
  50. Walker, L. (1979).The battered woman. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  51. Walker, L. (1983). Victimology and the psychological perspectives of battered women.Victimology: An International Journal, 8, 82–104.Google Scholar
  52. Walker, L. (1984).The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Walker, L. E., Thyfault, R. K., Browne, A. (1982). Beyond the juror's ken: Battered women.Vermont Law Review, 7, 1–14.Google Scholar
  54. Wells, G. L. (1986). Expert psychological testimony: Empirical and conceptual analyses of effects.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 83–95.Google Scholar
  55. Wieten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics.Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Regina A. Schuller
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYork UniversityToronto

Personalised recommendations