Person Perception and Jurors’ Reactions to Defendants

An Equity Theory Interpretation
  • Richard R. Izzett
  • Bruce Dennis Sales
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 2)

Abstract

Interest in the relationship of the social sciences to the legal field has a fairly long history (Marston, 1924; Munsterberg, 1908; Osborne, 1937, Wigmore, 1909). However, prior to the mid-1960s experimental research concerning the influence of extralegal variables on the social perceptions and verdict decisions of jurors was virtually nonexistent. Generally, extralegal variables are those that should have no bearing on a defendant’s judged guilt or innocence, but which, in fact, can influence that judgment (e.g., race, age, and socioeconomic status). Nagel (1969) pointed out this deficiency and called for a quantitative testing of hypotheses concerning our legal processes.

Keywords

Assimilation Stein Dura Sonal Unat 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, J. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2 ). New York: Academic Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, J., & Rosenbaum, W. The relationship of worker productivity to cognitive dissonance about wage inequity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1962, 46, 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, P., & Sanford, T. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row, 1950.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, N. H. Information integration theory: A brief survey. In D. Krantz, R. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Freeman, 1974.Google Scholar
  5. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).Google Scholar
  6. Asch, S. Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1946, 41, 258–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, K. Experimental analysis of third party justice behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. When does a harm-doer compensate a victim? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 435–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boor, M. Effects of victim injury, victim competence, and defendant opportunism on the decisions of simulated jurors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 100, 315–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bray, R. The mock trial: Problems and prospects for jury research. Paper presented at the symposium, Innovation in jury research: Concepts, methodology and policy implications. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. Bruner, J., & Goodman, C. Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1947, 42, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bullock, H. A. Significance of the racial factor in the length of prison sentence. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Political Science, 1961, 52, 411–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Byrne, D. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 713–715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Byrne, D. Attitudes and Attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  15. Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L. A reinforcement model of evaluative responses. Personality: An International Journal, 1970, 1, 103–128.Google Scholar
  16. Carlsmith, J., & Gross, A. Some effects of guilt on compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11, 232–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chaikin, A., & Darley, J. Victim or perpetrator: Defensive attribution and the need for order and justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 268–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973).Google Scholar
  19. Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L. Atkins, R. S., Holt, R., & Meerk, D. The decision processes of 6 and 12 person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis, J. H., Bray, R. M., & Holt, R. W. The empirical study of social decision processes in juries. In J. Tapp and F. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice, and the individual in society: Psychological and legal issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. Davis, K., & Jones, E. Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1960, 61, 402–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DeJong, W., Morris, W., & Hastorf, A. Effect on an escaped accomplice on the punishment assigned to a criminal defendant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 192–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deutsch, M. Awakening the sense of injustice. In M. Ross and M. Lerner (Eds.), Social injustice in North America. Toronto, Ont.: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston of Canada, 1974.Google Scholar
  24. DiBiase, W., & Hjelle, L. Body-image stereotypes and body-type preferences among male college students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 27, 1143–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dion, K. Physical attractiveness and evaluations of children’s transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 207–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 285–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Efran, M. The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 8, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ekman, P. Differential communication of affect by head and body cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 726–735.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 1969, 32, 88–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ellsworth, P., & Carlsmith, S. Effects of eye contact and verbal content on affective response to a dyadic interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 15–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Elwork, A., Sales, B.,and Suggs, D. The trial: A research review. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  32. Exline, R., & Winters, L. Affective relations and mutual glances in dyads. In S. S. Tomkins and C. E. Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and personality. New York: Springer, 1965.Google Scholar
  33. Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 1954, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Friedman, H. Trial by jury: Criteria for convictions, jury size and type I and type II errors. The American Statistician, 1972, 26, 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Friend, R., & Vinson, M. Leaning over backwards—jurors’ responses to defendants’ attractiveness. Journal of Communication, 1974, 24, 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gerbasi, K., & Zuckerman, M. Experimental investigation of jury biasing factors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, April, 1975.Google Scholar
  37. Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gordon, R. A study in forensic psychology: Petit jury verdicts as a function of the number of jury members. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1968.Google Scholar
  39. Griffitt, W. Attitude similarity and attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  40. Griffitt, W., & Jackson, T. Simulated jury decisions: the influence of jury-defendant attitude similarity-dissimilarity. Social Behavior and Personality,1973, 1, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hagan, J. Extra legal attributes and sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law and Society Review, 1974, 8, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hester, R., & Smith, R. Effects of a mandatory death penalty on the decisions of simulated jurors as a function of heinousness of the crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1973, 1, 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoiberg, B., & Stires, L. The effects of several types of pretrial publicity on the guilt attributions of simulated jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973, 3, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Homans, G. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1961.Google Scholar
  45. Howard, J. Racial discrimination in sentencing. Judicature,1975, 59, 120–125.Google Scholar
  46. Izzett, R. R. Effects of self-praise and self-esteem on interpersonal attraction. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1976, 7, 1–5.Google Scholar
  47. Izzett, R., & Fishman, L. Defendant sentences as a function of attractiveness and justification for actions. Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 100, 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Izzett, R., & Leginski, W. Group discussion and the influence of defendant characteristics in a simulated jury setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 93, 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 1620, 1628 (1972).Google Scholar
  50. Johnson, R., Thomson, C., & Frincke, G. Word values, word frequency, and visual duration thresholds. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
  52. Kaplan, M. Information integration in social judgment: Interaction of judge and informational components. In M. F. Kaplan & S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes. New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  53. Kaplan, M. F. Discussion polarization effects in a modified jury decision paradigm: Informational influences. Sociometry, 1977, 40, 262–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kaplan, M., & Kemmerick, G. Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and non-evidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 30, 493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kaplan, M. F., & Schersching, C. Juror deliberation: An information integration analysis. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  56. Katz, L. The twelve-man jury. Trial, Dec. Jan., 1968–1969, 39–42.Google Scholar
  57. Kerper, H. B. Introduction to the Criminal Justice System. St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1972.Google Scholar
  58. Kerr, N. Beautiful and blameless: Effect of victim attractiveness and responsibility on mock jurors’ verdicts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1978, 4, 479–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kessler, J. An empirical study of six and twelve member jury decision-making processes. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 1973, 6, 712–734.Google Scholar
  60. Kulka, R., & Kessler, J. Is justice really blind?—The influence of physical attractiveness on decisions of simulated jurors. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New York, November, 1973.Google Scholar
  61. Landy, D., & Aronson, E. The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decisions of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 5, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Laughlin, E., & Izzett, R. Deliberation and sentencing by attitudinality homogenous juries. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, 1973.Google Scholar
  63. Lawson, E. Hair color, personality and the observer. Psychological Reports, 1971, 28, 311–322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lazarus, R., Yousem, H., & Arenberg, D. Hunger and perception. Journal of Personality, 1953, 21, 312–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Leginski, W., & Izzett, R. Linguistic styles as indices for interpersonal distance. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 91, 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Leginski, W., & Izzett, R. The selection and evaluation of interpersonal distances as a function of linguistic styles. Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 100, 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lerner, M. The unjust consequences of the need to believe in a just world. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
  68. Lerner, M., & Matthews, G. Reactions to suffering of others under conditions of indirect responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1967, 5, 319–325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lerner, M., & Simmons, C. Observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 203–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Leventhal, G., & Bergman, J. Self-depriving behavior as a response to unprofitable inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,1969, 5, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Leventhal, G., Weiss, T., & Long, G. Equity, reciprocity and reallocating rewards in the dyad. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1969, 13, 300–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Levine, L., Chein, I., & Murphy, G. The relation of the intensity of a need to the amount of perceptual distortion: A preliminary report. Journal of Psychology, 1942, 13, 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Marston, W. M. Studies in testimony. Journal of American Institution of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1924, 15, 1–37.Google Scholar
  74. Maslow, A. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.Google Scholar
  75. Mayo, C., & Crockett, W. Cognitive complexity and primary-recency effects in impression formation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1964, 68,335–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mehrabian, A. Orientation behaviors and non-verbal attitude communication. Journal of Communication, 1967, 17, 324–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Messick, S., & Kogan, N. Personality consistencies in judgment: Dimension of role constructs. Multivariate Behavioral Research,1966, 1, 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Meyers, D., & Bishop, G. Discussion effects on racial attitudes. Science, 1970, 169, 778–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Meyers, D., & Bishop, G. The enhancement of dominant attitudes in group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 20, 386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Meyers, D., & Kaplan, M. Group induced polarization in simulated juries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,1976, 2, 63–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mills, L. Six-member and twelve-member juries: An empirical study of trial results. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 1973, 6, 671–711.Google Scholar
  82. Mitchell, H., & Byrne, D. The defendant’s dilemma: Effects of jurors’ attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1973, 25, 123–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Munsterberg, H. On the witness stand. New York: Doubleday, Paget, 1908.Google Scholar
  85. Murray, H. A. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938.Google Scholar
  86. Nagel, S. Dispositions in criminal procedure. U.C.L.A. Law Review, 1967, 1272.Google Scholar
  87. Nagel, S. The legal process from a behavioral perspective. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  88. Nemeth, C., & Sosis, R. A simulated jury study: Characteristics of the defendant and the jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Newcomb, T. The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Nierenberg, G., & Calero, H. How to read a person like a book. Richmond Hill, Ontario: Simon & Schuster of Canada, 1973.Google Scholar
  91. Osborne, A. S. The mind of the juror as judge of the facts. Albany, N.Y.: Boyd Printing Co., 1937.Google Scholar
  92. Ostrom, T. M., Werner, C., & Saks, M. J. An integration theory analysis of jurors’ presumptions of guilt or innocence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 436–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Pepitone, A., & DiNubile, M. Contrast effects in judgments of crime severity and the punishment of criminal violators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 448–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Postman, L., & Schneider, B. Personal values, visual recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 1951, 58, 271–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Pruitt, D. Choice shifts in group discussion: An introductory review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 20, 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Reynolds, D., & Sanders, M. The effects of defendant attractiveness,age, and injury on severity of sentence given by simulated jurors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco, April 1973.Google Scholar
  97. Rosenkrantz, P., & Crockett, W. Some factors influencing the assimilation of disparate information in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ross, M., Thibaut, J., & Evenbeck, S. Some determinants of the intensity of social protest. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,1971, 7, 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. Belief in a just world and reactions to another’s lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery. Journal of Social Issues, 1973, 29, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 1975, 31, 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Rumsey, M. Effects of defendant background and remorse on sentencing judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1976, 6, 64–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rumsey, M., & Castore, C. The effects of defendant description and group discussion on individual sentencing judgments. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, Ill., May, 1974.Google Scholar
  103. Sales, B. Who should conduct the voir dire? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Francisco, June 1974.Google Scholar
  104. Savitsky, J., & Sim, M. Trading emotions: Equity theory of reward and punishment. Journal of Communication, 1974, 24, 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Scherer, D. Attribution of personality from voice: A cross-cultural study on interpersonal perception. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1971, 6, 351–352.Google Scholar
  106. Secord, P., Bevan, W., & Katz, B. The Negro stereotype and perceptual accentuation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Shapiro, D., & Taguiri, R. Sex differences in inferring personality traits. Journal of Psychology, 1959, 47, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Shaw, J., & McMartin, J. Effects of who suffers in an automobile accident on judgmental strictness. Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1973, 1, 239–240.Google Scholar
  109. Sheldon, W., & Stevens, S. The varieties of temperament: A psychology of constitutional differences. New York: Hayes & Brothers, 1942.Google Scholar
  110. Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N. Effects of the physical attractiveness of the defendant and nature of crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 410–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Solomon, R., & Howes, D. A note on McGinnies’ emotionality and perceptual defense. Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 229–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Stein, D., Hardyck, J., & Smith, M. Race and belief: An open and shut case. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 281–290.Google Scholar
  113. Sue, S., Smith, R., & Caldwell, C. Effects of inadmissable evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,1973, 3, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Suggs, D., & Sales, B. The art and science of conducting the voir dire. Professional Psychology, 1978, 9, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Suggs, D., & Sales, B. Using communication cues to evaluate prospective jurors during the voir dire. Arizona Law Review, 1979, 20, 629–642.Google Scholar
  116. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 664–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Thomas, E. A., & Hogue, A. Apparent weight of evidence, decision criteria, and confi- dence ratings in juror decision making. Psychological Review, 1976, 83, 442–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Utne, M. Functions of expressions of liking in response to inequity. Cited in E. Walster, G. Walster, and E. Berscheid, Equity Theory and Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978. Pp. 70–75.Google Scholar
  119. Valenti, A., & Downing, L. Differential effects of jury size on verdicts following deliberation as a function of the apparent guilt of a defendant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 655–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Vidmar, N. Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 211–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Vidmar, N. Group induced shifts in simulated jury decisions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Cleveland, Ohio, May, 1972.Google Scholar
  122. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 151–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. Equity theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978.Google Scholar
  124. Walters, H., & Jackson, D. Group and individual regularities in trait inference: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research,1966, 1, 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Warr, P., & Sims, A. A study of cojudgment processes. Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 598–6604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wiggins, N., Hoffman, P., & Taber, T. Types of judges and cue utilization in judgments of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 52–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Wigmore, J. H. Professor Munsterberg and the psychology of testimony. Illinois Law Review,1909, 3, 399.Google Scholar
  128. Williams v. Flo ri da, 398 U.S. 78 (1970).Google Scholar
  129. Zeisel, H. The waning of the American jury. American Bar Association Journal. 1972, 58, 367–370.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard R. Izzett
    • 1
  • Bruce Dennis Sales
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyState University of New York at OswegoOswegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and College of LawUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations