Factors affecting juror decision-making have been studied extensively to determine what drives juror's decisions (Skorinko, Laurent, Bountress, Nyein, and Kuckuck, 2014). In utero androgen exposure measured using the 4D:2D ratio has been studied to understand how the amount of in utero androgen individuals are exposed to affects their personality and emotional development (Manning et. al., 2010; Kempe and Heffernan, 2011; Hampson, Ellis and Tenk, 2008; Fink, Manning and Neave, 2004; Knickmeyer, Baron-Cohen, Raggatt, Taylor and Hackett, 2006; Knickmeyer and Baron-Cohen, 2006; Wakabayashi and Nakazawa, 2010). Using 106 undergraduate students, the current study sought to understand how the 4D:2D ratio affects juror decision-making in civil cases by having participants assign a proportion of liability to a defendant. Participants reviewed jury instructions, as well as three case vignettes. One of these case vignettes was removed due to a description error that led almost all of the participants to find the plaintiff at fault. This study had three different experimental groups where age of the plaintiff was counterbalanced to control age as a factor in the amount of liability assigned. It was hypothesized that a higher 4D:2D ratio would result in lower defendant liability. Here we show that there was a significantly lower proportion of defendant liability assigned by the high 4D:2D ratio group as compared to the low 4D:2D ratio group; t(210) = 2.89, p < 0.01, d = 0.36. Interestingly, despite the difference between the group means, variability was such that the 4D:2D ratio was not predictive of the proportion of defendant liability assigned for experimental conditions.

People often rely on experts' opinions and knowledge to inform their own decisions. This can be problematic, as expertise does not necessarily protect one from bias, and increased experience does not always increase an experts' accuracy (Cassidy & Buede, 2009; Goldberg, 1968; Molins et al., 2008). The nature of task characteristics of expert domains is associated with experts' performance (Shanteau 1992). The purpose of this thesis is to examine how people perceive experts in different disciplines, and to explore the factors that affect perceptions of expert objectivity. Perceptions of objectivity in 26 expert domains were examined. As hypothesized, higher ratings of clear and immediate feedback available to experts were associated with higher ratings of objectivity. However, other indicators of higher domain validity were not recognized by laypeople, such as higher levels of training and education. Contrary to our hypotheses, higher levels of familiarity with experts in a given domain and more experiences of disagreement with experts in a given domain were not associated with perceptions of objectivity. These results suggest that laypeople can correctly identify some indicators of the validity of different expert domains, but they cannot identify others. These perceptions affect how objectivity is perceived.

Prior research has indicated an attractive-leniency bias for defendants in mock jury studies. However, in recent years there have been highly publicized trials of attractive women who also appear sexual, in which juror's judgements do not show support for the attractive-leniency bias. The opposite effect seems to be taking place. The present study is the first to test the Femme Fatale stereotype that seems to be producing harsher judgements of attractive and sexually appealing women who commit crime, and the interaction of the relationship to their victim. The present study conducted a 2 (Attractiveness) X 2 (Sexual Appearance) X 2 (Relationship) between subjects design. Researchers conducted an ANOVA on all variables. Results indicate that women who are perceived as more attractive and more sexual, are more likely to be found guilty of their crime.

The objective of this study is to determine if female attorneys are penalized for expressing anger, while male attorneys gain influence when they express anger. I hypothesized that angry male attorneys would be perceived as having more positive traits and less negative traits than calm male attorney. In contrast, I hypothesized that angry female attorneys would be perceived as having more negative traits and less positive traits than calm female attorneys. I hypothesized that, as a result, participants would be more likely to hire the angry male attorney than the calm male attorney, while they would be less likely to hire the angry female attorney than the calm female attorney. After having participants view a video of attorneys giving closing arguments, whether it be angry or calm, male or female and having them answer questions, I found that both attorneys were characterized as having both more positive and negative traits than calm attorneys—regardless of their gender. In regards to the likelihood of being hired, I found that angry male attorneys were more likely to be hired than calm male attorneys. In contrast, angry female attorneys were less likely to be hired than calm female attorneys. Thus, although participants found both male and female angry (versus calm) attorneys high on negative and positive characteristics, they were more likely to hire the angry (versus calm) male attorney, which is consistent with previous research showing men are seen as more competent when expressing anger. These data suggest that there might be a systematic bias against women who try to exert influence in the courtroom by expressing anger.

Previous studies exploring variability in sentencing decisions have consistently found gender differences, such that women receive lighter sentences than men. In the proposed study, I present a new framework for understanding gender differences in sentencing preferences, including circumstances under which no gender differences should emerge. The Affordance Management Approach suggests that our minds are attuned to both group- and individual-level threats and opportunities that others afford us. I conceptualize the sentencing difference between men and women as driven by perceived affordances that assist or hinder an individual in achieving certain fundamental goals. When faced with sanctioning an offender in our community, the offender's sex, the victim's age, and environmental variables such as the ratio of men to women may influence our decision-making, because these factors have affordance implications. Thus, I hypothesized that individuals will express differences in the sentencing of offenders who commit assault, and that these differences vary by offender sex, victim age, and sex-ratio. The results indicate that, as predicted, female offenders received lighter sentencing than men when the offender committed an assault against a same-sex adult, but received equally punitive sentences as men when the assault was committed against a child. In general, results do not support a consistent effect of sex ratio as a factor when making sentencing decisions. Although results do not fully support the current study's specific hypotheses, there remains much to be gained from applying an affordance management perspective to understanding variability in sentencing between the sexes.

Society places great trust in the police to uphold and protect the law. People who have a duty to protect (vs. no duty) and violate the institution they are supposed to safeguard are often judged more harshly. I test whether people will punish an on-duty police officers more severely for committing a violent crime compared to an off-duty officer or a civilian. I hypothesized that this effect might be enhanced when a perpetrator commits a violent crime against an African-American compared to a Caucasian. Furthermore, I predicted that this effect will be exacerbated after highly publicized controversial incidents of police use-of-force. In a mock jury paradigm involving a defendant who committed a violent crime, I found that the protective role of the perpetrator and race of the victim did not affect punishment judgments. Participants did, however, punish defendants less and identified with police more after a highly publicized incident (the Ferguson grand jury decision) compared to before the incident.

The objective of this study was to determine whether prosecutors would be more inclined to prosecute a juvenile sex offense case when the offender is gay versus straight. I also tested whether the effect of offender sexual orientation would be different for male versus female juvenile offenders. Based on previous research showing leniency toward lesbian juvenile sex offenders among laypeople, I hypothesized that prosecutors would be more likely to prosecute a case in which the offender was gay instead of heterosexual—but only if they were boys. In contrast, if the offenders were lesbians, I hypothesized that prosecutors would be less inclined to prosecute, compared to heterosexual girls. Based on survey data, I found that prosecutors’ decisions to prosecute were not affected by the offender’s gender or sexuality, but their impressions of the offender were. Prosecutors perceived males to be more likely to recidivate than females. Specifically, gay males were perceived as more likely to recidivate than heterosexual males; however the difference between lesbians and heterosexuals were nearly indistinguishable. Prosecutors also viewed gay males as having more negative attributes than heterosexual males. Contrarily, lesbian girls were perceived as having slightly less negative attributes than heterosexual girls. Still, females overall were perceived as having less negative attributes than males. These impressions on recidivism and negative attributes were important because they both positively correlated with the prosecutor’s decision to prosecute the case.

This study hypothesizes that a sampling of prosecutors would be more likely to prosecute juveniles who identify as homosexual versus those who identify as heterosexual. To test this hypothesis, surveys were mailed to 1,000 prosecutors around the United States with a between subject design, meaning that each participant was only exposed to one condition in the vignette they read. There were a total of four vignettes, creating four conditions of different sexual orientations and gender in sexually appropriate relationships. The vignettes contain conditions in which either a male or female junior in high school was videotaped having oral sex with either a male or a female freshman in high school. Prosecutors were asked questions about whether they would prosecute the older student for statutory rape. Results indicated that our manipulations of sexual orientation and gender were not statistically significant on prosecutorial discretion or punishment severity/motives, however, these manipulations did alter the prosecutor's perceptions of the offender.

A substantial amount of research has been dedicated to understanding how and why innocent people confess to crimes that they did not commit. Unfortunately, false confessions occur even with the best possible interrogation practices. This study aimed to examine how different types of false confession (voluntary, compliance, and internalization) and the use of jury instructions specific to confessions influences jurors’ verdicts. A sample of 414 participants read a criminal trial case summary that presented one of four reasons why the defendant falsely confessed followed by either the standard jury instruction for confessions or a clarified version. Afterwards, participants completed several items assessing the perceived guilt of the defendant, their attitudes on confessions in general, and their opinions on jury instructions. Although the three confession reasons did not differ among one another, jurors who were given no explanation for the false confession tended to more harshly judge the defendant. Further, the clarified jury instructions did not influence the participants’ judgments. Future research should focus on how expert witness testimonies affect verdicts regarding each type of false confession reason and whether the media may influence a juror’s knowledge of factors that could provoke false confessions.

In recent years, the use of biologically based (neurological, neuropsychological, genetic) evidence in criminal trials as support for claims of mental impairments among offenders has increased in popularity. However, research on how exposure to those arguments affects jury decision-making remains unclear. Specifically, arguments rooted in biology sometimes mitigate and sometimes aggravate judgments of criminal responsibility for mentally ill offenders, and this discrepancy seems to stem from the specific conditions by which that disorder was acquired. The following study’s aim was to uncover the precise mechanism(s) behind this elusive effect. Utilizing a 2x2 between subjects experimental design, participants were presented with a hypothetical crime summary involving an offender with either an onset controllable or uncontrollable mental disorder. Ratings of criminal responsibility and other variables hypothesized to function as mediators were obtained after presentation of a prime supporting either a biologically deterministic or free will argument for human behavior in general. Results indicated that when the defendant’s disorder was the result of the his own actions (onset controllable), a biological prime decreased judgments of criminal responsibility; however, when the disorder was caused by factors out of his control (onset uncontrollable), the prime increased judgments of criminal responsibility. An examination of several possible mechanisms finds the effect mediated by the perception of control the defendant could have had over his own actions at the time of the crime. These results suggest that perceptions of behavioral control are an important contributor to jurors’ formation of criminal responsibility judgments when an offender possesses a mental illness; and arguments advocating a biological basis for human behavior reliably affect blame attribution, suggesting that a societal shift in the perception of free will as a result of increased exposure to biology in general may alter the framework of criminal responsibility judgments.