Abstract. Automobile accidents are a frequent occurrence in the United States and commonly result in legal ramifications. Through a fundamental attribution error (FAE) framework ( Ross, 1977 ), the current research examined how individuals perceive blame and negligence in these cases. In Study 1 ( N = 360), we manipulated the driver (you vs. stranger) of a hypothetical accident scenario and the situational circumstances surrounding the accident (favorable vs. unfavorable). Supporting the FAE, individuals' situational blame attributions only varied as a function of situational circumstances when they themselves were hypothetically driving. However, neither the driver nor the situation significantly predicted dispositional blame attributions. Yet, Study 1 provided initial support for the importance of an individual's trait tendency to neglect situational constraints when making dispositional blame attributions. In Study 2 ( N = 212), we again manipulated situational circumstances surrounding the hypothetical accident, but within the context of a mock civil trial. Results provided additional support for the importance of this trait tendency and expanded our findings of dispositional blame attributions to perceptions of negligence. Implications include the importance of considering trait individual differences in the likelihood to ignore situational demands when individuals are making legally relevant judgments about automobile accidents.

Expert credentials and scientific validity of expert evidence have been shown to impact mock jurors' perceptions of expert credibility. The current study investigated the interactive effects of these two variables. Participants (N = 273) were exposed to a mock civil trial based on a real hostile work environment case. We were interested in both the interactions of expert degree and overall validity of the evidence, as well the impact of degree with specific types of validity. In a between-subjects design, we varied the expert's educational degree (MS vs. PhD) and the scientific validity of the expert's evidence through internal validity (high vs. low) and ecological validity (high vs. low). Results indicated an interaction of degree with overall scientific quality, while controlling for participant sex. When the expert presented high-quality testimony, a PhD expert and their evidence were perceived more positively than an MS expert.

More than 53 million people come in contact with police each year, with people of color and those with mental illness (MI) being subjected to increased rates of contact. Sometimes police and civilian interactions have fatal outcomes, and these populations are disproportionately affected. As a result, families of these victims sometimes seek monetary compensation through civil litigation. The current study sought to understand how victim race and mental illness might impact civil juror decision‐making in deadly police use of force cases. Participants (N = 177) were exposed to trial evidence and were assessed on a number of dimensions. Results display a strong influence of mock jurors' attitudes toward police legitimacy on compensatory damages, as well as interaction effects between attitudes toward police legitimacy and victim race on punitive damage awards and opinions on what professional consequences the involved police officer should face. Implications and future directions are discussed.

The current study examined whether business owners would be found liable for an employee’s illness from COVID-19 contracted at work. We varied whether there was a mask mandate at the time of the employee’s exposure (Yes or No), how the employee was exposed (an unmasked customer, an unmasked owner who forgot her mask, or an unmasked owner who did not require masks in her store) and measured participants’ political orientation. Participants ( N = 257) read and listened to a trial transcript about an employee that contracted COVID-19 at her workplace and was suing her employer for compensation to cover hospital bills. Participants were more likely to find the defendant negligent, reckless, and responsible when a mask mandate was present and when an unmasked owner led to the employee’s COVID-19 exposure compared to an unmasked customer. Furthermore, the more conservative the participant, the less likely they were to find the defendant negligent, reckless, and responsible. In sum, presence of a mask mandate, owner exposure, and juror political orientation play an important role in civil litigation involving COVID-19.