Despite scholarly criticism, juror attitudes or individual differences might affect verdict choice in criminal trials. Authoritarianism is a face valid predictor. Twenty studies exploring the authoritarianism-verdict relation were meta-analyzed to test this hypothesis. Authoritarianism measure (traditional or legal), subject type, presentation medium of trial, and type of crime were examined as moderators of the effect. Results support an authoritarianism-verdict relation and the moderator effect of authoritarianism type. Legal authoritarianism correlated more strongly with verdict. Subject type, presentation medium, and type of crime were also significant moderators. Implications for future research, as well as for legal and judicial practice, are discussed. This evidence strengthens the case for extended voir dire procedure in criminal courts.The construct of authoritarianism has received considerable research attention since the publication of the classic The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). There are numerous scales for assessing authoritarianism (Christie, 1991). Individual differences in authoritarianism have been found to be associated with such social behaviors as conformity (Crutchfield, 1955), unwillingness to engage in forms of political protest (Granberg & Corrigan, 1972), and use of physical punishment (Epstein, 1965). There is also a literature on the association between individual differences in authoritarianism and the behavior of mock and actual jurors judging criminal cases; the current article examines this literature. The conceptual hypothesis of the studies reviewed is that jurors high in authoritarianism perceive the defendant as more culpable and are more likely to convict than are jurors low in authoritarianism. Meta-analysis was used to test this prediction, and four variables that might moderate the hypothesized relation were examined. Characteristics of AuthoritariansAllport (1954) described the authoritarian person as one who finds daily life and "the consequences of personal freedom. . . unpredictable" (p. 382). Allport argued that such individuals would look to authority, in the form of society's rules and laws, for discipline and stability. He specified that "this need for au-

In attempting to discredit an eyewitness, it is a common strategy for an attorney to highlight inconsistencies in the eyewitness's recall testimony during cross-examination and encourage the jurors to infer, based on those inconsistencies, that the eyewitness's memory is faulty. An experiment was conducted to examine the effectiveness of this cross-examination strategy. Subjects viewed a simulated cross-examination and rendered judgments about the eyewitness and defendant. The type of inconsistent testimony was manipulated between subjects. Subjects exposed to inconsistent recall testimony about either central or peripheral details perceived the eyewitness as less credible (as evidenced by ratings on multiple dimensions) and the defendant as less culpable. Inconsistency on central details led to fewer convictions. Results point to the effectiveness of this cross-examination strategy.* The authors are indebted to Laura Bonich, Theresa Younes, and Catherine Captain for their assistance in preparation of materials and data collection. We also thank Michael Leippe and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to

No abstract

This research examined the effectiveness of voir dire as a legal safeguard in eyewitness cases. For voir dire to serve as an effective safeguard, attorneys must be able to identify and excuse prospective jurors who are unable or unwilling to critically evaluate eyewitness testimony. On the basis of previous research, we hypothesized that attitudes toward eyewitnesses would correlate significantly with jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability in a case in which eyewitness identification plays a pivotal role. We developed a measure of these attitudes and its internal consistency was established. In two trial simulation studies, attitudes toward eyewitnesses correlated weakly and nonsignificantly (p > .05) with mock-juror perceptions of defendant culpability, casting doubt on the effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard.

No abstract