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-

The current studies examine the influence of pretrial publicity on potential jurors' attitudes toward a defendant. In Study 1, following one year of newspaper coverage of the investigation, arrest, and indictment of defendants for distributing large quantities of marijuana in southern Illinois, 604 potential jurors in that district were surveyed regarding their knowledge of the case, general attitudes toward crime, and attitudes toward the specific case. Analyses of the survey data revealed that knowledge of the case specifics was positively and significantly correlated with perceived culpability of the defendant but nonsignificantly correlated with willingness to admit partiality. Study 2 dealt with a highly publicized Dade County, Florida murder of a police officer in a drug sting operation. Again knowledge of pretrial publicity correlated significantly with perceived culpability of the defendant. As in Study 1, such knowledge did not correlate with stated ability to be impartial. We conclude that even modest pretrial publicity can prejudice potential jurors against a defendant and that self‐reports of impartiality should not be taken at face value.

These studies investigated the differential inclination to convict as well as the demographic and personality differences between impaneled felony jurors who varied in their approval of capital punishment. Study 1 employed 282 jurors impaneled in state court in 1975–1976; Study 2 involved 346 impaneled in 1982–1983. In Study 1 contingencies between 42 demographic/personality/juror experience variables and the jurors' attitude toward capital punishment were examined. In Study 2 the same contingency with attitude toward the death penalty was examined for 58 demographic/personality/juror experience variables. In Study 1, jurors who more strongly favored capital punishment were marginally more likely to have favored convictions. This effect was due to the female subsample. In Study 2, jurors who more strongly favored capital punishment were significantly more likely to favor convicting. If the felony was capital, or the weight of the evidence weaker as indicated by a longer jury deliberation, jurors in Study 2 who more strongly favored capital punishment were even more inclined toward conviction. Results from these studies show that jurors who were more favorable toward capital punishment were significantly more likely to be Caucasion, male, married, wealthier, Republican, politically conservative, and authoritarian. They reported reaching quicker verdicts, participating more in their jury deliberations, and being more persuasive on their juries. These findings suggest that attitude toward the death penalty indexes conviction proneness as well as membership in legally cognizable classes. The findings may raise Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds for altering the method of death qualification of capital jurors as established in Witherspoon v Illinois (1968).

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of death qualification, belief in a just world (BJW), legal authoritarianism (RLAQ), and locus of control (LOC) on venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. 212 venirepersons from the 12th Judicial Circuit in Bradenton, FL, completed a booklet that contained the following: one question that measured their attitudes toward the death penalty; one question that categorized their death-qualification status; the BJW, LOC, and RLAQ scales; a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to evaluate aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; sentence preference; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons were more likely to demonstrate higher endorsements of aggravating factors and lower endorsements of both nonstatutory and statutory mitigating factors. Death-qualified participants were also more likely to have a high belief in a just world, espouse legal authoritarian beliefs, and exhibit an internal locus of control. Findings also suggested that venirepersons with a low belief in a just world and an external locus of control demonstrated higher endorsements of statutory mitigators. Participants with legal authoritarian beliefs revealed higher endorsements of aggravators and lower endorsements of nonstatutory mitigators. Legal implications and applications are discussed.

Contingencies between 23 demographic/personality variables and jury verdict, juror predeliberational verdict, tendency to change his or her verdict, and self-perceived participation and influence were examined by step-wise multiple regression for 319 felony jurors. Conviction-prone male Ss were more interested in having families, had more children, and had lower incomes. They evidenced higher authoritarianism and socialization but lower scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Conviction-prone female Ss had higher scores on the Just World Scale, evidenced legal authoritarianism, and were more empathic and less anomic. In this venue, S's foreign ancestry was more remote. In addition, predictors were identified for the S's tendency to change verdicts and to perceive himself or herself as participating in and influencing the jury's deliberation. The practical utility of scientific juror selection in actual trials is discussed. (39 ref)