An Attributional Analysis of Jurors' Judgments in a Criminal Case: A Preliminary Investigation

Abstract

A study was conducted to determine the extent to which attributional complexity influences juror decision-making. Using Fletcher's (1986) attributional complexity scale, mock jurors (N = 186), who were shown a videotape of a simulated armed robbery, then rendered individual judgments on the case. The results showed that attributionally-simple participants found the defendant guilty more often both before and after presentation of the evidence, reported more confidence in their final decision, and attributed more personal causes to the defendant's behavior. Attributionally-complex participants, while not excluding the role of internal causes, were more likely to consider external causes as possible influences on the defendant's behavior. The findings demonstrate the existence of clear individual differences in attributional style and the potential importance of this variable for jury selection.

Attributionally more complex people show less punitiveness and racism

“…Horhota and Blanchard-Fields (2006) recently replicated Devine's finding in both young and older adults. Pope and Meyer (1999) extended this finding to the realm of juror decision making. They found that, when presented with a trial case, complex people would rely less heavily on internal attributions than would simple people; accordingly, they found the defendant less guilty.…”

Less Thought, More Punishment: Need for Cognition Predicts Support for Punitive Responses to Crime

“…As noted earlier, attributionally complex individuals are assumed to be more likely than attributionally simple individuals to attribute behavior to "abstract, contemporary, external causes" and to be more aware of the power of the social situation (Fletcher et al, 1986). Attributionally complex individuals also have been shown to attribute a criminal's behavior to societal influence more so than attributionally simple individuals (Pope & Meyer, 1999). Given these tendencies, and the fact that high need for cognition individuals are more attributionally complex than lows, it makes sense that they would be less punitive as well.…”

“…Attributing criminal behavior to such causes would likely reduce support for stiff penalties. In fact, Pope and Meyer (1999) found that attributionally complex mock jurors were more likely to attrib-ute an accused robber's behavior to his living in a society "which emphasizes money and power" (p. 570) than were attributionally simple individuals. Moreover, attributionally complex individuals were less inclined to view the defendant as guilty than were attributionally simple individuals.…”

“…So, for example, it is not clear from these data whether jurors who are high in need for cognition would advocate less severe penalties for defendants who have been convicted. It seems plausible that they would because their tendency toward greater attributional complexity might cause them to attribute a defendant's criminal behavior to societal influence or other external causes (see Pope & Meyer, 1999). On the other hand, exposure to specific criminal cases also often means that one learns about the consequences of a particular criminal act (e.g., victim impact statements describe harm to victims and their families).…”

The Impact of Failing to Give an Apology and the Need-for-Cognition on Anger

“…It is possible that participants high in the need-for-cognition did not interpret the incorrect answers given by the confederate as provocation. High need-forcognition participants may have been more likely to consider a number of mitigating factors for the confederate's behavior (Fletcher et al 1986;Pope and Meyer 1999). If the high need-for-cognition participants did not interpret the confederate's behavior as provocation there would be no need for an apology, and the failure to give an apology would not produce anger.…”