Gender differences in the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances: the mediating role of attributional complexity

West, Matthew P.; Yelderman, Logan A.; Miller, Monica K.

doi:10.1080/1068316x.2018.1438432

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We uncovered several individual difference predictors of jurors' discussions of the confession. Regarding gender, our effects were consistent with research revealing that women generally render more external attributions than men (Boots & Cochran, 2011;Tam et al, 2008;West et al, 2018), an effect likely stemming from gendered socialization, driving women to be empathic and other-focused and men to be autonomous and individualistic (Carter, 2014;Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). Indeed, women in the present study were more accurate than men at detecting the invalidity of the confession, more frequently mentioning the coercive situational pressures exerted on the defendant by the police.…”

Section: Juror Individual Difference Predictors Of Discussion Of the ...supporting

confidence: 89%

An attribution theory–based content analysis of mock jurors’ deliberations regarding coerced confessions.

Stevenson¹,

McCracken²,

Watson³

et al. 2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Because confessions are sometimes unreliable, it is important to understand how jurors evaluate confession evidence. We conducted a content analysis testing an attribution theory model for mock jurors’ discussion of coerced confession evidence in determining verdicts. Hypotheses: We tested exploratory hypotheses regarding mock jurors’ discussion of attributions and elements of the confession. We expected that jurors’ prodefense statements, external attributions (attributing the confession to coercion), and uncontrollable attributions (attributing the confession to defendant naivety) would predict more prodefense than proprosecution case judgments. We also expected that being male, politically conservative, and in support of the death penalty would predict proprosecution statements and internal attributions, which in turn would predict guilty verdicts. Method: Mock jurors (N = 253, Mage = 47 years; 65% women; 88% White, 10% Black, 1% Hispanic, 1% listed “other”) read a murder trial synopsis, watched an actual coerced false confession, completed case judgments, and deliberated in juries of up to 12 members. We videotaped, transcribed, and reliably coded deliberations. Results: Most mock jurors (53%) rendered a guilty verdict. Participants made more prodefense than proprosecution statements, more external than internal attributions, and more internal than uncontrollable attributions. Participants infrequently mentioned various elements of the interrogation (police coercion, contamination, promises of leniency, interrogation length) and psychological consequences for the defendant. Proprosecution statements and internal attributions predicted proprosecution case judgments. Women made more prodefense and external attribution statements than men, which in turn predicted diminished guilt. Political conservatives and death penalty proponents made more proprosecution statements and internal attributions than their counterparts, respectively, which in turn predicted greater guilt. Conclusions: Some jurors identified coercive elements of a false confession and rendered external attributions for a defendant’s false confession (attributing the confession to the coercive interrogation) during deliberation. However, many jurors made internal attributions, attributing a defendant’s false confession to his guilt—attributions that predicted juror and jury inclinations to convict an innocent defendant.

show abstract

Section: Juror Individual Difference Predictors Of Discussion Of the ...supporting

confidence: 89%

An attribution theory–based content analysis of mock jurors’ deliberations regarding coerced confessions.

Stevenson¹,

McCracken²,

Watson³

et al. 2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, there are cognitive gender differences that support our supposition, especially in how men and women vary in processing information about people. women have higher attributional complexity (the degree to which an individual considers multiple kinds of information regarding someone in deep processing for social judgements) than men do [ 49 , 50 ]; concerning information processing, women (more than men) are concerned of others, have a lower threshold for message elaboration and extensively use message cues, all indicating they generally process more messages from others and rely less on heuristics to decide the value of a message [ 51 – 57 ]; …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…women have higher attributional complexity (the degree to which an individual considers multiple kinds of information regarding someone in deep processing for social judgements) than men do [ 49 , 50 ];…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can gender inequality be created without inter-group discrimination?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding human societies requires knowing how they develop gender hierarchies, which are ubiquitous. We test whether a simple agent-based dynamic process could create gender inequality. Relying on evidence of gendered status concerns, self-construals, and cognitive habits, our model included a gender difference in how responsive male-like and female-like agents are to others’ opinions about the level of esteem for someone. We simulate a population who interact in pairs of randomly selected agents to influence each other about their esteem judgments of self and others. Half the agents are more influenced by their relative status rank during the interaction than the others. Without prejudice, stereotypes, segregation, or categorization, our model produces inter-group inequality of self-esteem and status that is stable, consensual, and exhibits characteristics of glass ceiling effects. Outcomes are not affected by relative group size. We discuss implications for group orientation to dominance and individuals’ motivations to exchange.

show abstract

“…This value is somewhat below that reported in the two Saks et al (2014) samples (56% and 53%), although we had a higher percentage of female participants in our sample (75.6%) than they did (58% and 55%). Because women in general are less supportive of capital punishment (Boots & Cochran, 2011; West et al, 2018), this would seem to at least partially explain the relatively lower rate of support for death verdicts in our sample.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Another limitation is that our participants were disproportionately female. Juror gender might be an important moderator variable in some types of mock jury scenarios (e.g., cases of alleged sexual abuse and assault; Schutte & Hosch, 1997) and, in general, women tend to be somewhat less supportive of capital punishment and less likely to render death sentences (Boots & Cochran, 2011; West et al, 2018). Although there is some evidence to suggest that gender moderates the effects of psychopathy evidence on mock juror decision-making in sexual predator cases (Guy & Edens, 2003), to date there is little evidence to suggest such an effect in other types of cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Psychopathy Influence Juror Decision-Making in Capital Murder Trials? “The Devil is in the (Methodological) Details”

Truong

Kelley

Edens

2020

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns about the potentially stigmatizing impact of psychopathy evidence in court have been expressed for decades. Saks et al. manipulated diagnostic information (e.g., psychopathy, schizophrenia) and the basis for that evidence (e.g., clinical, neuroimaging) to examine effects on outcomes in two capital murder case vignettes. Somewhat surprisingly, their psychopathy manipulation did not have a consistently adverse impact on juror attitudes relative to other diagnoses or a control condition. We administered the Saks et al. stimulus materials to college students ( N = 569), but added a scale quantifying participant ratings of how psychopathic they perceived the defendant to be. Notably, we obtained uniformly high mean psychopathy ratings across all study conditions. In addition, participants who rated the defendant as more psychopathic (regardless of condition) were more likely to support death verdicts. We discuss the implications of our results in terms of the design of experimental manipulations of mental health evidence for jury simulations.

show abstract

Gender differences in the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances: the mediating role of attributional complexity

Cited by 5 publications

References 63 publications

An attribution theory–based content analysis of mock jurors’ deliberations regarding coerced confessions.

An attribution theory–based content analysis of mock jurors’ deliberations regarding coerced confessions.

Can gender inequality be created without inter-group discrimination?

Does Psychopathy Influence Juror Decision-Making in Capital Murder Trials? “The Devil is in the (Methodological) Details”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About