When emotionality trumps reason: A study of individual processing style and juror bias

Abstract

''Cognitive Experiential Self Theory'' (CEST) postulates that information-processing proceeds through two pathways, a rational one and an experiential one. The former is characterized by an emphasis on analysis, fact, and logical argument, whereas the latter is characterized by emotional and personal experience. We examined whether individuals influenced by the experiential system (E-processors) are more susceptible to extralegal biases (e.g. defendant attractiveness) than those influenced by the rational system (R-processors). Participants reviewed a criminal trial transcript and defendant profile and determined verdict, sentencing, and extralegal susceptibility. Although Eprocessors and R-processors convicted attractive defendants at similar rates, Eprocessors were more likely to convict less attractive defendants. Whereas R-processors did not sentence attractive and less attractive defendants differently, E-processors gave more lenient sentences to attractive defendants and harsher sentences to less attractive defendants. E-processors were also more likely to report that extralegal factors would change their verdicts. Further, the degree to which emotionality trumped rationality within an individual, as measured by a novel scoring method, linearly correlated with harsher sentences and extralegal influence. In sum, the results support an ''unattractive harshness'' effect during guilt determination, an attraction leniency effect during sentencing and increased susceptibility to extralegal factors within E-processors.

Rational and Experiential Decision-Making Preferences of Third-Year Student Pharmacists

“…5 The REI-40 has been validated among various populations, including college students, 5 paramedics, 15 potential jurors, 16 cardiologists, 14 and emergency physicians. 12 This psychometric instrument is internally consistent and highly reliable, with the Cronbach alpha ranging from 0.74 to 0.91.…”

Trials and Tribulations: Psychopathic Traits, Emotion, and Decision-Making in an Ambiguous Case of Sexual Assault

“…The first pathway is highly affect-oriented, involves rapid processing, is preconscious, and based on past experiences (experiential or E-processors); whereas the second pathway is more analytic, logical, reason-oriented, occurs consciously, and is effortful (rational or R-processors; Epstein, 2003). Research also has evaluated this information processing theory in relation to jury decision-making processes (e.g., Gunnell & Ceci, 2010). In general, it appears as though E-processors are more susceptible to extralegal influences, such as attractiveness or gender (e.g., Lieberman, 2002), and may rely more on intuitive rather than evidentiary-based judgments (e.g., Krauss, Lieberman, & Olson, 2004;Lieberman, Krauss, Kyger, & Lehoux, 2007).…”

“…In general, it appears as though E-processors are more susceptible to extralegal influences, such as attractiveness or gender (e.g., Lieberman, 2002), and may rely more on intuitive rather than evidentiary-based judgments (e.g., Krauss, Lieberman, & Olson, 2004;Lieberman, Krauss, Kyger, & Lehoux, 2007). For example, Gunnell and Ceci (2010) presented mock jurors with an aggravated assault case containing ambiguous evidence, as well as extralegal information such as "the defendant volunteers at a soup kitchen in his spare time", and "the defendant has a drug addiction for which he does not seek treatment" (p. 860). Their hypothesis that E-processors would be more likely influenced by extralegal factors due to reliance on intuition and emotion was supported, and extraneous information was more heavily considered in determining verdicts.…”

“…For example, scholars have argued that psychopathic traits are associated with a greater reliance on rational processing styles when confronted with emotional material, such that they consider the facts without the empathetic response (Dutton, 2012). Given that past research has shown rational processors to be less susceptible to extralegal information in court cases (i.e., Gunnell & Ceci, 2010), psychopathic traits may play an important role in decision-making processes about sentencing and defendant culpability within juror populations as well. The only study that has addressed psychopathy in mock jurors was conducted by Simon (1963).…”

“…Given this relationship, consideration of juror factors that may affect the interpretation of emotionality, such as the manner in which persons process information (i.e., rational versus emotional; Epstein, 2003) or the degree to which they have emotional processing deficiencies (i.e., psychopathy; Dutton, 2012) also is critical. Research has established that information processing is highly relevant to judicial biases (e.g., Gunnell & Ceci, 2010). Further, while the construct of psychopathy is highly related to courtroom decisions concerning defendant guilt and the death penalty (e.g., Blais & Forth, 2014;Edens, Petrila, & Buffington-Vollum, 2001), little is known about how psychopathic traits in jurors influence their processing of information.…”