The authors investigated the effects of exposure to pretrial publicity (PTP) on impression formation, juror emotion, and predecisional distortion. Mock jurors read news articles containing negative (antidefendant) PTP or positive (prodefendant) PTP or unrelated articles. One week later, they viewed a videotaped murder trial and then made decisions about guilt. Jurors’ emotions were measured three times during the experiment: before exposure to PTP, immediately after exposure to PTP, and immediately following the trial. Exposure to both positive and negative PTP significantly affected verdicts, perceptions of defendant credibility, emotion (anger and positive emotions), and predecisional distortion. Defendant’s credibility, jurors’ emotions, and predecisional distortion significantly mediated the effect of PTP on guilt ratings.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. ( 1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2.
Bodenhausen, G.V., Sheppard, L.A., & Kramer, G.P. ( 1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology , 24, 45-62. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240104
3.
Bornstein, B.H. ( 1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-92. doi:10.1023/A:1022326807441
4.
Bottoms, B.L., & Goodman, G.S. ( 1994). Perceptions of children’s credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 702-732. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00608.x
5.
Bright, D.A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 183-202. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9027-y
6.
Bruschke, J., & Loges, W.E. ( 2004). Free press vs. fair trials. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Carlson, K.A., & Russo, J.E. ( 2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 91-103. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.7.2.91
8.
Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D., & Dexter, H.R. ( 1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence . Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191. doi:10.1007/BF01062972
9.
Dearing, E., & Hamilton, L.C. (2006). Contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71, 88-104. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5834.2006.00406.x
10.
Deitz, S.R., & Sissman, P.L. ( 1984). Investigating jury bias in a child molestation case. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2, 423-434. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370020409
11.
Dexter, H.R., Cutler, B.L., & Moran, G. ( 1992). A test of voir dire as a remedy for the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 22, 819-832. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00926.x
12.
Diamond, S.S. ( 1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571. doi:10.1023/A:1024831908377
13.
Dube, L., & Morgan, M.S. ( 1996). Trend effects and gender differences in retrospective judgments of consumption emotions. Journal of Consumer Research , 23, 156-162.
14.
Feigenson, N., & Park, J. ( 2006). Emotions and attributions of legal responsibility and blame: A research review. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 143-161. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9026-z
15.
Feigenson, N., Park, J., & Salovey, P. ( 2001). The role of emotions in comparative negligence judgments . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 576-603. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02057.x
16.
Freedman, J.L., & Burke, T.M. ( 1996). The effect of pretrial publicity: The Bernardo case. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38, 253-270.
17.
Hastie, R. ( 2001). Emotions in jurors’ decisions. Brooklyn Law Review, 66, 991-1009.
18.
Hayes, A.F. & Matthes, J. ( 2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924-936. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.3.924
19.
Honess, T.M., Charman, E.A., & Levi, M. ( 2003). Factual and affective/evaluative recall of pretrial publicity: Their relative influence on juror reasoning and verdict in a simulated fraud trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1404-1416. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01955.x
20.
Hope, L., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. ( 2004). Understanding pretrial publicity: Predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 111-119. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.10.2. 111
21.
Hosman, L.A., & Wright, J.W. ( 1987). The effects of hedges and hesitations on impression formation in a simulated court-room context. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, 173-188.
22.
Imrich, D.J., Mullin, C., & Linz, D. ( 1995). Measuring the extent of prejudicial pretrial publicity in major American newspapers: A content analysis. Journal of Communication, 45, 94-117.
23.
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961).
24.
Jones, C.S., & Kaplan, M.F. ( 2003). The effects of racially stereotypical crimes on juror decision-making and information-processing strategies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1-13. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2501_1
25.
Judd, C.M., & Kenny, D.A. ( 1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations . Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619. doi:10.1177/0193841X8100500502
26.
Kerr, N.L., Niedermeier, K.E., & Kaplan, M.F. ( 1999). Bias in jurors vs. bias in juries: New evidence from the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70-86. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2855
27.
Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D.R. ( 1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153-162. doi:10.1177/0146167294202002
28.
Kovera, M.B. ( 2002). The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: An examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 43-72. doi:10.1023/A:1013829224920
29.
Kramer, G.P., & Kerr, N.L. ( 1989). Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior: A methodological note. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 89-99. doi:10.1007/BF01056165
30.
Kramer, G.P., Kerr, N.L., & Carroll, J.S. ( 1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias . Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438. doi:10.1007/BF01044220
31.
Lerner, J.S., Goldberg, J.H., & Tetlock, P.E. ( 1998). Sober second thought: The effects of accountability, anger and authoritarian-ism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 563-574. doi:10.1177/0146167298246001
32.
Lerner, J.S., & Keltner, D. ( 2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 473-493.
33.
Lerner, J.S., & Keltner, D. ( 2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146-159. doi:10.1037//O022-3514.81.1.146
34.
Lerner, J.S., & Tiedens, L.Z. ( 2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 115-137. doi:10.1002/bdm.515
35.
Lieberman, J.D., & Arndt, J. ( 2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 677-711. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.6.3.677
Linz, D., & Penrod, S.D. ( 1992). Exploring the First and Sixth Amendments: Pretrial publicity and jury decision making. In D. K. Kagehiro & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and law (pp. 3-20). New York: Springer-Verlag.
38.
Litras, M., & Golmant, J.R. ( 2006). A comparative study of juror utilization in U.S. district courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 3, 99-120. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2006.00064
39.
Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. ( 2003). The role of affect in decision making. In R. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 619-642). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
London, K., & Nunez, N. ( 2002). Examining the efficacy of truth/lie discussions in predicting and increasing the veracity of children’s reports. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 131-147. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00119-4
41.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., & Williams, J. ( 2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
42.
Meyers-Levy, J. ( 1989). Gender differences in information processing: A selectivity interpretation. In P. Cafferata & A. M. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive and affective responses to advertising (pp. 219-260). Lexington, MA: Lexington.
43.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (1991). Exploring differences in males’ and females’ processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 63-70. doi:10.1086/209241
44.
Moran, G., & Cutler, B.L. ( 1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345-367. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00524.x
45.
Ogloff, J.R.P., & Vidmar, N. ( 1994). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors a study to compare the relative effects of television and print media in a child sex abuse case. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 507-525. doi:10.1007/BF01499171
46.
Otto, A.L., Penrod, S.D., & Dexter, H.R. ( 1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments . Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453-469. doi:10.1007/BF01499050
47.
Posey, A.J., & Wrightsman, L.S. (2005). Change of venue. In R. Roesch (Ed.), Trial consulting (pp. 53-78). New York: Oxford University Press.
48.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. ( 2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717-731.
49.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. ( 2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
50.
Pritchard, M.E., & Keenan, J.M. ( 1999). Memory monitoring in mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 152-168. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.5.2.152
Putrevu, S. ( 2001). Exploring the origins and information processing differences between men and women: Implications for advertisers. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 1-16.
53.
Russo, J.E., Carlson, K.A., Meloy, M.G., & Yong, K. ( 2008). The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(3), 456-470. doi:10.1037/a0012786
Russo, J.E., Meloy, M.G., & Wilks, T.J. ( 2000). Predecisional distortion of information by auditors and salesperson. Management Science, 46, 13-27. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.1.13.15127
56.
Ruva, C.L., & Bryant, J.B. ( 2004). The impact of age, speech style, and question form on perceptions of witness credibility and trial outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1919-1944. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02593.x
57.
Ruva, C.L., & McEvoy, C. (2008). Negative and positive pretrial publicity affect juror memory and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 226-235. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.14.3.226
58.
Ruva, C.L., McEvoy, C., & Bryant, J.B. ( 2007). Effects of pretrial publicity and collaboration on juror bias and source monitoring errors. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 21, 45-67. doi:10.1002/acp.1254
59.
Salerno, J.M., & Bottoms, B.L. ( 2009). Emotional evidence and jurors’ judgments: The promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 273-296. doi:10.1002/bsl.861
60.
Schmidt, C.W., & Brigham, J.C. ( 1996). Jurors’ perceptions of child victim-witnesses in a simulated sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 581-606. doi:10.1007/BF01499233
61.
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362 (1966).
62.
Shrout, P.E., & Bolger, N. ( 2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods , 7, 422-445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
63.
Sipes, D.A., & Oram, M.E. ( 1988). On trial: The length of civil and criminal trials. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice.
64.
Spielberger, C.D. ( 1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y) . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
65.
Spielberger, C.D., & Reheiser, E.C. (2003). Measuring anxiety, anger, depression, and curiosity as emotional states and personality traits with the STAI, STAXI, and STPI. In M. J. Hilsenroth , D. L. Segal, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, Vol. 2: Personality assessment (pp. 70-86). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
66.
Spielberger, C.D., & Reheiser, E.C. (2009). Assessment of emotions: Anxiety, anger, depression, and curiosity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1, 271-302. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01017.x
67.
Steblay, N.M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S.M., & Jiminez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219-235. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7
68.
Studebaker, C.A., & Penrod, S.D. ( 1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law, and common sense . Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 3, 428-460. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.428
69.
Tiedens, L.Z. ( 2001). The effect of anger on the hostile inferences of aggressive and nonaggressive people: Specific emotions, cognitive processing, and chronic accessibility. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 233-251. doi:10.1023/A:1012224507488
70.
Tiedens, L.Z., & Linton, S. ( 2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81, 973-988. doi:10.1037//OO22-3514.81.6.973
71.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. ( 1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
72.
Weiten, W., & Diamond, S.S. ( 1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71-93. doi:10.1007/BF01039149
73.
Wilson, J.R., & Bornstein, B.H. (1998). Methodological considerations in pretrial publicity research: Is the medium the message?Law and Human Behavior, 22, 585-597. doi:10.1023/A:1025743614951
74.
Wilson, T., & Brekke, N. ( 1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin , 116, 117-142. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117
75.
Wilson, T., Centerbar, D., & Brekke, N. ( 2002). Mental contamination and the debiasing problem. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 185-200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
76.
Zillmann, D. ( 1983). Transfer of excitation in emotional behavior. In J. Cacioppo & R. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology (pp. 215-240). New York: Guilford.
