Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 1980-05
A Critical Review of the Research into the Effects of Defendant Attractiveness,Inadmissible Evidence and Restriction of Verdict Alternatives on Jury Decisions
Social science research has explored the effects of many variables on jury decision-making. This paper reviews research on three of those variables: defendant attractiveness, inadmissible evidence, and restriction of verdict alternatives. It attempts to synthesize the results of studies in each area, while critically evaluating both the individual studies and the general methodologies employed in jury research. Suggestions are made for improving future research in these areas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Balch, R. W.
, Griffiths, C. T., Hall, I. L., & Winfree, L. T.The socialization of jurors: The voir dire as a rite of passage. Journal of Criminal Justice1976, 4, 271-283.
2.
Brown, R.
, Social psychology. New York: Free Press, 1965
3.
Cornish, A. P.
, & Sealy, W. R., Juries and the rules of evidence. Criminal Law Review, 1973, 208-223
4.
Davis, J. H.
, Kerr, N. L., Stasser, G., Meek, D., & Holt, R.Victim consequences, sentence severity, and decision processes in mock juries. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 18, 346-365.
5.
Doob, A. N.
, & Kirshenbaum, H. M.Some empirical evidence on the effect of S. 12 of the Canada Evidence Act upon an accused. Criminal Law Quarterly, 1972, 15, 88-96.
6.
Efran, M. G.The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction and severity of recommended punishment in simulated jury task
. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 8, 45-54.
7.
Friend, R. M.
, & Vinson, M.Leaning over backwards: Jurors' responses to defendants' attractiveness. Journal of Communication, 1974, 24, 124-129.
8.
Hans, V. P.
, & Doob, A. N.Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the deliberations of simulated juries. Criminal Law Quarterly, 1976, 18, 235-253.
9.
Hester, R. K.
, & Smith, R. E.Effects of a mandatory death penalty on the decisions of simulated jurors as a function of heinousness of the crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1973, 1, 319-326.
10.
Izzett, R. R.
, & Leginski, W.Group discussion and the influence of defendant characteristics in a simulated jury setting. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 93, 271-279.
11.
Kalven, H.
, & Zeisel, H.The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.
12.
Kaplan, K. J.
, & Simon, R. I.Latitude and severity of sentencing options, race of the victim and decisions of simulated jurors: Some issues arising from the "Algiers Motel" trial. Law and Society Review, 1972, 7, 87-98.
13.
Landy, D.
, & Aronson, E.The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decision of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 5, 141-152.
14.
Larntz, K.Reanalysis of Vidmar's data on the effects of decision alternatives on verdicts of simulated jurors
. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 123-125.
15.
McComas, W. C.
, & Noll, M. E.Effects of seriousness of charge and punishment severity on the judgments of simulated jurors. The Psychological Record, 1974, 24, 545-547.
16.
Moscovici, S.
, & Zavalloni, M.The group as polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 125-135.
17.
Nemeth, C.
, & Sosis, R. H.A simulated jury study: Characteristics of the defendant and the jurors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 221-229.
18.
Reynolds, D. E.
, & Sanders, M. S.Effect of defendant attractiveness, age and injury on severity of sentence given by simulated jurors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 96, 149-150.
19.
Sigall, H.
, & Ostrove, N.Beautiful but dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 410-414.
20.
Sue, S.
, Smith, R. E., & Caldwell, C.Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973, 3, 345-353.
21.
Vidmar, N.Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors
. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 211-218.
22.
Wolf, S.
, & Montgomery, D. A.Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1977, 7, 205-219.
