Introductory psychology students (N = 193) served as Ss in an investigation of the effect of a defendant's home address on the verdict returned after reading a contrived burglary case. Ss perceived the residence cue to financial status (72%), but awareness did not influence judgments of the defendant's guilt (χ3 = .80, p > .30). The findings support the position of judges and attorneys who contend that jurors resist the influence of cues to socioeconomic status when reaching a verdict.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoringE. G.A history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.
2.
BroederD. W.Plaintiff's family status as affecting jury behavior: Some tentative insights. Journal of Public Law, 1964, 14, 131–134.
3.
Burke versus Reiter.Northwestern Reporter, 2nd Series, 1950, 42, 907–913.
4.
EastlandJ. O.Committee on judiciary: Recordings of jury deliberations. Pursuant to Senate Resolution58, 1955.
5.
GordonR. I.Petit jury verdicts as a function of jury size. Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 29, No. 3.
6.
GordonR. I.TemerlinM. K.Forensic psychology: The judge and the jury. Judicature, 1968, in press.
7.
MuensterbergH.On the witness stand. New York: McClure, 1908.
8.
WeldH. P.DenzigE. R.A study of the way in which a verdict is reached by a jury. American Journal of Psychology, 1940, 53, 518–536.
