Judgments made by 24 male and 24 female undergraduates of defendant guilt and sentencing in a rape case were examined before and after group discussion under two levels each of evidentiary ambiguity and judicial instructions. As in earlier studies sentencing judgments of university student subjects were significantly more lenient after discussion than before. A trend for females to express greater certainty of guilt than males was accompanied by attribution of significantly greater responsibility to the defendant by females than by males. Possible defensive reactions by both sexes which might account for these differences were discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrayR. M.The mock trial: Problems and prospects for jury research. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., September, 1976.
2.
DavisJ. H.KerrN. L.AtkinR. S.HoltR.MeekD.The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 1–14.
3.
IzzettR. R.LeginskiW.Group discussion and the influence of defendant characteristics in a simulated jury setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 93, 271–279.
4.
KalvenH.Jr.ZeiselH.The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.
5.
LaughlinE. R.IzzettR.Attitude similarity and choice shift in the jury trial. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1973.
6.
LorgeI.SolomonH.Two models of group behavior in the solution of eureka-type problems. Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 139–148.
7.
MoscoviciS.ZavalloniM.The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 125–135.
8.
NietzelM. T.DillehayR. C.RogersG.Method innovation in jury research: Alternative juries and archival data. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., September, 1976.
9.
RumseyM. G.Effects of defendant background and remorse on sentencing judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1976, 6, 64–68.
10.
RumseyM. G.CastoreC. H.The effects of defendant description and group discussion on individual sentencing judgments. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1974.
11.
SchmittN. W.ColliganM. J.Attribution of responsibility to a rape victim and defendant as a function of juror's perceived similarity to the participants. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1974.
12.
ShawM. E.A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. American Journal of Psychology, 1932, 44, 491–504.
