The present experiment tested the hypotheses that a criminal defendant will be judged more likely guilty, more deserving of conviction, and more undesirable or unattractive as his intent to withhold evidence becomes increasingly obvious. Subject-jurors (60 male and 60 female students) read a trial transcript in which a male defendant responded to the prosecutor's questioning in one of four ways, thus providing a graded manipulation of evidence withholding. Subjects' judgments of the defendant and his probable involvement in the crime confirmed the hypotheses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GriffitW.JacksonT.Simulated jury decisions: the influence of jury-defendant attitude similarity. Social Behavior and Personality, 1973, 1, 1–7.
2.
HeiderF.The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958.
3.
HookS.Common sense and the Fifth Amendment. New York: Criterion Books, 1957.
4.
KalvenH.Jr.ZeiselH.The American jury. Boston: Little Brown, 1966.
5.
MitchellH. E.ByrneD.The defendant's dilemma: effects of jurors' attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 123–129.
6.
NizerL.The implosion conspiracy. New York: Doubleday, 1973.
7.
SigallH.OstroveN.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.
8.
SubS.SmithR. E.CaldwellC.Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: a moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973, 3, 345–353.
9.
ValentiA. C.DowningL.Differential effects of jury size on verdicts following deliberation as a function of the apparent guilt of a defendant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 655–663.
10.
WillG.Time for Nixon to answer. Kent-Ravenna Record Courier, June 16, 1973.
