Jessica M. Salerno

The Interactive Effect of Anger and Disgust on Moral Outrage and Judgments

The two studies reported here demonstrated that a combination of anger and disgust predicts moral outrage. In Study 1, anger toward moral transgressions (sexual assault, funeral picketing) predicted moral outrage only when it co-occurred with at least moderate disgust, and disgust predicted moral outrage only when it co-occurred with at least moderate anger. In Study 2, a mock-jury paradigm that included emotionally disturbing photographs of a murder victim revealed that, compared to anger, disgust was a more consistent predictor of moral outrage (i.e., it predicted moral outrage at all levels of anger). Furthermore, moral outrage mediated the effect of participants’ anger on their confidence in a guilty verdict—but only when anger co-occurred with at least a moderate level of disgust—whereas moral outrage mediated the effect of participants’ disgust on their verdict confidence at all levels of anger. The interactive effect of anger and disgust has important implications for theoretical explanations of moral outrage, moral judgments in general, and legal decision making.

The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation

Despite much psychological research regarding jury decision making, surprisingly little is known about the deliberation process that gives rise to jury verdicts. We review classic jury decision-making research regarding the importance of deliberation and more recent research, investigating deliberation and hung juries, that challenges the view that deliberation does not have an important impact on verdicts. We advocate greater attention to potential cognitive processes during deliberation that might explain the transition between predeliberation preferences and a jury’s ultimate verdict. We then review cognitive work in the group context generally, and the jury context specifically, illustrating the promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Finally, we identify cognitive phenomena likely to be particularly valuable in illuminating deliberation behavior.

9 Public Attitudes Toward Applying Sex Offender Registration Laws to Juvenile Offenders

J.M. Lampinen, K. Sexton-Radek, Protecting Children from Violence: Historical Roots and Emerging Trends. J. Galezewski, Exposure to Violence: Who is Most Effected and Why? L. Abrams, S.G. Portwood, Protecting Children in Their Homes: Effective Prevention Programs and Policies. K. Sexton-Radek, Empirically-based Violence Prevention Interventions. R.A. Newgent, A.D. Seay, K.T. Malcolm, E.A. Keller, T.A. Cavell, Identifying Children Potentially At-risk for Serious Maladjustment Due to Peer Victimization: A New Model Using Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) Analysis. T.N. Odegard, C.M. Cooper, R.E. Holliday, S.J. Ceci, Interviewing Child Victims: Advances in the Scientific Understanding of Child Eyewitness Memory. J.M. Lampinen, J.D. Arnal, A. Culbertson-Faegre, L. Sweeney, Missing and Abducted Children. C.S. Peters, R.W. Kowalski, L.A. Malesky, Jr., Looking Both Ways Before Crossing the Information Superhighway: Issues of Concern for Minors in Cyberspace. J.M. Salerno, M.C. Stevenson, T.R.A. Wiley, C.J. Najdowski, B.L. Bottoms, R.A. Schmillen, Public Attitudes Toward Applying Sex Offender Registration Laws to Juvenile Offenders. P.A. Petretic, E. White Chaisson, Mediating Factors in the Long-Term Outcome Following Childhood Abuse: Cognitive and Other Factors Predicting Personal Distress, Intimacy Functioning and Resilience. R. Schleser, M.E. Bodzy, Cognitive Development and Exposure to Violence in Children. J. Hahn-Holbrook, C. Holbrook, J. Bering, Snakes, Spiders, Strangers: How the Evolved Fear of Strangers May Misdirect Efforts to Protect Children from Harm. P.T. McWhirter, E. Altshuler-Bard, International Perspectives on Domestic Violence. C.E. Stout, Protecting Children from the Violence of Global Health Inequities: Working Beyond Academic Halls and Clinic Walls. K. Sexton-Radek, J.M. Lampinen, Protecting Children from Violence: Historical Roots and Emerging Trends: Conclusions.

Empirical Analysis of Juries in Tort Cases

Juries attract both stiff criticism and unqualified praise. Here, we examine how the American juries actually behave in tort cases, based on archival research, post-trial interviews with jurors, experiments with real and simulated juries, observations of real jury deliberations, and surveys of judges and attorneys. We compare the external perspective of economic theory and the internal perspective of jurors and examine how the difference is reflected in jury behavior. Analyzing the key topics associated with charges of jury incompetence and bias in tort cases (i.e., decisions on liability; expert testimony; corporate defendants; separating decisions on liability and damages; assessment of compensatory damages; decisions on punitive damages; and comprehension and application of the law), we find that although it is unclear how well jurors act as risk managers, a role they are not instructed to play in the standard negligence case, juries in tort cases cope quite well with the conflicting evidence they are asked to judge. Finally, we analyze which aspects of less than optimal jury performance constitute insurmountable obstacles and which limitations can be overcome.

Seeing Red: Disgust Reactions to Gruesome Photographs in Color (but not in Black and White) Increase Convictions.

Jurors are often exposed to emotionally disturbing gruesome photographs of victims of extreme violence. Judges must determine whether the informational value of these photographs outweighs their prejudicial effect on jurors and are left to their assumptions about juror psychology to do so. The current research draws upon the affect infusion model (AIM; Forgas, 1995) to investigate the affective mechanism through which gruesome photographs might operate. A mock jury experiment presented online adults (n = 193) with murder trial evidence that included verbal descriptions of the victim’s injuries and neutral photographs in all conditions. Participants were randomly assigned to view (a) only the nongruesome photographs or additional gruesome photographs of the victim in (b) color, or (c) black and white (B&W). Color gruesome (vs. nongruesome) photographs increased convictions via the disgust they elicited. Consistent with the AIM, this was especially so for mock jurors with relatively higher awareness of their bodily sensations. The effects of gruesome photographs in color on disgust and verdicts were eliminated, however, when the same photographs were presented in B&W. A second experiment (n = 354) replicated these results and also revealed that viewing color gruesome photographs significantly reduced mock jurors’ sensitivity to a manipulation of defense evidence strength—especially among jurors with relatively higher bodily awareness. Thus, gruesome photographs can increase convictions via direct and indirect affect infusion. Presenting gruesome photographs in B&W might reduce jurors’ emotional reactions while maintaining their probative information.

Closing with emotion: The differential impact of male versus female attorneys expressing anger in court.

Emotion expression is a key part of trial advocacy. Attorneys are advised to gain credibility with juries by demonstrating conviction through anger expression. In 3 experiments, we tested whether expressing anger in court makes attorneys more effective and whether this depends on their gender. We randomly assigned participants (n = 120 undergraduates) to view a male or female attorney presenting the same closing argument in either a neutral or angry tone (Experiment 1). They reported their impressions of the attorney and how likely they would be to hire the attorney. People used the positive aspects of anger (e.g., conviction, power), to justify hiring an angry male attorney. Yet, they used the negative aspects of anger (e.g., shrill, obnoxious), to justify not hiring a female attorney. We replicated this effect in Experiment 2 with a community sample (n = 294). Experiment 3 (n = 273) demonstrated that the attorney anger by gender interaction generalized to perceptions of effectiveness across a set of additional attorney targets. Finally, a high-powered analysis collapsing across experiments confirmed that when expressing anger relative to when calm, female attorneys were seen as significantly less effective, while angry male attorneys were seen as significantly more effective. Women might not be able to harness the persuasive power of expressing anger in the courtroom, which might prevent female attorneys from advancing in their careers.

When Hurt Heroes Do Harm: Collective Guilt and Leniency toward War-Veteran Defendants with PTSD

Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are at heightened risk for interfacing with the United States legal system as criminal defendants. Two experiments were used to test the hypothesis that American mock jurors would punish a veteran (vs. a civilian) with PTSD for a violent crime less harshly because of their own collective guilt (i.e., the guilt felt for the transgressions of ones in-group) about the veterans suffering due to war. The participants were United States citizens recruited online (n = 174) who completed a mock-juror experiment involving a violent assault committed by either a veteran or a civilian with PTSD. As predicted, jurors were more lenient toward the veteran (vs. the civilian). For male mock jurors this was explained by their collective guilt for the veterans war-related suffering. A second study experimentally induced individual and collective guilt about veteran defendants, finding that mock jurors (n = 533) who are less likely to share a salient in-group identity with the veteran (i.e., women, people with lower national identification with the United States) can be induced to feel the requisite guilt to exhibit leniency toward a veteran. Thus, veterans suffering from PTSD may receive more lenient punishment because they elicit a sense of collective guilt in legal decision-makers.

Individual versus group decision making: Jurors’ reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony

To investigate dual-process persuasion theories in the context of group decision making, we studied low and high need-for-cognition (NFC) participants within a mock trial study. Participants considered plaintiff and defense expert scientific testimony that varied in argument strength. All participants heard a cross-examination of the experts focusing on peripheral information (e.g., credentials) about the expert, but half were randomly assigned to also hear central information highlighting flaws in the expert’s message (e.g., quality of the research presented by the expert). Participants rendered pre- and post-group-deliberation verdicts, which were considered “scientifically accurate” if the verdicts reflected the strong (versus weak) expert message, and “scientifically inaccurate” if they reflected the weak (versus strong) expert message. For individual participants, we replicated studies testing classic persuasion theories: Factors promoting reliance on central information (i.e., central cross-examination, high NFC) improved verdict accuracy because they sensitized individual participants to the quality discrepancy between the experts’ messages. Interestingly, however, at the group level, the more that scientifically accurate mock jurors discussed peripheral (versus central) information about the experts, the more likely their group was to reach the scientifically accurate verdict. When participants were arguing for the scientifically accurate verdict consistent with the strong expert message, peripheral comments increased their persuasiveness, which made the group more likely to reach the more scientifically accurate verdict.

Women and African Americans are less influential when they express anger during group decision making

Expressing anger can signal that someone is certain and competent, thereby increasing their social influence—but does this strategy work for everyone? After assessing gender- and race-based emotion stereotypes (Study 1), we assessed the effect of expressing anger on social influence during group decision making as a function of gender (Studies 2–3) and race (Study 3). Participants took part in a computerized mock jury decision-making task, during which they read scripted comments ostensibly from other jurors. A “holdout” juror always disagreed with the participant and four other confederate group members. We predicted that the contextual factor of who expressed emotion would trump what was expressed in determining whether anger is a useful persuasion strategy. People perceived all holdouts expressing anger as more emotional than holdouts who expressed identical arguments without anger. Yet holdouts who expressed anger (versus no anger) were less effective and influential when they were female (but not male, Study 2) or Black (but not White, Study 3)—despite having expressed identical arguments and anger. Although anger expression made participants perceive the holdouts as more emotional regardless of race and gender, being perceived as more emotional was selectively used to discredit women and African Americans. These diverging consequences of anger expression have implications for societally important group decisions, including life-and-death decisions made by juries.

The influence of a juvenile's abuse history on support for sex offender registration

We investigated whether and how a juvenile’s history of experiencing sexual abuse affects public perceptions of juvenile sex offenders in a series of 5 studies. When asked about juvenile sex offenders in an abstract manner (Studies 1 and 2), the more participants (community members and undergraduates) believed that a history of being sexually abused as a child causes later sexually abusive behavior, the less likely they were to support sex offender registration for juveniles. Yet when participants considered specific sexual offenses, a juvenile’s history of sexual abuse was not considered to be a mitigating factor. This was true when participants considered a severe sexual offense (forced rape; Study 3 and Study 4) and a case involving less severe sexual offenses (i.e., statutory rape), when a juvenile’s history of sexual abuse backfired and was used as an aggravating factor, increasing support for registering the offender (Study 3 and Study 5). Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.